# HIGH POWER a Review! Part 1



## Tryg

*High Power The name says it all!*


Over the years I've had the privilege of reviewing dozens of screens. It started out with my personal quest to get a screen for my own home theater environment and viewing habits, to now getting the best possible image for movie viewing.













If you've read my original High Gain review, you would have seen how important viewing angle is when dealing with higher gain screens. The constant challenge is how to get a big bright robust image from a dim sub 1000 lumen projector. When I talk big, I'm referring to screens 9 feet wide and up. The answer: higher gain. The second part of this challenge is how to get a great image at most viewing angles. This is where things start to get tricky. As you know, the more light you reflect back in a certain direction the less light you get reflected off to the sides. A perfect lambertian screen diffuses light equally in all directions. Low gain is ideal for good brightness uniformity across the screen and the best for really wide viewing angles. This is fine if you have a high lumen projector. Unfortunately, the manufacturing trend over the last few years has kept the best image and affordable projectors in the 400-800 lumen range. If you're interested in a big bright screen you have to go with higher gain. As with any screen, there is always a tradeoff. With higher gain screens there are even more! But if you can live within these limitations you can achieve images beyond what any other screen can do.


*Why high gain?*


Many people discount the benefits of high gain. These are usually people that either can't look past the drawbacks of a higher gain screen, or don't want to take the time to consider how higher gain can be your friend. I love to talk about higher gain screens, because that's where the performance is! Many sit around pondering the difference between 1- 1.3 gain screens; but the reality is that hardly anyone can tell the difference between any of them at normal viewing distances. Throw up the brightness performance of a 2.8 gain screen and everyone will know there's a noticeable difference. People love brightness! It's very seductive, and like someone living with a gutless car for years and then going to a car with plenty of power, they are not going back. It's all about the power. High Power!


*What are the benefits?


- Higher brightness

- Increased perceived contrast

- Ambient light rejection



Higher brightness*


Yes, higher gain screens can take a dim projector and make it a real performer on a big screen. But it's more than that. You can use a higher brightness screen to get more performance out of your image! With some projectors, longer throws yield better contrast, but at the expense of lower brightness. Problem solved with the high gain screen. Many projectors also have lower bulb setting or economy modes. The high gain screen allows you to deliver a bright robust image in economy mode, lengthening the life of your bulb and still giving you the image you like. Finally, an additional benefit of having brightness to spare is through the use of neutral density filters. You can get these at most camera shops for fairly cheap and then use them to deliver a consistent light output from your projector over the life of your bulb. Put a neutral density filter on your lens when the bulb is new, and then remove it later when your bulb has aged and you can still achieve the same light output you started with.


*Increased perceived contrast*


A screen does not change the contrast ratio of an image. This on/off ratio doesn't change, even with ambient light in the room. But there are many things you can do to allow your eyes and brain to think you are seeing more contrast. Masking, painting your walls darker, and backlighting are a just few of the tricks that people use to accomplish this; however, the easiest is to just use a higher gain screen. No, its not going to help your absolute black levels, but when you increase everything by a multiple of around 2.8, like with a high gain screen, the whites are so much brighter that your blacks, or grays, look even darker. Finally, this isn't just beneficial from the top end to the bottom end. If you increase this separation from the top end to the bottom end you also get larger and more noticeable separation in your gray scale increments. What can this offer? More detail. The lower the gain screen, the more detail you lose in this area because the whole gray scale is compressed together. The more gain you have the more gradation you are generally able to distinguish because it's spread out. It should all still be there, but being able to see this separation with a brighter image becomes much easier.


*Ambient light rejection*


The reality of front projection is that ambient light needs to be controlled. The more you can do this, the better the image. Unfortunately, a pitch-black environment isn't always the best for hanging out in, unless of course you love caves. So with even a little bit of ambient light in the room, it's important to come up with ways to minimize its effects. Often, we try to solve this problem at the screen. Unfortunately, there simply is no miracle cure. But there are screens that do a noticeably better job.

*The Da-Lite High Power*


Da-Lite has come up with one heck of a solution for the most demanding environments. Originally designed for boardrooms and business environments, the High Power does an amazing job of reducing the effects of ambient light. First, it's high gain, so it reflects the light back to a controlled location. Second, it's retro reflective, so it reflects its light back to the source; thereby, reflecting other light away from the viewer. If you keep these things in mind when setting up your system, you can reap these amazing benefits. To do this, you simply focus the projected light to your viewing area, and reject the light that doesn't come from the projector. Unlike angular reflective screens, this ambient light rejection ability is only available from retro-reflective surfaces.


*Angular reflective vs. Retro-reflective*


Which is best? It depends on your setup and viewing environment. Most screens are angular reflective.













Although angular reflective screens work well in a wider variety of conditions, they generally also have less issues at lower gains. Lower gain screens are ideal, because they are very good at diffusing light uniformly. When you get into the higher gain angular reflective screens you need to start thinking not just about the reduction of viewing angle, but also uniformity issues. This is called hotspotting. Hotspotting is caused when the screen surface can't diffuse the light evenly, so you get a brighter image near the center of the screen, or where the angle of the bounce matches up directly with your eyes. The larger your screen, the more you will have to contend with this. Angular reflective screens with optical coatings have a high tendency to hotspot. The more the gain, and the bigger the screen, the more this may affect your viewing. If you're planning on going big, this is something you definitely need to consider. How can we solve this? Retro-reflection.


With a retro-reflective screen, you can have a high gain, large screen and nearly eliminate all possibilities of hotspotting. Because retro-reflective screens bounce the light back toward the light source, they're able to eliminate many of the issues that surround angular reflective screens with coatings.













Some of the best properties of the retro-reflective screen are:

*- Virtually no hotspotting

- No seeing waves on the screen (if not perfectly flat)

- Great ability to shed ambient light

- Screen surface is invisible when viewing*


BUTlet me caution you. You can achieve all these benefits with the retro-reflective screen, however, you must set it up properly. To achieve the maximum gain characteristics of the retro-reflective screen, you must position your projector so that the light path from the projector to the screen is near your eyes. The closer you can do this, the more gain can be realized. To achieve the maximum gain of the screen, you need to have a zero angle of incidence from this light path. Can this make setting up your system tricky? Sometimes, but it's not impossible. Either table mounting the projector in front of you or lowering the projector further from the ceiling both work very well. Some like to shelf mount their projector on the back wall closer to their equipment. When set up properly, the image from a retro-reflective screen is absolutely stunning. Okay, so who makes these screens and what's the best?

*The Da-Lite High Power*


The best example of a retro-reflective screen I've seen is the Da-Lite High Power. The first time I saw this screen material I was amazed. The High Power is simply one of the best emulsions available for a screen surface and also one of the best values in home theater. This screen material was made for high ambient light and a bright image. Although this screen is not marketed by Da-Lite as a home theater screen, it has become a darling of enthusiasts for those that are willing to set up their systems to match its properties. In some cases, people don't even set it up ideally and still rave about how much they love it!


The High Power is rated at 2.8 gain. Truthfully, I think its actually a bit more when viewed perfectly on axis. If using the High Power, I recommend trying to set up your system the best you can to capture its gain. If done properly, the images delivered from its surface are nothing short of spectacular. The screen surface absolutely disappears and all you see is what's coming from the projector.


*The Viewing Cone*


Because of its high gain, this screen also has one of the narrowest viewing cones. The properties that make this screen so good are also what make it have limitations. Don't get this screen and expect to get awesome gain when viewing at 45 degree angles. Generally, you can get 2.5 gain or greater when sitting on a moderately wide couch. The further outside of this viewing area, the less gain you should expect to achieve. As I mentioned earlier, many set up their viewing conditions, even ceiling mount their projector, and are completely happy with the lower gain they get, even though it's not optimal. In some cases you may not want the maximum gain from the screen. Here's a graph I created for the High Power's viewing cone.













Another benefit of the High Power material is that it's not a tensionable material. This means you don't have to bother with expensive tab tensioning setups to get a flat surface. This allows you to get a cleaner looking screen whether it's a pull down like a Da-Lite Model B or the more deluxe Model C. If you want to take it to the next level and get an electric, there are a variety of options including the very cost effective Contour Electrol. This is what I have; and for a few hundred bucks more than the Model C, you'll definitely feel like James Bond without having to be Bill Gates. The fit and finish of the Contour Electrol, like all Da-Lite screens, are absolutely top notch. I'm very pleased with this screen and the Contour Electrol. Whether you're planning a top of the line recessed electric screen, or even a Model B, the High Power material is the most performance you can pack onto a roller. If fixed frame screens are your thing, the High Power material comes seamless up to 6 feet. So if you're thinking about going big, you may be interested in a 6 foot tall 14 foot wide Cinemascope screen. Simply awesome.


*How does the High Power do it?*


The High Power is a glass-beaded screen. However, unlike the crunchy glass bead screens that are angular reflective, the high power uses micro beads. These micro beads are encased in an emulsion that allows it to be then be applied to a nice durable vinyl backing. The retro-reflective nature of this screen comes from these micro beads. The projected light enters through the front of the bead and gets slightly magnified and focused on the backside of the bead. The parabolic backside of the bead then reflects the light and redirects it back toward the light source. As it passes back through the front of the bead the light is then slightly diffused as it heads out toward the eyes of the happy viewer. This is the same kind of technology that is used in stop signs and road striping paint.













The trick is putting it together in an emulsion with the uniformity that is ideal for projection screens. Da-Lite has does this with the High Power, and with awesome results.


*Conclusions*


I've been reviewing screens now for a number of years. Every professional screen I look at is very good; and I'm a big fan of companies that have the technology to develop surfaces with optical coatings and that take it to the next level of reflective performance. I personally tend to like higher gain screens and the brightness advantages you can get from them. Of all the screens I've reviewed, there's one screen material that has become my reference standard. That screen material is Da-Lite's High Power. If set up properly, this material can deliver the best images available. If you are able to set up your viewing situation properly you can expect to see an image that:

*Gives a robust high brightness image with real to life colors and whites

Provides greater perceived contrast

Has a clean uniform image so that the surface completely disappears

Has no hotspotting or visable waves

Has an amazing ability to shed ambient light*













The High Power is simply an amazing screen. When I decided to go to a 12' wide 2.40 Cinemascope aspect ratio, I knew the only screen material that could pull this off and make me happy was the High Power. After having it up for a couple weeks, I could not be happier. The image is spectacular, and if you can set it up properly, you are sure to be happy. If you are thinking of going big, and your projector puts out less than 1000 lumens, there's simply one choice. High Power.


Stay tuned. *Part 2* will feature the upgrade, Cinemascope and the secrets behind the choices.


A huge thanks to Blake Brubaker, the Systems Display Manager at Da-Lite for making this review possible. As another Home Theater enthusiast, he allowed me to see the light. I hope that I have been able to let you see it too!


----------



## Tryg

.


SEE HOW I WENT T0 2.40 CINEMASCOPE...CLICK HERE


----------



## guptown

Tryg,


Great review!


My ceiling recessed electric da-lite HIGH POWER is set to be installed tomorrow.


Thanks for the recommendation and great service.


Ray


----------



## Mark Petersen

Tryg, nice review! Good photos and all, but why is the guy in the bottom photo flipping everybody off with his left hand?


----------



## MJP

Tryg, how far off axis can the viewer line of sight get before there is significant reduction in the gain you refer to?


With tiered seating I can only lower the projector so much before dinging heads on a regular basis.


Thanks for the review.


----------



## Pultzar

Since when is 12' wide considered a large screen?


----------



## Sankar

Great review and I couldn't agree more about the HP!!


----------



## Tryg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MJP* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Tryg, how far off axis can the viewer line of sight get before there is significant reduction in the gain you refer to?



The viewing cone chart above pretty much says it all.


It is a smooth transition though as you move away from optimal. Unlike some rear projection units where all of a sudden it goes black.


----------



## Vinylvision

Tryg, Does Da-Lite make this High Power is an acoustically transparent version?


----------



## Assayer

Now if Da-lite would only market a gray screen with a highpower-like coating. I think there are a lot of folks around here that would be willing to pay Firehawk prices for that, myself included.


----------



## kenliles

This is indeed a great screen; I have an almost new HighPower to sell, but I don't see an appropriate section in the Marketplace.? What am I missing?


ken

thanks for the great info Tryg...


----------



## Brian227

How much for the HP?...and what size is it?

Thanks


----------



## kenliles

Brian - don't think I'm supposed to actually sell outside the marketplace; so in the interest of abidding, send me a PM and I'll get you the info...

the size is 116" wide 2.35AR...


thanks much-

ken


----------



## Tryg

I have a few PMs asking me if I still love the Silverstar....yes. But I do like the added brightness and punch from the High Power on the larger screen.


Silverstar good for wider viewing angles, High Power the best for on axis viewing...


Absolutely Stunning!


----------



## millerwill

Tryg, Dalite lists the viewing angle of the HP as 30 deg, which I think is supposed to mean that it falls to half-gain at +/- 30 deg. But your graph above shows that it has fallen to ~ 25% of its max gain at 30 deg. Can you reconsile this diff?


I could possibly mount a HP on a stand just behind our heads, but it would be more convenient to put it on the ceiling. The lowest I could get it would put the lens at ~ 7 ft above the floor (and 15 ft lens to screen), and eye level is the usual ~ 3 ft (sitting ~ 12.5 ft from screen). I calculate the viewing angle to be 14 to 17 deg, depending on what part of the screen the light is reflected from. Your graph suggests the gain would be below 1.5 (and therefore not much better than a Firehawk), while it would be > 2 if I used Dalite's '30 deg half-gain' figure. Any enlightenment you can bring to this? Tx much as always! Bill


----------



## TheLion

Tryg,


thank you for the informative review.


Do you have any suggestions regarding Stewart's high gain materials? As a matter of fact I own a Luxus Deluxe screen with Studiotek skin. Therefor I would strongly prefer keeping the gorgeous Stewart frame and switch just the skin. Do you have any experiences with high gain options like Ultramatte 150/200, Videomatte 200, Silver 3-D?


----------



## Lylepdx

Tryg, I've had my HiPower for about 3 1/2 years and it's as great as you say. Do you have any recommendations on how to clean one?


----------



## jackmay




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lylepdx* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Tryg, I've had my HiPower for about 3 1/2 years and it's as great as you say. Do you have any recommendations on how to clean one?



I have cleaned my HP screen with just warm water and paper towels. No soap. It worked well and I frequently clean off spots using the the same technique.


I kept drying the screen with paper towels so that no water lines would be formed and left behind.


I rubbed up and down the screen because it seem that there are vertical ridges of the reflectors going up and down the screen. Tryg does not indicate any ridges and seems to indicate there reflection beads have no ridge pattern. I could be wrong.


----------



## QQQ

Tryg:


1. In your screen reviews from a year or two ago I seem to recall you reviewing a Hi Power and giving it good marks but not the rave here. There have been no changes to the screen since then so why the change in opinion?


2. You state that you still like the silverstar but like the added punch and brightness from the Hi Power. But the silver star has a higer gain, does it not?


----------



## Tryg

Lion,


The Ultramattes from Stewart are good.


QQQ,


The Silverstar does not have higher gain than the High Power as demonstrated by the above photo.


The Silverstar is good in a wider variety of setups and has wider viewing angles. On axis, or near it, I've never seen a better screen material than the High Power. Its a tough call and like the review says...depends on your setup. If setup optimally for the High Power, nothing else competes. That's why I choose it for my 2.35(cinemascope) screen. I'm generally stationary for movie watching.


I prefer the silverstar for sports...I like to move around the room


My HD-A2 images on the High Power are stunning!


----------



## Makomachine

Thanks for the review Tryg - I'm in a huge quandry on what to pair with the RS1 I've got on order. I really had my mind set on ceiling mounting the pj with a SS or Carada BW but the HP really has me second guessing that decision. Just not sure I'll get enough ftl with the Carada and the SS sparklies have me concerned. What to do, what to do....


Any other "new" screens rumored with HP capabilities but with SS mounting flexibility???


----------



## jacksonian

If that screen is 12' wide, then you must be a giant because it looks like you have a 10' wingspan.


----------



## jacksonian




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Tryg, Dalite lists the viewing angle of the HP as 30 deg, which I think is supposed to mean that it falls to half-gain at +/- 30 deg. But your graph above shows that it has fallen to ~ 25% of its max gain at 30 deg. Can you reconsile this diff?
> 
> 
> I could possibly mount a HP on a stand just behind our heads, but it would be more convenient to put it on the ceiling. The lowest I could get it would put the lens at ~ 7 ft above the floor (and 15 ft lens to screen), and eye level is the usual ~ 3 ft (sitting ~ 12.5 ft from screen). I calculate the viewing angle to be 14 to 17 deg, depending on what part of the screen the light is reflected from. Your graph suggests the gain would be below 1.5 (and therefore not much better than a Firehawk), while it would be > 2 if I used Dalite's '30 deg half-gain' figure. Any enlightenment you can bring to this? Tx much as always! Bill



Tryg, I think many of us are in this boat. It's just not practical in our rooms to shelf or table mount. And we're wondering if we'll lose all the benefits of the HP.


Do you know if it's possible to get maybe a 1'x3' strip of HP material that we could tape onto our current screen to see what kind of gain we might get with our current setup?


Maybe with your connections you could see if Da-Lite could let us pass around a scrap? If I saw a big increase in gain with my ceiling setup, I'd probably replace my Da-Lite HCCV.


----------



## thaxx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jacksonian* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> If that screen is 12' wide, then you must be a giant because it looks like you have a 10' wingspan.



I notice that right away too.


----------



## QQQ

Tryg,


I'm not trying to give you a hard time but you did not answer my question. What caused your switch in opinion on the Hi Power versus when you reviewed it the first time and chose the Silverstar. What changed? Because there is nothing new about the Hi Power - it's always been retro-reflective and I assume you knew all about that in your first review and your room has not changed either.


If someone reviews the Pearl and the Qualia, even doing a shootout between them and states that they clearly prefer the Qualia and then a year later writes a review that is the opposite and says (I've replaced the word screen with PJ)"...


> Quote:
> "Of all the PJs I've reviewed, there's one PJ that has become my reference standard. That PJ is Pearl".



...I would want to know why the change in opinion.


Again, I'm genuinely asking, not giving you a hard time.


----------



## Nevr2Big




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Lion,
> 
> 
> 
> The Silverstar does not have higher gain than the High Power as demonstrated by the above photo.
> 
> 
> The Silverstar is good in a wider variety of setups and has wider viewing angles. On axis, or near it, I've never seen a better screen material than the High Power. Its a tough call and like the review says...depends on your setup. If setup optimally for the High Power, nothing else competes. That's why I choose it for my 2.35(cinemascope) screen. I'm generally stationary for movie watching.
> 
> 
> I prefer the silverstar for sports...I like to move around the room
> 
> 
> My HD-A2 images on the High Power are stunning!



Looking at your apparent seating set-up, it would appear that many seats are outside the screen width (this was even more the case with your prior screen).


Given this arrangement, it seems to me that the HighPowers Achilles heel would be most glaring, as off axis viewing due to the very narrow cone of the HP should render the "side seaters" with far less gain than those sitting at center. Im actually suprised that you are seeing the gain you do at center seating, given the projector mount being much higher than the sofas in your picture.


I realize that specs only tell part of the story, and by the way you are gushing about this screen, I believe it must look quite good!


----------



## Tryg

Q,

*"The Silverstar is good in a wider variety of setups and has wider viewing angles. On axis, or near it, I've never seen a better screen material than the High Power."*


my objective has always been to find a high gain screen with wider viewing angles as I wrote in my first screen review 4 years ago

*"Why Review High Power Screens? Well, of course I'm trying to solve a problem. I do not like watching TV and sporting events in dark conditions that are necessary for front projection. Movies in darker conditions are ok, but there is nothing lamer than inviting some friends over to watch the Superbowl in the dark.


So how can I solve this problem? Find some magical screen with so much gain that it sheds all ambient light yet at the same time directs all projected light directly to all viewing areas. Hahahahahah. See, this review has already made me gone mad! Yes, I have come to the realization yet again you cannot cheat the physics!


The problem: I have an unusually large seating arrangement with viewing angles from some seating positions exceeding 50 degrees from the light source on one side of the screen and less than 15 degrees on the other side. If you have started thinking about this now you probably have figured out you need to consider the projection angles and type of screen.*"

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=228371 


The Silverstar was finally the best screen to meet these criteria. Primarily higher gain and wider viewing area.


As I compared screens through the years I always recognized how impressive the High Power was but it never quite met my overall needs. Now that I'm setting up a 2.35 screen this is specific for movies (although wouldn't the Superbowl be awesome in native 2.35?). Since it was specific for movies I wanted the best and brightest available picture for this situation. The viewing angle issue thus went away.


Also in a wide 2.35 setup I wanted uniform bightness. an angular reflective higher gain screen would surely hotspot. The center of the image would be twice and bright as the edges


In reality I have the best of both worlds now. The High Power for movies and the Silverstar for when I have friends over and people are walking around the room for football games.


Yes the High Power delivers a better ultimate picture when viewing on axis. It's very noticable


----------



## QQQ

Sorry Tryg,


Got it! You actually did explain earlier but I missed it. I completely missed the post where you said you were keeping the silver star for wide viewing angles and using the hi power for movies.


----------



## Tryg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jacksonian* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> If that screen is 12' wide, then you must be a giant because it looks like you have a 10' wingspan.



Well I am 6'4"



how's this












The problem when I take pictures is I want to get a little more action in the image....in this case me







Seriously though my theater room is 32' wide and 40' deep. In the first pic I just was 10 feet in front of the screen so the camera flash would reach me


----------



## Tryg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jacksonian* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Tryg, I think many of us are in this boat. It's just not practical in our rooms to shelf or table mount. And we're wondering if we'll lose all the benefits of the HP.
> 
> 
> Do you know if it's possible to get maybe a 1'x3' strip of HP material that we could tape onto our current screen to see what kind of gain we might get with our current setup?
> 
> 
> Maybe with your connections you could see if Da-Lite could let us pass around a scrap? If I saw a big increase in gain with my ceiling setup, I'd probably replace my Da-Lite HCCV.




You can always request samples from companies. The problem is you cant tell much from a sample except how bright it can potentially be. A sample doesn't tell you a lot of things like what the overall image is going to look like. As demonstrated here


----------



## jacksonian




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Well I am 6'4"
> 
> 
> 
> how's this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem when I take pictures is I want to get a little more action in the image....in this case me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously though my theater room is 32' wide and 40' deep. In the first pic I just was 10 feet in front of the screen so the camera flash would reach me



Dude, you AND your room are HUGE. Why don't you and your friends just PLAY the Super Bowl in your theater room?


----------



## Tryg

We Do!


are you saying I'm fat?







I had to get a wider screen so my belly lookes thinner











Superbowl fun...


----------



## millerwill

Tryg, Thanks again from all of us for your efforts! One further questions re the HP:


I can manage to mount it 'high' (~7ft up) in the center of the screen, or 'low' (~50" up) on the back wall but off center. In calculating the viewing angles, they are both ~ 13-15 deg, one being that much vertically, and the other than much horizontally. [I can't mount it 'low' in the center of the back wall because that's a door!] Question: is there any difference in the fall-off of gain with vertical and horizontal displacement from the screen center?


----------



## jacksonian

No, I meant huge as in tall. No wonder you have so many friends with that setup


----------



## Tryg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Tryg, Question: is there any difference in the fall-off of gain with vertical and horizontal displacement from the screen center?



No, with all screens the viewing cone is the same vertically and horizontally.


The Silverstar is the only screen I've found where the viewing is wider horizontally than vertically. This is the only exception I've found


----------



## rmccormack

Thanks alot Tryg, I was just gonna paint a cheapo screen but now I want one of these.


----------



## darryl b

this is off topic, but how does one get a room this size? did you renovate to add on a specific theater room or was the house built that way? how many subwoofers are you running? what pj?


----------



## darryl b

thought i'd add a lay-persons perspective.

i have a high power screen, got into high power by accident because i had no clue when i got the first one, name just sounded good. it is a great screen. i have cleaned hp with water and spray cleaner like windex, etc. problem with hp is the surface is easily damaged and cannot be repaired. any little scratch will appear dark. the screen material has to then be replaced. my current screen has a through and through tear and it is almost invisible.( i live in a hundred year old house) two previous screens were scratched and those little spots were very obvious. so hp is easy to clean, but cannot be repaired.

the narrow viewing cone issue even seems to be over-stated. i think most will be pleased. my image seems bright and vivid to the point that i've been asked several times if there is big "tv" built in behind the screen. no one has ever mentioned a perceived change in the image as they move around or sat or stood. when i have moved from standing next to the pj with my eyes at lens level to sitting i cannot perceive a change. i think that is a valid test because eyes really are awesome light detectors. humans eyes detect and brains start perceiving vision when there is interaction with as few as three photons. if the viewing cone made a huge difference that difference would stand out to everyone who is sighted every single time. it would not be a maybe, maybe not kind of issue that people have a need to talk about.( on the other hand, i've wondered if the image does change, but not the perception of uniformity because of memory of how things should look, go figure)

anyway, i agree fully, hp is a great home theater screen.

thanks for your work on this review.

this was some good reading for those of us who are waiting on the jvc pj. sounds like the hp is a keeper


----------



## Tryg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *darryl b* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> this is off topic, but how does one get a room this size? did you renovate to add on a specific theater room or was the house built that way? how many subwoofers are you running? what pj?



yes, I added the room.

1 12' sub. no need for more. I have it turned down and it still rocks the house

JVC DLA-G1000


----------



## smithfarmer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> You can always request samples from companies. The problem is you cant tell much from a sample except how bright it can potentially be. A sample doesn't tell you a lot of things like what the overall image is going to look like.



Fess up tryg, the real reason you now favor the high power was due to the fact that the SilverStar can't be manufactured in a seamless 12' wide 2.35:1 screen.










All kidding aside, this shot does look like it was taken very slightly off axis and both SilverStar samples appear much brighter than the HP sample. What gives?









I've been toying with the idea of getting an 11' wide 2.35:1 HP to complement my 9' wide 16:9 SS as well. How high is the pj's lens from the floor and what is the height from the top of the HP's screens viewable area to the floor?


----------



## Tryg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smithfarmer* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Fess up tryg, the real reason you now favor the high power was due to the fact that the SilverStar can't be manufactured in a seamless 12' wide 2.35:1 screen.



That is somewhat true. The reality is there are tradoffs with every product. Some prefer low or high gain. Some are willing to give up viewing angle for more brightness. etc etc etc


Finding what's absolutely best for any given situation is a very complex formula. Everybodys equipment, environment, setup, viewing preferences and value determinations are different. Just like with any product there is no perfect product for all applications....yet










One thing that I have found to be true is if its a professionally manufactured screen, generally it's very good. They simply couldn't stay in business if they weren't.


Smithfarmer


get it 12' so it's 5' high like the Silverstar.


lens is 8' off ground and 26' back from screen. Screen is 3' off ground. You can see a very slight reduction in brightness when sitting down, and slightly brighter when standing up (closer to the axis)


----------



## smithfarmer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Smithfarmer
> 
> 
> get it 12' so it's 5' high like the Silverstar.
> 
> 
> lens is 8' off ground and 26' back from screen. Screen is 3' off ground. You can see a very slight reduction in brightness when sitting down, and slightly brighter when standing up (closer to the axis)



Present room constraints forces 11' wide.










Planned room addition by early 2008 will allow it though.












Can you comment on this observation?


> Quote:
> All kidding aside, this shot does look like it was taken very slightly off axis and both SilverStar samples appear much brighter than the HP sample. What gives?


----------



## noah katz

"no one has ever mentioned a perceived change in the image as they move around or sat or stood."


Yes, another of the HP's great traits is that as you move off axis, the entire image dims uniformly.


What's really weird is standing to the side of the screen and seeing how bright it looks at nearly 90 deg.


I know that doesn't make sense given the gain spec, but try it and see.


----------



## Tryg

smithfarmer that picture was taken in daylight conditions. The light you see reflected is from a window behind and to the left of the camera. The picture doesn't demonstrate much about a projected image. Although a projector is on there is also high ambient light conditions


----------



## smithfarmer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> smithfarmer that picture was taken in daylight conditions. The light you see reflected is from a window behind and to the left of the camera. The picture doesn't demonstrate much about a projected image. Although a projector is on there is also high ambient light conditions



Thanks for the explanation. So much for the naysayers claiming the SS totally washes out with "any" ambient light.







Those who own one know better but it's always nice to see more evidence backing it up.


Since you have full sized versions, any chance of you doing a strictly HP/SS comparison in the near future?


I think millerwill would be extremely grateful.


----------



## Tryg

Already available in White, Gray, Silver review


----------



## paulgas

I general how is the pricing of the HP vs SS?

Paul


----------



## smithfarmer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Already available in White, Gray, Silver review



Thanks. It's ben so long since I initially read the review I simply forgot about it.


----------



## reincarnate

There is no denying that the bright white screen is just as impressive as the grey screens are (lifelessly) unimpressive. Thanks for an excellent review.

But are there any negatives? I found one customer review at Amazon:


"I was initially pleased with this screen. Reasonable price, great contrast.


After about 45 days (15 days past when I could return it), the screen developed deep vertical wrinkles, tapered toward the bottom (like this: \\ / ).


I called Dalite to see what they could do about it. They rep immediately rattled off a long list of "things I could try". One of the suggestions was to completely disassemble the unit, iron it through a towel, retension the springs and put it back together. Another suggestion was to get 3 people together, have 2 people start in the center of the bottom and work their way out, pulling the screen tight in unision while the 3rd person holds a hair dryer on the wrinkles.


I got the feeling that the Dalite support reps just sit around all day waiting for calls from the hordes of customers who have warped screens.


What they wouldn't do was send me a new screen or repair my screen. I've tried a few of their fixes and thus far nothing has helped. I've now spent several hours trying to get these wrinkles out.


I don't think this is a well designed product, I would not buy another Dalite screen, and I would not recommend anyone else by one of their pull-down screens.


I plan to research other non-pull down screens, or possibly other mfg. pull down screens after asking their reps if wrinkles are a problem"
http://www.amazon.com/16X9-Model-Con...&s=electronics


----------



## reincarnate

The model C cost almost double the model B. They both use the same "High Power fabric". So like what can be done to remove the wrinkles so common with pull these down screens? *It is an issue*. Is the Model C guaranteed not to wrinkle???


Time once again to raise the "high performance" standards


----------



## MrWigggles

I'm glad Tryg "discovered" something most of us have known for 5 years. Da-Lite's High Power (or Hi-Power) is an incredible screen.


Mine is going on 5 years strong.


-Mr. Wigggles


----------



## Tryg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *reincarnate* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> I got the feeling that the Dalite support reps just sit around all day waiting for calls from the hordes of customers who have warped screens.



I would guess this is why they dont market this material to home theater enthusiasts. They probably never get calls about their lower gain screens. I provided this review so people could set it up properly.


Amazon is not a site I would go to get reviews on anything


Also at most a model C usually only costs a couple hundred bucks more than a model B, usually less. It has a much nicer roller mechanism


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MrWigggles* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'm glad Tryg "discovered" something most of us have known for 5 years. Da-Lite's High Power (or Hi-Power) is an incredible screen.
> 
> 
> Mine is going on 5 years strong.
> 
> 
> -Mr. Wigggles



Is yours fixed-frame or pulldown (or electric)? TIA


----------



## QQQ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MrWigggles* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'm glad Tryg "discovered" something most of us have known for 5 years. Da-Lite's High Power (or Hi-Power) is an incredible screen.
> 
> 
> Mine is going on 5 years strong.



You probably feel like the Indian's felt in 1492 when Columbus arrived and "discovered" America














.


----------



## rmccormack

Hey lets get some photos on this bad boy tryg, id like to see it in action with all lights on and all lights off, thanks!


----------



## noah katz

"I general how is the pricing of the HP vs SS?"


HP cost is a fraction of the SS


----------



## ericsilv

Tryg tnx for great review. in testing samples i originally thought i was going to get a gray screen for the better blacks. But as you said there are many factors and perceived contrast is important and with the whole screen up the blacks seem fine. the screen disappears especially when you have a scene with blue skys could not say that with the hccv and it will work well with ambient lights which the plain white screen couldn't. yes the seats at the sides of the room are not as bright as the prime seats but nobody complains seating there and there not used most of the time. if it wasn't for the reviews and threads of this forum who knows what screen i would have gotten


----------



## CZ Eddie

Hi Tyrg, this is a fun thread. Have you ever tried out the Vutec Pearlbright? If so, which would you say is a higher gain... the Pearlbright or the High Power?


Thanks!


----------



## Tryg

High Power is definately brighter.


Most of angular reflective screens that use pearlescent topcoats to acheive gain usually top out at around 2.5-2.7 gain. Going above this usually has some noticibly negative side effects.


I've seen the pearlbright and it looks like a pretty good product.


----------



## Makomachine

Man I wish I had passed trig - need a different Tryg to help me understand what kind of gain to expect with my setup. Below is what I was planning with my RS1 setup. I was planning on shelf mounting the PJ at the back of room ~8 feet to floor.


Room: 21x14x11

Screen: HP 103"x58"


First row eye level: 3.25' @ 12' from screen

Second row eye level: 4.25' @ 19.5' from screen

Screen Height from floor: 3'


Any help on what we'll see? I'm weighing using the HP on the shelf or a Carada BW from the ceiling.


----------



## vfrjim

Tryg, I have a 92" (I know, it is too small for you







) HP screen and have an issue with it, I still see wrinkles. I already exchanged it once with Dalite and decided I would either purchase a new screen or cut the material off of the roller and permanently mount it to remove the small wrinkles. What would you do? Thanks!


Jim


----------



## rmccormack

Jim, what kind of screen did you get? Model B? Model C?


----------



## millerwill

The main problem with Model B is that it's max size is 106" diag, while the Model C is available in larger sizes.


----------



## rmccormack

haha, i dont even think my wall is 106"


----------



## KathyMoore

I have finally decided to keep my Panasonic AX100. It is a relatively bright projector. I have been using it on a smooth white wall. The AX100 is ceiling mounted(20" down, just 25 inches directly above my eyes, if I'm sitting in the couch) and 18 feet from the 10' wide image.


Now that I'm finally ready to choose a proper screen.... I'm thinking about the Da-Lite HDTV 16:9 model C, manual pull down, in 133" with High Power. Does anyone think this screen will be too bright for the Panasonic AX100?


----------



## buffexec

With that size of screen and the distance to the screen, you are fine. i am sitting 14ft away from a 126 Carada BW with my AX, and its perfect. i am curious if i will get a better pic if i drop it down like u have from the ceiling?




Walt


----------



## vfrjim




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rmccormack* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Jim, what kind of screen did you get? Model B? Model C?




It is a Model "B" with an extra 10" black dropdown with a Black tube.


Jim


----------



## KathyMoore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *buffexec* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> With that size of screen and the distance to the screen, you are fine. i am sitting 14ft away from a 126 Carada BW with my AX, and its perfect. i am curious if i will get a better pic if i drop it down like u have from the ceiling?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Walt










I'm actually wondering about the opposite. Will I see any difference if I

raise the projector to it's highest position?(about 8 inches from the ceiling)

Will probably try it when I get the new screen...


When I first got the AX100, it was sitting on a shelf behind me, at eye level,

which I believe is the best location... but the noise bothered me too much.

(and also made the seating arrangement somewhat uncomfortable)


By the way, which AVS sponsors sell the Da-Lite model C High Power screens?


Thanks!


----------



## noah katz

"By the way, which AVS sponsors sell the Da-Lite model C High Power screens?"


Just get it from AVS; I couldn't find a lower price when I got my HP.


----------



## kits

Can we get curved High Power cinemascope (2.35:1) screens?


----------



## raminolta

Hello,

After reading praises of the people here about the Da-Lite High Power. when i got a good deal on a used Da-Lite Model C High Power screen, i decided to buy it. It arrived last Thursday. I have not installed it yet but , last night i asked some friends to hold it up while i did a quick test. Here are my surprises!:


I am testing it in my living room (HT room), completely darkened but, with light-color and white painted walls and ceiling. In this environment, I am not able to see any slightest difference in brightness or other aspects from my matte white gain 1.3 screen! Is this normal? I thought i should see a significant difrerence in brightness. I do not even see any reduction in brightness when i move away from the axis of the lens!


So i have got suspicious maybe this is not a high power fabric at all since nowhere on the screen material and the case is written that this is High Power. There is only one label on the case that says 'Da-Lite'!


Now is there any method i can use to test this and make sure this is really a high power screen?! The situation sounds funny but real for me!


Thanks, Ramin


----------



## Tryg

You would notice it if it were the High Power fabric.


----------



## rmccormack

Hey Tryg, not sure if you have already posted images of just the hi power in action, was wondering if you had any shots with it with the lights on. Im looking at the high power because i too hate to turn the lights down when i have people over when football games are on.


----------



## KathyMoore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *raminolta* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> So i have got suspicious maybe this is not a high power fabric at all since nowhere on the screen material and the case is written that this is High Power. There is only one label on the case that says 'Da-Lite'!
> 
> 
> Now is there any method i can use to test this and make sure this is really a high power screen?! The situation sounds funny but real for me!
> 
> 
> Thanks, Ramin



I'm wondering the same thing. Does Da-Lite put a part number on the screen

or the shipping box to indicate if the screen is a high power fabric?


Also, are there any companies out there that will allow returns on Da-Lite

High Power screen, in case I don't like it?(or not suitable for my setup?)


Thanks!


----------



## Marshall F

Is your projector celing or floor mounted?


You could order free samples from Da-Lite to see which resembles what you have.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *raminolta* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> After reading praises of the people here about the Da-Lite High Power. when i got a good deal on a used Da-Lite Model C High Power screen, i decided to buy it. It arrived last Thursday. I have not installed it yet but , last night i asked some friends to hold it up while i did a quick test. Here are my surprises!:
> 
> 
> I am testing it in my living room (HT room), completely darkened but, with light-color and white painted walls and ceiling. In this environment, I am not able to see any slightest difference in brightness or other aspects from my matte white gain 1.3 screen! Is this normal? I thought i should see a significant difrerence in brightness. I do not even see any reduction in brightness when i move away from the axis of the lens!
> 
> 
> So i have got suspicious maybe this is not a high power fabric at all since nowhere on the screen material and the case is written that this is High Power. There is only one label on the case that says 'Da-Lite'!
> 
> 
> Now is there any method i can use to test this and make sure this is really a high power screen?! The situation sounds funny but real for me!
> 
> 
> Thanks, Ramin


----------



## raminolta

My projector is on a rear shack. It is a good idea to order free sample from Da-Lite.


Thanks, Ramin



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Marshall F* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Is your projector celing or floor mounted?
> 
> 
> You could order free samples from Da-Lite to see which resembles what you have.


----------



## jacksonian

Yeah, I sent them an email Sunday and they replied this am that they would send out a sample. Can't wait to check it out. Although, if it's the bomb, I'm still going to have a hard time selling my wife on why we need a new screen.


----------



## Marshall F

Hi Tryg, I may have missd it, but I was wondering what your pj and seating heights are. Your pj looks to be about 9' above grade and yours seats are normal heights. Just curious how you are taking advantage of this screen with a ceiling mounted pj...


I like the new place - & thanks.


Marshall


----------



## KathyMoore

if my seating area is 18 feet from the center screen, what size of High Power screen should I get? 119-inch of 133-inch? My projector is the Panny AX100.


Thanks!


----------



## jackmay




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rmccormack* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Hey Tryg, not sure if you have already posted images of just the hi power in action, was wondering if you had any shots with it with the lights on. Im looking at the high power because i too hate to turn the lights down when i have people over when football games are on.



Put lights behind the screen to provide light in the room. The reflection of the light will be mainly at angles that do not reflect off of the retrodirective HP screen to your eyes. I have a table top light and bug zapper light (what I mainly use) behind my HP.


The light will also act as a bias light which will close the iris of your eye more to make the screen blacks look blacker for the light level of the room. You may want the wall behind you to be darker because that light may have a better chance of reflecting to the screen and to your eye.


With the narrow cone, there may not be much of the light that meets all the conditions to bounce back to your eyes with a high strength

.

On my HP, the picture has good contrast even though the wall behind me is white.


----------



## Makomachine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Makomachine* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Man I wish I had passed trig - need a different Tryg to help me understand what kind of gain to expect with my setup. Below is what I was planning with my RS1 setup. I was planning on shelf mounting the PJ at the back of room ~8 feet to floor.
> 
> 
> Room: 21x14x11
> 
> Screen: HP 103"x58"
> 
> 
> First row eye level: 3.25' @ 12' from screen
> 
> Second row eye level: 4.25' @ 19.5' from screen
> 
> Screen Height from floor: 3'
> 
> 
> Any help on what we'll see? I'm weighing using the HP on the shelf or a Carada BW from the ceiling.



Anyone got any guesstimates for me on the gain in this setup?


----------



## Garman

Tryg: Nice review, my question is: I just purchased a Pearl and I am currently using a Vutec 1.3 gain screen, was looking at going to a higher gain HP Vutec SilverStar... My current room setup is a room with low ceilings about 14 feet across the front and 22 feet in length and no Ambient light. Wanted something with some more punch to the picture because I am runing the Pearl in low lamp mode. Picture is stunning as is, but wanted some more punch, but don't want retna burn in







LOL Would the mid-level gain screen SilverStar be the best for this application. Watch some sports on this TV but mostly movie viewing considering my 60" RP upstairs is mostly for sports etc.. Thanks for any input.....


----------



## smithfarmer

Vutec only sells the 6.0 gain SilverStar. In reality it's only around 3.0 gain. If you feel it's too bright you can always use an ND2 filter. I still use one with my IF 4805 and it has over 1400 hours on the bulb.


----------



## Tryg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Garman* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Tryg: Nice review, my question is: I just purchased a Pearl and I am currently using a Vutec 1.3 gain screen, was looking at going to a higher gain HP Vutec SilverStar... My current room setup is a room with low ceilings about 14 feet across the front and 22 feet in length and no Ambient light. Wanted something with some more punch to the picture because I am runing the Pearl in low lamp mode. Picture is stunning as is, but wanted some more punch, but don't want retna burn in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL Would the mid-level gain screen SilverStar be the best for this application. Watch some sports on this TV but mostly movie viewing considering my 60" RP upstairs is mostly for sports etc.. Thanks for any input.....



High gain.



what size screen?


----------



## mburnstein

Tryg, is there an acoustically transparent version? Curved version 2.35:1


----------



## Tryg

I DO NOT recommend acoustically transparent screens. You will have to contact Da-Lite. I dont know if they perforate this material. Why would you want to ruin a perfectly good screen?










Why curved screen? It's retroreflective and digital projectors focus on a flat plane. Theres no need.


(if using an anamorphic lens just overscan it)


----------



## Makomachine

Guess I'll call Da-Lite - looks like everyone else has the same problem I do...


----------



## jacksonian




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Makomachine* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Guess I'll call Da-Lite - looks like everyone else has the same problem I do...



Yeah, I think we all do. It can't ever be perfect, can it. If High Power gave you all that gain with a regular ceiling mount configuration, it would be too good to be true.


When I emailed Da-Lite, I asked them for a 1'x4' strip so I could hang it vertically on my screen to see how the gain would change.


They emailed back that they were sending out a sample, but didn't say what size. I'm expecting the usual 8"x11" square.


----------



## KathyMoore

I'm a little lost at the moment...










My Panasonic AX100 is ceiling mounted, but the lens is only 2 feet directly above

the top of my head when I'm sitting in the couch. The screen will be 18-ft away.

(either a 119" or 133" with the bottom edge 2 feet from the floor)


All the other seats are within 15 degrees of the center of the screen... all under

the projector... the room is light colored, with no ambient light(except for two

4w nightlights)


Will I see little or no benefit by using the High Power screen?










Thanks!


----------



## millerwill

Kathy, Sounds like your setup is ideal for the HiPower. With the lens only 2 ft above your head, you should get a large fraction of the max possible gain.


----------



## jacksonian




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KathyMoore* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'm a little lost at the moment...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My Panasonic AX100 is ceiling mounted, but the lens is only 2 feet directly above
> 
> the top of my head when I'm sitting in the couch. The screen will be 18-ft away.
> 
> (either a 119" or 133" with the bottom edge 2 feet from the floor)
> 
> 
> All the other seats are within 15 degrees of the center of the screen... all under
> 
> the projector... the room is light colored, with no ambient light(except for two
> 
> 4w nightlights)
> 
> 
> Will I see little or no benefit by using the High Power screen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!



I'm guessing you have stadium seating if you're pj is ceiling mounted, yet only 2 feet over your head while seated?


And I'd definitely go 133" if you're sitting 18 feet back.


----------



## KathyMoore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jacksonian* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'm guessing you have stadium seating if you're pj is ceiling mounted, yet only 2 feet over your head while seated?
> 
> 
> And I'd definitely go 133" if you're sitting 18 feet back.



No, it's just an average-size basement....







The projector is ceiling mounted,

but I adjusted it to the lowest position.(about 18" to 20" from the ceiling)


But I like your idea better!







I wonder if I can remodel my basement and add

stadium seating....


----------



## jacksonian

Actually, to me that would be the way to do high power. Instead of putting the pj on a shelf, put the people on stadium seating. I don't think it's that difficult or expensive. I just can't do it in my room.


----------



## linpark

Tryg - A previous post asked a question which I don't see ever getting answered. You state the PJ is 8' above the floor, the screen is 3' above the floor, and you sit 28' back (assuming eyes about 3.5' above the floor). Is that really the type of setup you want for a retro-reflective screen?


I'm looking at getting a Pan AX100 with the following setup:


Room 11.5' by 15' with 10' ceiling

Eyes are 12' from the screen and 3.5' above the floor

Projector will be 14' from screen and 8' above the floor

Screen will be between 100" and 120" diagonally with the bottom at least 4' above the floor


I guess since your eyes are above the bottom of your screen then the retro is helping (think I just answered my own question) whereas my setup has my eyes beneath the bottom of the screen. Does this mean I would be better served with an angular reflective surface? What would you recommend here? I would like a non-fixed screen and prefer image quality over an electric motor for raising and lowering.


Thanks,

Lin


P.S. Great post by the way - extremely helpful to those of us choosing a new screen.


----------



## smithfarmer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jacksonian* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Actually, to me that would be the way to do high power. Instead of putting the pj on a shelf, put the people on stadium seating. I don't think it's that difficult or expensive. I just can't do it in my room.



I know this is off-topic but you are correct. It's both cheap and easy. It cost me about $$350 for materials and carpeting. The real expense was the additional row of Berklines($1800). You can save $$$ though as some folks just put an additional couch or a couple of Lazyboy's on their riser


----------



## smithfarmer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *linpark* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Tryg - A previous post asked a question which I don't see ever getting answered. You state the PJ is 8' above the floor, the screen is 3' above the floor, and you sit 28' back (assuming eyes about 3.5' above the floor). Is that really the type of setup you want for a retro-reflective screen?
> 
> 
> I'm looking at getting a Pan AX100 with the following setup:
> 
> 
> Room 11.5' by 15' with 10' ceiling
> 
> Eyes are 12' from the screen and 3.5' above the floor
> 
> Projector will be 14' from screen and 8' above the floor
> 
> Screen will be between 100" and 120" diagonally with the bottom at least 4' above the floor



It works great in tryg's setup because of how far back the seating and pj are from the screen. The further back you can go from the screen with a ceiling mounted pj and the HP the better. It lessens the angle of incidence by going that route. The shorter the throw and the higher the mount, the less optimal the results will be.


----------



## Marshall F

Okay, thanks. So using THIS calculator and using these numbers.











B = 28' back from screen

A = 4.5' down from lense to center of screen (I'm guessing - don't know your screen height)

X= about 9 degrees.


So you are only off axis by 9 degrees and the screen works for you. According to this graph you are realizing a gain of around 2, I guess.











Is this correct? I wonder what the maximum angle would be before brightness lessens below that of a standard screen? twelve degrees?


My setup would leave a 17 degree angle which looks like it would be too much.


Thanks,


Marshall


----------



## Garman

Millerwill: My system is a very similar setup so the High Gain looks like the screen to go with. Just got a quote from Jason and once I sell a pair of MLs Vista speakers I have for sale I will be moving over to this screen. My projector is about 3 feet above my head and I am about 16 feet back, middle of screen is about 1-2 feet up if I am sitting in middle of couch. I will be using a 16X9 92" screen...


----------



## Makomachine

Marshall - Thanks for the calculator - that's a big help! Looks like I'd be ~17 degrees off axis vertically for my first row (primary row) given the setup I was planning. HP is definitely not going to work in my setup. Looks like I need to take a serious look at a Silverstar in person.


----------



## kits

Marshall thank you very much for that calculator. It confirmed me what Tryg told me this morning and I now can't wait for my RS1. I should be able to get gain around 2.3 and that should be plenty for me to enjoy a bright picture.


----------



## kits

Will the gain increase if screen is slightly tilted backward (on top) to reduce the angle? Then worry about correcting the keystone problems! I don't need to do this for my setup but just curious how it works for these screens as I read how lot of HD81 owners like to tilt their projector and screen to get the screens closer to ceiling because of HD81 offset limitation.


----------



## rto




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kits* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Will the gain increase if screen is slightly tilted backward (on top) to reduce the angle? Then worry about correcting the keystone problems! I don't need to do this for my setup but just curious how it works for these screens as I read how lot of HD81 owners like to tilt their projector and screen to get the screens closer to ceiling because of HD81 offset limitation.



If I understand retro-reflectivity correctly, the microspheres on the surface of this screen reflect light back along the axis of projection, whatever that angle happens to be. I don't think there's any way to get around placing the projector close to eye level, if the aim is to *maximize* gain.


----------



## Tryg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kits* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Will the gain increase if screen is slightly tilted backward (on top) to reduce the angle?



No, its not angular reflective


----------



## Marshall F

HP might not work, but I'd wait to hear a couple of things...


1 is the calculator I posted the correct way to find the angle..


2 Are we interpreting the gain chart correctly.


I'm also curious what Tryg's angle is and his estimation of the gain...




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Makomachine* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Marshall - Thanks for the calculator - that's a big help! Looks like I'd be ~17 degrees off axis vertically for my first row (primary row) given the setup I was planning. HP is definitely not going to work in my setup. Looks like I need to take a serious look at a Silverstar in person.


----------



## Makomachine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Marshall F* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'm also curious what Tryg's angle is and his estimation of the gain...



Ditto - I'm just really torn on what to do for the screen. The Silverstar worries me with the "sparklies" and I'm afraid a ~ 1.4 gain screen isn't going to be enough for the wife and I considering this is going to be our primary TV/Movie room with lots of hours logged on the RS1. New bulbs are going to be a killer if we don't go higher gain I'm afraid...


----------



## Tryg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Marshall F* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> 1 is the calculator I posted the correct way to find the angle..
> 
> 
> 2 Are we interpreting the gain chart correctly.



yes and yes


----------



## rto

In the calculator above, isn't "A" correctly measured as the distance from the lens of the projector to the level of a seated viewers' *eyes*, and *not* necessarily the center of the screen ( unless a viewer's eyes are exactly perpendicular to this point? ) If the term "retro-reflective" refers to a literal phenomenon, then in a "High Power" application, the greatest quantity of light is reflected back along the axis of projection, or area within close proximity to the point of origin, ie: the lens.


----------



## mrlittlejeans




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The main problem with Model B is that it's max size is 106" diag, while the Model C is available in larger sizes.



Bill - I'm pretty sure mine is a Model B. I found a good deal somewhere (can't remember) on a 96" square screen. I only pull it down enough for what I need. This gives me a 110" diagonal. I also used black felt to mask the wall around the screen.


----------



## KathyMoore

I finally got around to playing with the High Power screen sample that Da-Lite

sent me a while ago. This thing is ridiculously BRIGHT! I taped in the center

and turned on my Panasonic AX100. In all modes(Cinema1/2, Normal, Vivid),

there's just a big bright square in the center where the sample is located.

I even tried to turn the lamp down to Eco mode and it was still very bright.


Next, I tried sitting in various locations to judge how narrow the viewing angle

was. Not too bad... The far left/right seats will see a little less brightness,

due to the angles... but still very bright.


My old InFocus(few years old, with old bulb) DLP projector will probably look

bright on the High Power screen... maybe I'll drag it out of the basement and

try it tomorrow.










One thing that I noticed was that the High Power sample sheet looked almost

beigh in sunlight.(compared to a sheet of 98-brightness printer paper)


----------



## jacksonian

Cool, I can't wait to get my sample and try it out.


----------



## KathyMoore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jacksonian* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Cool, I can't wait to get my sample and try it out.



I was just thinking.... if I get enough of these 6" x 6" High Power screen samples,

I can just put together a free screen.







At first I thought there might be a

problem with the lines where the samples join, but I did a test by cutting up

the sample in half. I tape them together on the wall, and from nearly 20 feet

away, I cannot see the seam at all.


Just kidding, I don't want to be a cheapskate. (not until I'm about 82 years old, anyway)


----------



## glenned




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Makomachine* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Thanks for the review Tryg - I'm in a huge quandry on what to pair with the RS1 I've got on order. I really had my mind set on ceiling mounting the pj with a SS or Carada BW but the HP really has me second guessing that decision. Just not sure I'll get enough ftl with the Carada and the SS sparklies have me concerned. What to do, what to do....
> 
> 
> Any other "new" screens rumored with HP capabilities but with SS mounting flexibility???



The Carada BW should be figured at 1.1 gain if you are ceiling mounting the PJ. The one sample I have does not meet their 1.4 gain rating with the PJ ceiling mounted. The BW has the best color and brightness uniformity I have measured. It causes virtually no color shift in the image. The image on a BW screen will benefit from making the surfaces in your HT dark colored and/or non-reflective. Because of its superb uniformity charectoristics it throws a lot of light onto the walls, ceiling and floor. This light will create some washout in the image if it is reflected back by light colored walls etc. If the RS1 matches its 700 lumen estimate, a 122"D (9' X 5') BW screen would yield 17 fL of screen brightness. Low bulb power would start you off at about 12-13 fL.


The SS is somewhere near 3.0 gain. Its an entirely different type of screen. Choose a screen size and gain that yields proper screen brightness. The BW and SS could not both be in contention at the same screen size because one would be almost 3 times brighter than the other.


The HP is only about 1.0 gain when used with a ceiling mounted PJ and thus you sacrifice its main advantage, high gain.


The Vutec Pearl Bright is rated at 1.8 gain and is relatively cheap. If I recall correctly I measured it at 1.6 gain. It has superior color uniformity compared to some of the other high gain screens. Of course it hot spots like almost all high gain screens, however the importance of brightness uniformity is greatly exagerated by many, IMO. It is much more important to achieve proper screen brightness. I agree with Tryg on this. If you need high gain, then use high gain. Don't choose to have an image that is too dim (or too bright). A caveat about the Pearl Bright. I have only measured a 2' by 2' sample of this screen. It measures out very well compared to comparable materials. I have not seen an image on a Pearl Bright screen. You would want to see one for yourself before selecting this material. It has a bit of a salmon color to it in normal room light.


Glenn


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *glenned* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Choose a screen size and gain that yields proper screen brightness. Glenn



This is the 'great unknown' for me, "proper screen brightness". My room is not a dark-walled, totally light-controlled situation; there is not significant external light, but surfaces are light-colored (though not white).


A lot of people say you should go for ~30 ftL on a new lamp (and some even a lot more, but I consider them the fringe), while you and others say that 12-15 ftL is right for a new lamp. Is this because your recommendation is for the ideal dark-walled, etc. HT? Do you have a 'rule of thumb' for the room I described above, which I think is typical of many AVS'ers.


----------



## smithfarmer

Bill, I've always been under the impression that you want around 12ftl from the screen when the lamp hits it's half-life.


----------



## jacksonian




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *glenned* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The HP is only about 1.0 gain when used with a ceiling mounted PJ and thus you sacrifice its main advantage, high gain.



This is what I've always heard, but then there are some forum members who have HP with ceiling mount and still say they get a significant boost in brightness.


I received my Da-Lite sample today, but only 2 little 6"x6" samples which will make it tough to judge. I think Tryg should get a big piece of scrap HP from Da-Lite and then charge us $10 to rent it for a few days and then send it along to the next person in line.


----------



## smithfarmer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jacksonian* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I think Tryg should get a big piece of scrap HP from Da-Lite and then charge us $10 to rent it for a few days and then send it along to the next person in line.



You could just look in the "for sale area" for someone selling a small used HP screen for cheap and just cut it up into 2'x3' pieces and sell them off.


----------



## jacksonian




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smithfarmer* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> You could just look in the "for sale area" for someone selling a small used HP screen for cheap and just cut it up into 2'x3' pieces and sell them off.



But who in their right mind would ever sell a High Power screen, unless of course, only to buy a bigger one, right?


----------



## jackmay




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KathyMoore* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I was just thinking.... if I get enough of these 6" x 6" High Power screen samples,
> 
> I can just put together a free screen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At first I thought there might be a
> 
> problem with the lines where the samples join, but I did a test by cutting up
> 
> the sample in half. I tape them together on the wall, and from nearly 20 feet
> 
> away, I cannot see the seam at all.
> 
> 
> Just kidding, I don't want to be a cheapskate. (not until I'm about 82 years old, anyway)



I think we have all been avoiding buying the largest HP screen because it has a seam 6 ft down the screen.


Your test brings up an interesting question. Can the seam be seen in the largest HP screen or aa in your test, does that seam disappear when video is projected on to it.


If the seam disappears, then much larger HP screens can be built and used in home theaters. Anybody have any information on the seam on the largest HP screen?


----------



## glenned




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jacksonian* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> This is what I've always heard, but then there are some forum members who have HP with ceiling mount and still say they get a significant boost in brightness.



My PJ's fixed offset is .16 times the screen height. The lens of the PJ is 9.5 inches above the top of the screen. From this position I measure the HP at about 1.0 gain at the center of the screen, the same as with the Firehawk in the same configuration. If someone ceiling mounts a PJ so that the lens is lower than the top of the screen, they will likely measure a higher gain.


Another difference is that I am measuring the light coming off the screen with an instrument. I am not looking at an image and estimating the gain.


----------



## jacksonian

glenned,

Thanks for the response. That helps as my pj will be mounted about the same height above the screen like yours. My wife will be so happy to hear that I'm not upgrading our screen.







When she saw those Da-Lite samples come in the mail yesterday, she said, "I'm going to get online and tell your friends at AVS that you're not allowed to go there anymore because of all the upgrades."


----------



## shingor6

My projector is 3 feet over my head while seating, it's ceiling mounted and I may be able to drop it about a feet down. Will the HP offer great quality? The viewing angle right now is about 14 degree.


Also, I want a 92" 16:9 screen, should I go with the Model B or Model C is there any real advantage for my setup with a model c?


----------



## Tryg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *shingor6* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> My projector is 3 feet over my head while seating, it's ceiling mounted and I may be able to drop it about a feet down. Will the HP offer great quality? The viewing angle right now is about 14 degree.
> 
> 
> Also, I want a 92" 16:9 screen, should I go with the Model B or Model C is there any real advantage for my setup with a model c?



perfect setup for High Power. Get the Model C. Much nicer rollers and mechanism. Definately worth the maybe $100 in difference.


----------



## noah katz

'The HP is only about 1.0 gain when used with a ceiling mounted PJ and thus you sacrifice its main advantage, high gain.'


A bit too general of a statement, depends on the particuars of screen/pj/viewer locations.


----------



## raminolta

I have been away for a trip and have not been able to write to this site. I checked the screen during the day when there is light coming into the room through the windows and now, i am convinced this is really a High Power screen. I noticed the central bright cone is extremely narrow and as soon as one is out of that small cone, the screen's brightness drops to the level of a matte white screen. The brightness drop-off happens rather immediate! I think i might have completely missed the small central bright cone

the first night i checked the screen! My understanding is that this screen's application is very limited by the room's geometry and seating locations.



Ramin





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *raminolta* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> After reading praises of the people here about the Da-Lite High Power. when i got a good deal on a used Da-Lite Model C High Power screen, i decided to buy it. It arrived last Thursday. I have not installed it yet but , last night i asked some friends to hold it up while i did a quick test. Here are my surprises!:
> 
> 
> I am testing it in my living room (HT room), completely darkened but, with light-color and white painted walls and ceiling. In this environment, I am not able to see any slightest difference in brightness or other aspects from my matte white gain 1.3 screen! Is this normal? I thought i should see a significant difrerence in brightness. I do not even see any reduction in brightness when i move away from the axis of the lens!
> 
> 
> So i have got suspicious maybe this is not a high power fabric at all since nowhere on the screen material and the case is written that this is High Power. There is only one label on the case that says 'Da-Lite'!
> 
> 
> Now is there any method i can use to test this and make sure this is really a high power screen?! The situation sounds funny but real for me!
> 
> 
> Thanks, Ramin


----------



## sb1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *shingor6* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> My projector is 3 feet over my head while seating, it's ceiling mounted and I may be able to drop it about a feet down. Will the HP offer great quality? The viewing angle right now is about 14 degree.
> 
> 
> Also, I want a 92" 16:9 screen, should I go with the Model B or Model C is there any real advantage for my setup with a model c?



My projector is three feet above my head, as well. I went from black out cloth to the High Power. It made a tremendous difference. For the better.


----------



## jacksonian

Can anyone help me with the angles, I couldn't figure out how to measure them.


It's always just me and my wife sitting on a couch. It's a 52" x 92" screen (106" 16x9). Our eyes are at 36" above the floor. The screen bottom is at 36" above the floor also, so the center of the screen is at 62" from the floor. The projector lens is above the top of the screen at 90" above the floor. And the projector is right over our heads. The viewer to center of screen distance is 14' and the projector lens to center of screen is 13.5'.


I can draw out the triangle but can't figure out how to make the angles. Any help is appreciated. I think we're outside the viewing cone, but wanted to check.


----------



## Joseph Clark

I got an HP sample from Da-Lite two days ago. I was impressed by how responsive they were to my e-mail and how fast the samples arrived - just a couple of days. (Vutec has yet to respond to my e-mail.) I got samples of all their screen fabrics in a book, rubber cemented in for easy removal.


My high tech method for testing the HP sample at different screen positions was to use a bag clip, twine and a heavy stapler, which I put at different positions on top of my Firehawk, wrapping the twine to adjust for different heights.


I recently got a Sharp 20000 1080p DLP and it's a little dimmer than I'm used to. One look at the HP brightness difference was enough to sell me. I'm in the process of figuring out how to create a telescoping mount for the pj that I can change quickly and easily for different situations. I plan on bringing the pj down from near ceiling level much closer to eye level for the vast majority of viewing (without guests). For times when people are over, I want to be able to move the projector up (while it's off, of course) quickly and make a lens shift adjustment, and be up and playing in under 5 minutes.


I positioned the HP sample, then moved around the room. I paused my Dish 622 on a recorded program, so that its white progress bar was at the bottom of the Firehawk. I stepped off to the side and noted that there wasn't any appreciable difference in brightness. As I moved back and got closer and closer to the projection lens, the sample lit up like a torch. The Firehawk's gray changed to brilliant white.


I'm going to have to do a little rearranging to get the HP to give me the gain I'd like. After seeing it, though, I know it'll be worth the effort. Right now, I can't take advantage of the smallest iris setting on the Sharp, because it's just too dim with the Firehawk. After reading Greg Roger's review of the 20k, I'd like to be able to get the 7,000+ CR it's capable of. Right now I'm using the medium iris setting and eco lamp mode, and the contrast is very good, but I think the HP will make it possible for me to use High Contrast mode (fully closed iris) and still have much more gain than I have right now.


The trick is to come up with a telescoping ceiling mount. I'd also like to make it easy to move laterally. I'm going to speak with a carpenter friend to see if we can come up with something that will make it easy to go up/down/left/right easily and quickly. That is, unless someone here has already come up with such a solution. Anyone?


----------



## hmcewin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I got an HP sample from Da-Lite two days ago. I was impressed by how responsive they were to my e-mail and how fast the samples arrived - just a couple of days. (Vutec has yet to respond to my e-mail.) I got samples of all their screen fabrics in a book, rubber cemented in for easy removal.
> 
> 
> My high tech method for testing the HP sample at different screen positions was to use a bag clip, twine and a heavy stapler, which I put at different positions on top of my Firehawk, wrapping the twine to adjust for different heights.
> 
> 
> I recently got a Sharp 20000 1080p DLP and it's a little dimmer than I'm used to. One look at the HP brightness difference was enough to sell me. I'm in the process of figuring out how to create a telescoping mount for the pj that I can change quickly and easily for different situations. I plan on bringing the pj down from near ceiling level much closer to eye level for the vast majority of viewing (without guests). For times when people are over, I want to be able to move the projector up (while it's off, of course) quickly and make a lens shift adjustment, and be up and playing in under 5 minutes.
> 
> 
> I positioned the HP sample, then moved around the room. I paused my Dish 622 on a recorded program, so that its white progress bar was at the bottom of the Firehawk. I stepped off to the side and noted that there wasn't any appreciable difference in brightness. As I moved back and got closer and closer to the projection lens, the sample lit up like a torch. The Firehawk's gray changed to brilliant white.
> 
> 
> I'm going to have to do a little rearranging to get the HP to give me the gain I'd like. After seeing it, though, I know it'll be worth the effort. Right now, I can't take advantage of the smallest iris setting on the Sharp, because it's just too dim with the Firehawk. After reading Greg Roger's review of the 20k, I'd like to be able to get the 7,000+ CR it's capable of. Right now I'm using the medium iris setting and eco lamp mode, and the contrast is very good, but I think the HP will make it possible for me to use High Contrast mode (fully closed iris) and still have much more gain than I have right now.
> 
> 
> The trick is to come up with a telescoping ceiling mount. I'd also like to make it easy to move laterally. I'm going to speak with a carpenter friend to see if we can come up with something that will make it easy to go up/down/left/right easily and quickly. That is, unless someone here has already come up with such a solution. Anyone?



I went through the same gyrations you are planning on going through with the HP. Threw in the towel on the HP and got the Vutec SS. All problems solved. Great gain with ceiling mount and from all the seats in the HT.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hmcewin* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I went through the same gyrations you are planning on going through with the HP. Threw in the towel on the HP and got the Vutec SS. All problems solved. Great gain with ceiling mount and from all the seats in the HT.



What type of room do you have: all black/dark room surfaces, no external light, or light-colored walls or ceiling, etc.? My impression (from reading--no personal experience) was that the SS was very susceptible to ambient light, either reflected or external. What do you find? Tx, Bill


----------



## Imageek2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jacksonian* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Can anyone help me with the angles, I couldn't figure out how to measure them.
> 
> 
> It's always just me and my wife sitting on a couch. It's a 52" x 92" screen (106" 16x9). Our eyes are at 36" above the floor. The screen bottom is at 36" above the floor also, so the center of the screen is at 62" from the floor. The projector lens is above the top of the screen at 90" above the floor. And the projector is right over our heads. The viewer to center of screen distance is 14' and the projector lens to center of screen is 13.5'.
> 
> 
> I can draw out the triangle but can't figure out how to make the angles. Any help is appreciated. I think we're outside the viewing cone, but wanted to check.



Looks to me like your viewing angle is ~18.5, which would put you outside the cone. You probably wouldn't see much difference between the HP and a matte white screen.


----------



## jacksonian




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Imageek2* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Looks to me like your viewing angle is ~18.5, which would put you outside the cone. You probably wouldn't see much difference between the HP and a matte white screen.



Thanks a ton, that's what I was thinking. Doesn't sound like it's worth replacing my $2k Cosmo Electrol Tensioned HCCV.


----------



## millerwill

Tryg, Any estimate of when Part 2 will come out? Tx, Bill


----------



## Tryg

maybe 1.5 before CES?


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> maybe 1.5 before CES?



That would be super! And I look forward to meeting you at the CES.


Also, if you have any influence in organizing the AVS reception, please ask them to have NAMETAGS at the entrance, and pens so that people can label themselves by their AVS name. This would be most helpful in being able to meet people who we've exchanged so many posts with!


----------



## Jupeman

If I adjust the location of my projector a bit, I think I can reasonably get the projector to be 12.1 degrees off my eye level. Is this acceptable for the High Power? Tryg, what is your projector to viewing offset?


My measurements will be 163" from screen to projector, my eyes will be ~35" below the projector.


----------



## glenned

Because there is so much interest in the HP, I went back to my notes taken when I measured the HP so that I could post exactly what I measured vs the generalized statement I posted earlier in the thread. See my prior posts for details on the ceiling mounting position of the PJ relative to the screen to judge viewing angle. The uniformity errors introduced by the PJ itself have been subtracted out of the results. For gain measurements I used a StudioTek 130 as a baseline for what 1.3 gain measures at.


Gain at the center of the screen: 1.17

Gain at the edge of the screen measured from the Prime Seat: 1.17

The HP is just as bright at the edges as it is in the center when measured from the Prime Seat. Of the screens I have measured the one which came closest to matching this performance was the Carada BW which was 7% dimmer at the edge than in the center when measured from the Prime Seat.


Gain measured when the viewer was seated 30 degrees to the side of the Prime Seat: .76 (which is about a 36% reduction).


Gain measured when the viewer was seated 45% degrees to the side of the Prime Seat: .75 (which is about a 36% reduction). For comparison, the ST130 experiences a 40% reduction in gain when measured the same way.


Color error introduced by the screen:

At the center of the screen as measured from the Prime Seat: +.0023x / +.0043y

At the edge of the screen as measured from the Prime Seat: +.0013x / +.0049y

At the center of the screen as measured at 30 degrees and at 45% from the side:

+.0013x / +.0033y


Color error is a numerical description of how distant a color is from the reference color. ISF standards require that the instruments used to measure the color D65 White for the purpose of gray scale calibration be accurate within .0040 in x and y. The color error introduced by the HP is pretty minor. Though there are a few screens out there with better color uniformity, the HP is better than most in this regard. It would be of no concern to me if I needed the HPs gain. Besides, if you have your PJ calibrated by an ISF who uses a spectroradiometer, it gets factored out in the calibration. Also, very few PJs come calibrated this close to D65 from the factory. However, when it comes to PJs with UHP/SHP or other mercury lamps, they tend to come from the factory too green, which is the same direction as the color error introduced by the HP.


In a previous post I mentioned a high gain Vutek screen that measured well. It is the Pearl White. It measured at 1.84 gain. It has exceptional color accuracy and color uniformity. It hot spots like most screens that have a gain higher than 1.0. In brightness uniformity it is about halfway betrween an ST130 and a Firehawk.


Glenn


----------



## jacksonian

glenned, thank you for posting your measurements. Looks like I would see zero benefit with the high power. Thanks for saving me a lot of money and effort. Oh, and my wife sends a BIG thank you!


----------



## 1Time

Tryg,


This Highpower screen is something else. Thank you very much for all your over the top contributions. If it were not for you, I doubt I ever would have gotten around to buying this screen. Way to go man.










--------------------------------------


I had been viewing my new HP for a couple of days outside of it's optimal viewing cone and considered it nice enough. However, today I lowered my AE900U considerably, so now it's shooting only a few inches overhead. The increased brightness is very noticeable. I guess I'm seeing around a 2.4 gain. Before seeing this screen in action, I thought the graph Tryg posted of the viewing cone / gain may have represented the viewing cone to be much tighter than it probably is. However, I now consider that graph to be much more representative of this screen's performance. The screen looks nice if you're outside of the optimal viewing cone, but it looks so much brighter and IMO better when viewing within it. I'm now seeing a definite increase in perceived contrast. More of my observations to follow at a later date.


----------



## KathyMoore

I have a Panasonice AX100 720p projector. I've thought about upgrading to

the Panasonic AE1000 1080p projector, but hasn't done so. The main reason

is that my current AX100 can project a much brighter picture than the AE1000.


Now that I'm getting the Da-Lite High Power screen, I'm starting to wonder

what the AE1000 will look like.... Perhaps it's time to think about upgrading

again?










Any High Power screen owner out there with the Panasonic AE1000 1080p

projector? How do you like the combination of these two?


Thanks!


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hmcewin* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I went through the same gyrations you are planning on going through with the HP. Threw in the towel on the HP and got the Vutec SS. All problems solved. Great gain with ceiling mount and from all the seats in the HT.



I'm new to screen research, so I'm open minded on the subject. What about hotspotting, sparkles, consistency of light across the screen surface from different angles with the SilverStar? Is the gain consistent throughout the theater or is it significantly different depending on the seating?


I think the surgery to my projection mounting setup is very workable for the High Power. On the other hand, if I can just put up a new screen and use my existing high shelf mount, it will make things easier.


What do you think, Tryg? I read one of your threads from a few months back where I believe you said (hope I'm not misquoting), "I have five screens and I use the SS exclusively." Did I get that right? For overall image quality, how do the two compare? From the perspective of someone who has watched both extensively, what would be the obvious disadvantages in choosing a SS?


I have pretty much a batcave. Ambient light is not a problem.


One thing I don't care as much for is the look of the fixed wall frames from Da-Lite. I have a very classy Firehawk frame that I'd love to keep. Has anyone attached an HP or SS to an existing frame?


Here's a thought I've had that someone here may be able to comment on. I was thinking as I moved around in the HP cone that it might be possible to maintain a pretty consistent screen brightness over the life of a projector lamp by using a telescoping mount. Every couple of hundred hours, lower the projector by an inch or two - closer to eye level. I think this is going to be doable in my theater. Any thoughts?


----------



## neilher

I have a crt now,and are on the JVC preorder, I got samples of both the HP and SS,double seating, back 222" from screen, 52x92now, screen center 40" from ceiling, proj. Lense center 12" from ceiling. Placing both samples at top , the SS had the advantage, as the samples got lower and lower the HP seemed to loose its power gain although its seems to have much better off axis light rejection. I am looking at going larger, either 54x96 or 58x104 with the new JVC ceiling mounted similar to the existing crt. will the hp lose its power at that offset??????????Will the 58x104 be too big and lose too much foot lamberts, proj. will be at mininium distance,

Thanks,

Neil


----------



## rto




> Quote:
> Here's a thought I've had that someone here may be able to comment on. I was thinking as I moved around in the HP cone that it might be possible to maintain a pretty consistent screen brightness over the life of a projector lamp by using a telescoping mount. Every couple of hundred hours, lower the projector by an inch or two - closer to eye level. I think this is going to be doable in my theater. Any thoughts?



Apparently, you and I are on the same wavelength when it comes to this screen. Poke around on the Chief website, and you'll find telescoping extension posts, laterally sliding brackets, turnbuckle strut supports; everything you could *possibly* need for projector positioning flexibility/effective gain control.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rto* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Apparently, you and I are on the same wavelength when it comes to this screen. Poke around on the Chief website, and you'll find telescoping extension posts, laterally sliding brackets, turnbuckle strut supports; everything you could *possibly* need for projector positioning flexibility/effective gain control.



Thanks. Do you have a link for the Chief website? Nothing helpful comes up when I Google it.


----------



## rto

 http://www.chiefmfg.com/store/result...tegory_id=5213


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rto* /forum/post/0
> 
> http://www.chiefmfg.com/store/result...tegory_id=5213



Thanks. Very helpful!


----------



## rto




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Thanks. Very helpful!



Once you figure out everything you need, Tryg can likely get you a really good price. The only negatives I see, are an extra ( though relatively small ) investment in what will most likely turn out to be a rather ungainly looking set-up, and a very limited sweet spot. But these trade-offs are more than worth it to me for the added punch, brightness uniformity, and good color accuracy which this screen offers, along with the ability to control gain.....besides, FP is necessarily about compromises anyway.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rto* /forum/post/0
> 
> http://www.chiefmfg.com/store/result...tegory_id=5213



You were right. Everything I need. Perfect!


Thanks again.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rto* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Once you figure out everything you need, Tryg can likely get you a really good price. The only negatives I see, are an extra ( though relatively small ) investment in what will most likely turn out to be a rather ungainly looking set-up, and a very limited sweet spot. But these trade-offs are more than worth it to me for the added punch, brightness uniformity, and good color accuracy which this screen offers, along with the ability to control gain.....besides, FP is necessarily about compromises anyway.



I'm planning on using my existing projector shelf. Instead of setting the projector on top of it, I'll mount it on the bottom. You're right - it won't look as elegant, but I have a few ideas to make it a little more attractive. The main thing for me is the image. I probably use the home theater for private viewing 98%+ of the time. On those occasions when I have people over, this sort of arrangement will allow me to optimize it for a larger group in a very short period of time. Then it will back to normal viewing. With these parts, I can get the projector within a few inches of eye level, or start higher and lower it as the bulb ages to keep brightness uniform.


----------



## rto




> Quote:
> The main thing for me is the image.



I hope it works out the way you want it to. I plan on just using a big stalk hanging from the ceiling near max throw, as low as I can get it without object interference in the light path. I'll lose some lumens by moving it back, but that should also effectively maximize contrast, and the HP has more than enough gain to make up for whatever I lose. Of course, I may also need to slick my hair down so it doesn't make shadows on the screen.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rto* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I hope it works out the way you want it to. I plan on just using a big stalk hanging from the ceiling near max throw, as low as I can get it without object interference in the light path. I'll lose some lumens by moving it back, but that should also effectively maximize contrast, and the HP has more than enough gain to make up for whatever I lose. Of course, I may also need to slick my hair down so it doesn't make shadows on the screen.



I won't have much of a problem with the hair. There isn't that much left.


----------



## Free

Excellent review. I have printed it out to use for reference. I agree that (certainly with the limited lumens of the best performing projectors today) High gain screens are the way to go.


Putting aside Tryg's obvious bias towards products he has decided on for his application, I come to a few conclusions regarding the pro's and cons of the High Power vs the Silverstar.


It seems to me, that the High Power is the choice if:


1. You can mount the projector just above your head, or close to that position.

2. You sit no more than 1 or two seats to either side of the center position.

3. You need a screen that is wider than about 9 feet.

4. You need a screen that is a little less expensive.


For the Silverstar:

1. You need to sit more than 1 or 2 seats off axis, or have seating out to the sides.

2. You need to mount the projector more than a couple of feet higher than your head.


Seems like both screens will have nearly equal performance when used as intended. I use a Silverstar in my current theater, and am planning a second theater, that I believe the High Power may be the best choice.


----------



## Joseph Clark

Well, after doing the final measurements last night, with all the new mounting hardware, it looks like the HP may not work for me after all. Amazing what a tape measure tells you. I may have to go with a SilverStar. I asked this question a little earlier, but didn't get an answer. What exactly are you losing with a SilverStar compared to an HP? Is the viewing cone much larger (or is there even much of a cone at all)?


----------



## millerwill

From what I've heard, the SS has a much wider viewing cone, which is good if you want this, but makes it do less well in rejecting ambient light. The surface of the SS is also reported by some to have a 'sheen', which the HP is supposedly free of.


----------



## Free

The viewing cone is much larger, and works well for me, since I have seating off to the side in my theater. Ambient light rejection is not an issue in my dedicated theater, but I do watch some shows with the lights on at times.


As far as the sheen is concerned, I have found that if the projector is calibrated properly, and light output it properly matched to the size of the screen, it is a non-issue. I even feel that it is not much of an issue when the projector is too bright for the screen.


----------



## rmccormack

you guys see any problems if i put my Z3 off to the side of the screen, it will probably be lens shifted about 30 %, im working with a smaller room and need to have the couch infront of the screen and do not want to ceiling mount.


----------



## KathyMoore

*

will the High Power screen be helpful in a smoke-filled room? I host cigar parties

every couple of weeks. 12 to 18 people, dozens of lit cigars... the smoke usually

gets very bright while the projector is turned on. (Panny AX100) One time it got

so bad, nobody could see anything on the screen.... It was like driving with high-

beams on at night, in heavy fog.... we had to ventilate by opening the basement

door in 20-degree weather....







We went through almost 150 cigars that night.


One of the reasons I'm getting the HP is the brightness...... I figured that a

brighter smoke will overpower the bright smoke.... or will it have the opposite

effect?










thanks for any info!*


----------



## rboster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KathyMoore* /forum/post/0
> 
> *
> 
> will the High Power screen be helpful in a smoke-filled room? I host cigar parties
> 
> every couple of weeks. 12 to 18 people, dozens of lit cigars... the smoke usually
> 
> gets very bright while the projector is turned on. (Panny AX100) One time it got
> 
> so bad, nobody could see anything on the screen.... It was like driving with high-
> 
> beams on at night, in heavy fog.... we had to ventilate by opening the basement
> 
> door in 20-degree weather....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We went through almost 150 cigars that night.
> 
> 
> One of the reasons I'm getting the HP is the brightness...... I figured that a
> 
> brighter smoke will overpower the bright smoke.... or will it have the opposite
> 
> effect?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for any info!*




Kathy: There have been a couple of threads by HT owners who smoke that maybe of interest to you. Before the search engine went down, I found one of them:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=698762


----------



## smithfarmer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I asked this question a little earlier, but didn't get an answer. What exactly are you losing with a SilverStar compared to an HP? Is the viewing cone much larger (or is there even much of a cone at all)?



Yesterday I had answered all of your questions and then some and when I clicked submit reply discovered the servers had crashed and the post was lost. Free has pretty much covered your ?'s in his response but I will give it another go.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'm new to screen research, so I'm open minded on the subject. What about hotspotting, sparkles, consistency of light across the screen surface from different angles with the SilverStar? Is the gain consistent throughout the theater or is it significantly different depending on the seating?
> 
> 
> what would be the obvious disadvantages in choosing a SS?
> 
> 
> I have pretty much a batcave. Ambient light is not a problem.
> 
> 
> One thing I don't care as much for is the look of the fixed wall frames from Da-Lite. I have a very classy Firehawk frame that I'd love to keep. Has anyone attached an HP or SS to an existing frame?



I see absolutely no hotspotting on my 120" diagonal 16:9 SS.


Gain is consistent over the whole screen and there is no perceivable loss in brightness whether I'm sitting front and center in the first row of the theater seats or 60-75 degrees off axis in the extra seating I have along the right wall of my room up front and within 1.3 x SW.


As I move about the room there is no shifting of brightness at all. The viewing cone of the SS is fantastic and probably one of the best of all the high gain screens available. Since you have a bat cave, the HP's performance advantage over the SS in dealing with higher ambient light is of no real value in your situation.


As for aesthetics, when I first got the screen I thought it looked like a piece of art hanging on the wall. I've got the 3.25" black velvet frame and it indeed has a very classy look to it. The ladies definitely like it so it has an excellent WAF. Simply put, it's a great looking screen.


Regarding comments of apparent sheen/sparklies with the SS, I believe it is caused by too many lumens hitting the screen. I know tryg believes you can never have too bright of a screen but I have to disagree. There is such a possibility of having too much of a good thing. When I first got the screen the image was extremely bright. Long viewing sessions would sometime be fatiguing on the eyes.


Something else I noticed was I could occasionally see a very slight sheen on really bright white foamy ocean surf/spray during surfing shows/movies like "Step in to Liquid". I thought this was strange as I couldn't see it on snowy mountain/pasture land scenes, only on ocean surf.


Someone recommended an ND2 filter to cut down the lumens. You have realize that without the filter I was getting the equivalent of around 42 ftls and that is way too high. 12 -16 is the ideal target to shoot for according to SMPTE. I bought the filter and it dropped the ftls to a much more reasonable level of 21 and eliminated the occasional sheen problem for me. YMMV.


The advantages of the HP are:


Lighter on the wallet.


Available in larger screen sizes.


Better ambient light rejection.


Retractable screen option.


The advantages of the SS are:


Flexible PJ placement.


Much wider viewing cone.


Fixed frame screen looks very nice.


____________________________________________________________ _____


Visibility of screen surface. Some see it, some don't.


I have read of complaints about this on the HP as well. So, while not as numerous as with the SS, it's not a forgone conclusion that you won't be bothered by the screen surface of the HP. With that said, I'm more than willing to give the HP the advantage here due to the lesser # of complaints and the fact that I did see it on my screen before installing the ND2 filter.


No matter which screen you are considering, you should view samples in your own room as this will better enable you to make an informed decision.


----------



## javry

just curious. Can you purchase one these screens through the forum? Or do you have to go through a dealer? Any suggestions?


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smithfarmer* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Yesterday I had answered all of your questions and then some and when I clicked submit reply discovered the servers had crashed and the post was lost. Free has pretty much covered your ?'s in his response but I will give it another go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see absolutely no hotspotting on my 120" diagonal 16:9 SS.
> 
> 
> Gain is consistent over the whole screen and there is no perceivable loss in brightness whether I'm sitting front and center in the first row of the theater seats or 60-75 degrees off axis in the extra seating I have along the right wall of my room up front and within 1.3 x SW.
> 
> 
> As I move about the room there is no shifting of brightness at all. The viewing cone of the SS is fantastic and probably one of the best of all the high gain screens available. Since you have a bat cave, the HP's performance advantage over the SS in dealing with higher ambient light is of no real value in your situation.
> 
> 
> As for aesthetics, when I first got the screen I thought it looked like a piece of art hanging on the wall. I've got the 3.25" black velvet frame and it indeed has a very classy look to it. The ladies definitely like it so it has an excellent WAF. Simply put, it's a great looking screen.
> 
> 
> Regarding comments of apparent sheen/sparklies with the SS, I believe it is caused by too many lumens hitting the screen. I know tryg believes you can never have too bright of a screen but I have to disagree. There is such a possibility of having too much of a good thing. When I first got the screen the image was extremely bright. Long viewing sessions would sometime be fatiguing on the eyes.
> 
> 
> Something else I noticed was I could occasionally see a very slight sheen on really bright white foamy ocean surf/spray during surfing shows/movies like "Step in to Liquid". I thought this was strange as I couldn't see it on snowy mountain/pasture land scenes, only on ocean surf.
> 
> 
> Someone recommended an ND2 filter to cut down the lumens. You have realize that without the filter I was getting the equivalent of around 42 ftls and that is way too high. 12 -16 is the ideal target to shoot for according to SMPTE. I bought the filter and it dropped the ftls to a much more reasonable level of 21 and eliminated the occasional sheen problem for me. YMMV.
> 
> 
> The advantages of the HP are:
> 
> 
> Lighter on the wallet.
> 
> 
> Available in larger screen sizes.
> 
> 
> Better ambient light rejection.
> 
> 
> Retractable screen option.
> 
> 
> The advantages of the SS are:
> 
> 
> Flexible PJ placement.
> 
> 
> Much wider viewing cone.
> 
> 
> Fixed frame screen looks very nice.
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________ _____
> 
> 
> Visibility of screen surface. Some see it, some don't.
> 
> 
> I have read of complaints about this on the HP as well. So, while not as numerous as with the SS, it's not a forgone conclusion that you won't be bothered by the screen surface of the HP. With that said, I'm more than willing to give the HP the advantage here due to the lesser # of complaints and the fact that I did see it on my screen before installing the ND2 filter.
> 
> 
> No matter which screen you are considering, you should view samples in your own room as this will better enable you to make an informed decision.



I think AVS was down more yesterday than it was up.


I appreciate the feedback. I thought some more about the positioning of the HP and I think I might be able to make it work. Not ideal, but it might just work. (I wasn't thinking in all three dimensions.)


I started to do some research on the SilverStar by Googling a review. The first thing I came up with was a review by ProjectorCentral. It was less than flattering, in direct comparison to my Firehawk. Has anyone seen this:

Unflattering SilverStar Review 


If I had only this review to go on, I wouldn't even consider the SS.


Vutec has yet to respond to my request for a sample. If it's like the HP, it won't tell me much about hotspotting, sparkles, etc. The HP sample was about 6x6". Seeing gain wasn't a problem, but anything else is really tough to discern.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *javry* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> just curious. Can you purchase one these screens through the forum? Or do you have to go through a dealer? Any suggestions?



Contact Tryg or Jason Turk. They can set you up.


----------



## rto




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *javry* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> just curious. Can you purchase one these screens through the forum? Or do you have to go through a dealer? Any suggestions?



AVS sells Vutec, along with other brands. Click on the "AV Science Product Lines" header at the top right of your screen.


----------



## smithfarmer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I started to do some research on the SilverStar by Googling a review. The first thing I came up with was a review by ProjectorCentral. It was less than flattering, in direct comparison to my Firehawk.



When I was first looking into getting the SS I had to wait until after CES to speak with someone who could answer my questions. Since my office is 3 miles away from their manufacturing facility, I had went over there and found out that all of their reps had went to CES. A lot of these companies do not have a very large support staff and right now due to the holidays and/or getting ready for CES getting info or samples can be tough. Things will be back to normal in a couple of weeks.


As for PC, in my and many other peoples opinions, they are one of the least credible sites for honest, objective and accurate info. Whatever you read there should be taken with many grains of salt.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smithfarmer* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> When I was first looking into getting the SS I had to wait until after CES to speak with someone who could answer my questions. Since my office is 3 miles away from their manufacturing facility, I had went over there and found out that all of their reps had went to CES. A lot of these companies do not have a very large support staff and right now due to the holidays and/or getting ready for CES getting info or samples can be tough. Things will be back to normal in a couple of weeks.
> 
> 
> As for PC, in my and many other peoples opinions, they are one of the least credible sites for honest, objective and accurate info. Whatever you read there should be taken with many grains of salt.



After the many good things I've read about the SS, I was taken aback by the extremely negative comments about sharpness, etc. As I said, I've come up with a way I think I can use the HP and get close to optimum gain. I'll lose a seat in the rear viewing area, but I think my main viewing area should be just a foot or so below lens level.


----------



## kits




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> After the many good things I've read about the SS, I was taken aback by the extremely negative comments about sharpness, etc. As I said, I've come up with a way I think I can use the HP and get close to optimum gain. I'll lose a seat in the rear viewing area, but I think my main viewing area should be just a foot or so below lens level.



That's exactly what my setup will probably look like. I am thinking to get an adjustable pole for my Chief RPA-U mount I got for my RS1 on preorder. When I have several friends and need that extra seat, I will lift the projector up by a feet or two.


----------



## KathyMoore

I'm kind of confused right now.










How does the Da-Lite High Power compare to Carada's "Brilliant White" screen?

133" or 134" screen size, with Panny AX100 projector, moderately dark room.


Thanks!


----------



## smithfarmer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KathyMoore* /forum/post/0
> 
> I'm kind of confused right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does the Da-Lite High Power compare to Carada's "Brilliant White" screen?
> 
> 133" or 134" screen size, with Panny AX100 projector, moderately dark room.
> 
> 
> Thanks!



You might want to discontinue using the white font color. Not everyone uses the AVS Dark theater mode for reading the forum. If they are using the White Theater mode they won't be able to read your posts.


----------



## javry




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KathyMoore* /forum/post/0
> 
> I'm kind of confused right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does the Da-Lite High Power compare to Carada's "Brilliant White" screen?
> 
> 133" or 134" screen size, with Panny AX100 projector, moderately dark room.
> 
> 
> Thanks!



I'd like an answer to this one as well.


----------



## Free

I thought it was a secret message for only those who had the invisible ink dcoder.


----------



## Garman

Joe Clark: I just called them a few minutes ago, talked to the guy for about 20 minutes. I am trying to find a good new screen with my Sony Pearl 1080p projector. Guy was really helpful and stated he would send a piece of material out tomorrow. This is a stiffer material, so not sure if it is easy to just dump in a mailbox, I could be wrong. I was also told that Texas Instruments uses all Vutecs and there will be plenty of people at the CES show that will be displaying these. He also stated that the owner at one time of AVS has a Silverstar, so not sure how good or bad it is, but i won't make any decisions till I see it.


----------



## smithfarmer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Free* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I thought it was a secret message for only those who had the invisible ink dcoder.


----------



## Garman

Joe Clark:


Here is part of the review on the SilverScreen from Vutec. The "Huge" problem I have with there review is they really don't touch on what projectors will benefit with this screen, and to me that would be the most important issue, finding a good match. Now since most not all, new 1080p projectors are lower lumens and the blubs are not as bright as some of the newer 720p projectors, one would think this would be a great match with certain projectors.


Quote from Projection Central:


"If you set up the SilverStar side by side with any other traditional white or gray home theater screen, the SilverStar will look dazzling, and every other screen will look dim. It certainly makes for an impressive demo. But in many important ways it is misleading to present the relative performance of a high gain screen against a low gain screen in this manner. We viewed the SilverStar side by side with the Firehawk, but we also viewed the same material exclusively on each screen in sequence. This latter procedure produces much different results. Viewed with the SilverStar the Firehawk appeared dim, low in contrast and low in color saturation. However standing alone the Firehawk showed very adequate illumination, deeper blacks, better overall contrast, more satisfying color saturation, and superior image sharpness. Furthermore, since it was not overwhelmingly bright the Firehawk was easier to view for hours at a time without developing eye strain and visual fatigue."


To Any Pearl or Ruby Owners out there that have either the SS or the HS, what are your thoughts? My room is about 15 feet across, and about 24 feet long, low ceilings and I am about 15 feet back, looking at a 92" 16x9 fixed screen, projector is about 3-4 feet above my head. No ambient light... I think someone had mentioned that the HS would be better, but I have a sample and I am seeing some difference in brightness but not much from the screen I am using. Easy Vu from Vutec 1.3 gain brightwhite. Thanks for any input!!!!


----------



## kits




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KathyMoore* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'm kind of confused right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does the Da-Lite High Power compare to Carada's "Brilliant White" screen?
> 
> 133" or 134" screen size, with Panny AX100 projector, moderately dark room.
> 
> Thanks!



AX100 is a very bright projector from what I read. Carada BW screen with a gain of 1.4 should work great for 133" screen.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Garman* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Joe Clark:
> 
> 
> Here is part of the review on the SilverScreen from Vutec. The "Huge" problem I have with there review is they really don't touch on what projectors will benefit with this screen, and to me that would be the most important issue, finding a good match. Now since most not all, new 1080p projectors are lower lumens and the blubs are not as bright as some of the newer 720p projectors, one would think this would be a great match with certain projectors.
> 
> 
> Quote from Projection Central:
> 
> 
> "If you set up the SilverStar side by side with any other traditional white or gray home theater screen, the SilverStar will look dazzling, and every other screen will look dim. It certainly makes for an impressive demo. But in many important ways it is misleading to present the relative performance of a high gain screen against a low gain screen in this manner. We viewed the SilverStar side by side with the Firehawk, but we also viewed the same material exclusively on each screen in sequence. This latter procedure produces much different results. Viewed with the SilverStar the Firehawk appeared dim, low in contrast and low in color saturation. However standing alone the Firehawk showed very adequate illumination, deeper blacks, better overall contrast, more satisfying color saturation, and superior image sharpness. Furthermore, since it was not overwhelmingly bright the Firehawk was easier to view for hours at a time without developing eye strain and visual fatigue."
> 
> 
> To Any Pearl or Ruby Owners out there that have either the SS or the HS, what are your thoughts? My room is about 15 feet across, and about 24 feet long, low ceilings and I am about 15 feet back, looking at a 92" 16x9 fixed screen, projector is about 3-4 feet above my head. No ambient light... I think someone had mentioned that the HS would be better, but I have a sample and I am seeing some difference in brightness but not much from the screen I am using. Easy Vu from Vutec 1.3 gain brightwhite. Thanks for any input!!!!



Thanks for the info. I did get the Vutec sample today - a miniagure 4x3 frame with black borders, much larger than the High Power sample I got from Da-Lite. It gave me a good idea about gain and other attributes. I could see a sheen with the SS that I didn't see with the HP. (I thought I saw something on the HP sample, then realized it was just smudges from my handling it so much the last few days.) To my eye, the HP sample looks more natural (no sheen) and the gain appears higher. With the SS I could leave my projector where it is, and the gain would still be good pretty good - definite pluses. OTOH, I really do like the look of the HP better, and the gain seems higher. Also, instructions say you can clean the HP with anything from warm water to Naphtha. The SS looks like it would be possible to permanently damage without too much effort. I could be wrong on this, but I don't think this would be a kid friendly screen. (SS owners correct me if I'm wrong.)


Anyway, I ordered the HP from AVS today, along with some mounting hardware from Chief. Thanks for the Chief tip - they had everything I needed.


Here's going to be my setup in a couple of weeks: Sharp XV-Z20000 1080p DLP projector, 15' from a 110" Da-Lite High Power screen, Cinema Contour frame with Pro-Trim fabric (much like my Stewart Firehawk). The projector will be mounted about a foot above eye level, with the main seats no more than 2' to the left and right. If that's too bright, I'll raise the projector until it isn't.


With this configuration, I'll be able to keep the Sharp in High Contrast mode (over 7500:1).


----------



## milit

Hi all, I was wondering if anyone knows where I can get the best price on a Da-lite High power screen in Canada. Also, I have an Infocus IN76 PJ, anyone else here have a IN76 with a High Power screen? If so, how do they go together?


Thanks


Milit


----------



## smithfarmer

Congratulations Joe,


It sounds like you'll soon have one very nice setup. Enjoy!


----------



## Garman

Congrads Joe: I just got my samples from Da-Lite yesterday comparing the 3 samples they gave me tonight and I must say I still like the screen I have better.. Using a VuTec 1.3 gain Brite White and it looks better to my eye of course. The 3 samples I got from DA-Lite was HP, which was very close to what I have, but seemed a tad darker. The High Contrast Cinema Vision had way too much sheen and I noticed it right away and the DA-MAT was way too dark... If I could find a slightly higher gain Brite White screen I think it would fit my bill with the Pearl.


Joe: also I don't think the sheen would be an issue if your sitting back far enough, up close yes you can see it but if you step back few feet it is hard to pick that up.


milit: Try the local guys on here, stills some of the best pricing I have seen so far. There a couple hundred dollars less than my local dealer.


Looks like this screen might serve me well......

http://www.videoessentials.com/notew...tionscreen.php 


hmmmm or this one?

http://www.stewartfilmscreen.com/Ultramatte150.html


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Garman* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Congrads Joe: I just got my samples from Da-Lite yesterday comparing the 3 samples they gave me tonight and I must say I still like the screen I have better.. Using a VuTec 1.3 gain Brite White and it looks better to my eye of course. The 3 samples I got from DA-Lite was HP, which was very close to what I have, but seemed a tad darker. The High Contrast Cinema Vision had way too much sheen and I noticed it right away and the DA-MAT was way too dark... If I could find a slightly higher gain Brite White screen I think it would fit my bill with the Pearl.
> 
> 
> Joe: also I don't think the sheen would be an issue if your sitting back far enough, up close yes you can see it but if you step back few feet it is hard to pick that up.
> 
> 
> milit: Try the local guys on here, stills some of the best pricing I have seen so far. There a couple hundred dollars less than my local dealer.
> 
> 
> Looks like this screen might serve me well......
> 
> http://www.videoessentials.com/notew...tionscreen.php
> 
> 
> hmmmm or this one?
> 
> http://www.stewartfilmscreen.com/Ultramatte150.html



Funny what different perceptions we have of screens than the numbers would seem to indicate. Depending on my position, the SS seemed in brightness the same as my Firehawk (1.3 gain) to maybe twice as bright. Definitely an improvement, but the sheen bothered me from my normal seating position (about 12'). The HP sample seemed in brightness either the same as the Firehawk (from off axis) to night and day difference. And no sheen that I could tell. Again, though, they provided a very small sample. Still, I didn't see a sheen from anywhere in my seating area. I put the HP and the SS side by side and the difference was dramatic. The HP seemed much brighter. Of course, the angles (angular reflective vs. retro-reflective) make a huge difference in any side by side with these two, but even taking that into account, the HP definitely seemed to have a significant edge in brightness.


Speaking of sheen, I realize after viewing with the HP sample that it has a significant edge over the Firehawk in terms of sheen/sparkles. Of course, I couldn't get any sort of idea about screen uniformity across the entire surface, but the Firehawk definitely falls off in brightness from one edge to the other. And I get color shifts with the Firehawk. As I view text on AVS (yellow on black), I notice how text on the right side of the screen (I sit more on the left) loses color saturation significantly. I do have the first generation Firehawk fabric. It was just being introduced by Stewart when I got my first digital projector. Anyway, from what I've read here, uniformity with the HP ought to be better than with my current screen.


Thanks to everyone here. The advice and tips I've gotten have been extremely helpful. I'll post back after I spend more quality time with the new screen. I still have a few issues, non-screen related, to deal with before my new system is optimized.


----------



## rmccormack

Well I got my samples yesterday and must say i was impressed with the high power even with my sanyo plv-z3 off to the side with the lens shift it still looked very good all the way at the other angle, and near the projector is amazing, definitely blows the greywolf out of the water, no sparklies like i saw on the video spectra sample..only question now is, do i get the model b or c, i was going to get a model b deluxe till i found out you cant flush mount and then was thinking the model c, but i probably raised my screen 2 times in a year with my grey wolf, so i think i might just go with the model B, since this sucker wont be raised in 12 months anyways.


----------



## smithfarmer

Joe,


This may be a silly ? but was the SS sample oriented correctly? Before I bought my screen I got a sample from Vutec and it was in a 16:9 format. On the back were directoinal arrows to make sure that it was properly positioned for testing. I'm sure you had it correct but out of curiosity would you try turning the sample on it's side and describe what it looks like. Thanks.


----------



## Free

True gain on the SS is about 2.4, so twice as bright as the Firehawk seems about right. I went from a Firehawk to the SS and have been ecstatic about the results. My next plan is to try the High Power.


----------



## smithfarmer

Free,


Where did you hear that? That is the first time I've ever seen anyone say the gain is that low. I've always read 2.8 - 3.0 but know of no actual measurements on the SS. I currently don't have a way to measure mine but accurate info would be helpful regarding application of ND filters and other setup aspects. Thanks.


----------



## Free




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smithfarmer* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Free,
> 
> 
> Where did you hear that? That is the first time I've ever seen anyone say the gain is that low. I've always read 2.8 - 3.0 but know of no actual measurements on the SS. I currently don't have a way to measure mine but accurate info would be helpful regarding application of ND filters and other setup aspects. Thanks.



Took some digging, but I found where I read it.

http://www.projectorcentral.com/proj...brightness.htm 


It correlates with what I have observed as well.


----------



## Garman

smithfarmer: What projector are you using and screen? I have a sample of a Vutec SS coming and I currently have samples from DA-Lite. Same with speaker listening I am finding out screen choices are subjective to what "ones eyes like" so far I did not like any of the 3 samples in comparison to the older Vutec Britewhite I have. The only thing I did notice about the HP, is it made the whites on the womens eyes in the movie "Kindom of Heaven" Blu-Ray movie look whiter, but not by much and the rest of the picture seemed darker. I should have the Vutec SS here next week along with some Stweart samples.


Free: Thanks for posting that link, it is useful. Not a big fan of Projectorcentral because they flip flop on there reviews a lot. But they do have some useful info. The Studiotek/SS or even the Firehawk SST might be some different ways to go, Stewart was very helpful on the phone when I called as was Vutec.


----------



## smithfarmer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Free* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Took some digging, but I found where I read it.
> 
> http://www.projectorcentral.com/proj...brightness.htm
> 
> 
> It correlates with what I have observed as well.



Free,


Thanks for the link. I must say that I don't put a lot of faith in PC but I'll give them the benefit of doubt here. Maybe tryg will take some measurements when he gets back from CES and post the results.


----------



## smithfarmer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Garman* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> smithfarmer: What projector are you using and screen?


 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...&post7433773 


It's my first pj and I've had it around 2 years. Time to upgrade and I'm currently on the RS1 preorder list.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kits* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> That's exactly what my setup will probably look like. I am thinking to get an adjustable pole for my Chief RPA-U mount I got for my RS1 on preorder. When I have several friends and need that extra seat, I will lift the projector up by a feet or two.



I actually bought two Chief poles - one only three inches long for company time. The other is a CMS-012-018, which adds an adjustable 12"-18" drop. For those looking, Chief has two lines, CMA and CMS. The A series is simpler and cheaper, while the S series adds quick adjust capabilities and cable channeling.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smithfarmer* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Joe,
> 
> 
> This may be a silly ? but was the SS sample oriented correctly? Before I bought my screen I got a sample from Vutec and it was in a 16:9 format. On the back were directoinal arrows to make sure that it was properly positioned for testing. I'm sure you had it correct but out of curiosity would you try turning the sample on it's side and describe what it looks like. Thanks.



Yes, the SS was oriented properly. I put it on its side and as you might expect, the gain changed as you moved left to right in the room. Move one direction and it darkens, move the other and it brightens slowly to full gain.


----------



## smithfarmer

Joe,


Like I said earlier, I figured you had it correct. When you posted that your sample was a 4:3 AR, the thought crossed my mind that maybe there was a bad batch of samples. Mistakes do happen on occasion










Interesting that when put on the side it behaves like the HP. Curiosity has gotten the better of me and now I'll have to break out my old sample to see this in action.


----------



## Garman

smithfarmer: sweet setup, this will be my 4th projector, had the 10HT Sony/HS20 the HS51 and now the Pearl. Never had any issues with any of them, usually upgrade around every 3 years. Was looking at the RS1, but "I have not seen it" so I ordered the Pearl, similar to what is going on here, a lot of people talking what looks great is fine, makes it easier to narrow things down, but just like speakers, you need to hear them first before you buy, with projectors and screens you need to see them before you buy. I didn't see that much of a difference with the HP and my current view tech, which I had a bigger piece to compare, but I only saw very marginal differences. I am waiting for Stewart samples and the Vutec and should make my the call next week.... Great screen shots of your system, we watch movies mostly in the dark but occasionally we have one light on in back.


----------



## smithfarmer

Garmen,


Thanks for the kind words. I totally agree with seeing/hearing is believing but I must admit that I jumped the gun with the SS as I didn't wait for more samples to compare it with. If I had it to do over though I'd still pick the SS. Very happy with it. Everyone perceptions are different and all I can say is that it's great we have the choices that are available.










There were a few people claiming the SS totally washed out with any kind of ambient light and I felt the SS was being unjustly maligned. So those screenshots were taken to illustrate how it performs under differing amounts of ambient lighting and as you can see, it does quite well.


----------



## spann-man

smithfarmer,


Are going to mount the RS1 directly infront of the screen and use the HP or are you going to ceiling mount the HP and not get the full gain out of the HP? I am on the RS1 preorder also and am considering the HP and ceiling mounting the unit based on someone elses recommendation. Just curious for your thought on this as I am not completely convinced about this setup. Another issue in my case is that this will be a drop down screen and not fixed.


----------



## Garman

smithfarmer: I take it all back what I said about the DA-LITE HS... Fricking wow!!!I am viewing some 1080p screen shots and it looks awesome, I was viewing it too close, I finally stepped back to my sitting position and bingo... Wow... More punch to the picture and that is what I was looking for. Basically it is like putting the Pearl I am using in High light mode without effecting the black levels. This is the winner so far for me, but I have other samples coming soon from Stewart and Vutec. My only concern is when I stand up the sample piece gets brighter.


----------



## spann-man

Garman,


What is your veiwing angle? I am probably looking at about a 15 to 17 degree viewing angle and am wondering if this is really the way to go form my setup as I am limited someone on screen materials due to my setup being a drop down. I have also heard the HP is less prone to waves than other materials and that is also a factor for me.


Thanks


----------



## Garman

spann-man: Viewing angle isn't bad at all on my setup, the only thing I did notice about the HP is when I stood up it got brighter, which seemed odd, because then I was looking down at the sample piece.


----------



## Free

I am just about to order one of these, and I have a sample on the way. Are there any thoughts as to the advantages, or lack of difference between the varying housing options for this material?


I am looking at Fixed, Manually Retractable, and Electric screen solutions, and am hearing that this material does not need tensioning, but I am concerned, because I hated the wrinkles in my Firehawk, so I don't want to end up with something that is bothering me.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Free* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I am just about to order one of these, and I have a sample on the way. Are there any thoughts as to the advantages, or lack of difference between the varying housing options for this material?
> 
> 
> I am looking at Fixed, Manually Retractable, and Electric screen solutions, and am hearing that this material does not need tensioning, but I am concerned, because I hated the wrinkles in my Firehawk, so I don't want to end up with something that is bothering me.



My Firehawk is virtually perfect with the frame I chose. That was about 5 years ago, when Stewart first introduced it. I chose the Cinema Contour with Pro-Trim for the HP that I just ordered, because it looked as though that fixed frame style would be very close to the FH in appearance. I read a post about someone having trouble getting the snaps to fit on his HP Da-Lite fixed frame. Since it's such a rigid fabric, that could be a real problem. I haven't gotten shipping confirmation yet for the HP, but it's going up just about as soon as it gets here. I'll report back.


----------



## Free

My Firehawk, was an electric tensioned retractable. Although the tensioning worked, it was not perfect, especially if I rolled it up. I would spend hours using a hair dryer, to try to get the wrinkles out after it had been rolled up for a while.


I would go fixed, but I want to keep my Silverstar behind it for when I have a full room with off angle viewing.


----------



## smithfarmer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Free* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I would go fixed, but I want to keep my Silverstar behind it for when I have a full room with off angle viewing.



Same here, I plan on using the SS for 16:9 content and the HP will be strictly for 2.35:1 movies.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Garman* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Viewing angle isn't bad at all on my setup, the only thing I did notice about the HP is when I stood up it got brighter, which seemed odd, because then I was looking down at the sample piece.



Is your pj is ceiling mounted? If it is, that is the reason why it gets brighter when you stand up as your eyes are closer to the pj and the retro-reflective nature of the HP is directing the light back towards where it came from.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spann-man* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> smithfarmer,
> 
> 
> Are going to mount the RS1 directly infront of the screen and use the HP or are you going to ceiling mount the HP and not get the full gain out of the HP?



The RS1 will definitely be ceiling mounted as I want it up and out of the way. I am curious to hear how Joe's setup works out since that might be a viable option.


It will a couple of months before I do anything concerning the HP screen as I have to wait for the RS1 to ship and then put some time on the lamp before sending it out for calibration.


----------



## Garman

smithfarmer: You got it PJ is about 3-4 feet above my head (Ceiling mount) ...... I have other samples coming next week. My frickin Direct TV Tivo unit died so I am in process of fixing that while I look for screens. So far the SS looks great, just wondering if the HP will be problematic if the brightness changes that much from differnet viewing angles.


----------



## spann-man

Someone correct me if I am wrong. I will have the RS1 about 4 feet above my head as several others have stated. My veiwing angle will be roughly 15 degrees (waiting on info on the RS1 mount). I will give up most of the gain of the HP but at worse it will be a 1.0 gain at most veiwing positions?? At least the 1.3 gain would help some and be similar in gain to a Studiotek 130 which is what I was leaning toward before.


Being out of the veiwing cone, I assume that will also elimiate any potential hotspotting. Are there any other issues to be concerned with re: the HP if you are outside of the viewing cone. Any other suggestions on alterative high gain screens for a manual/electric dropdown for this application. Prefer not to spend a ton as it is a short term installations as I will move in the next 2 years and plan to go to a fixed screen at that point.


----------



## Garman

spann-man: It was my understanding that the HP Da-Lite is 2.8 gain, of course this changes on depending on setup etc.. I have a fixed screen and I am looking at high gain screen for the Sony Pearl, so far the HP is the best I have seen so far. There is a Vutec coming soon, that I will try, the SS.


----------



## milit

Today I ordered a High Power Screen from Da-lite and I should have it in about two weeks. After reading TRYG's comments/review and seeing the accompanying screen shots, I just had to have it. I probably should have asked some questions about proper setup first and now I am wondering if made a mistake. I have a low ceiling ( six feet, nine inches or 81 inches total). My Proj is ceiling mounted and has a 115 degree offset which, I understand, means that the image is projected downward about 15 inches from the center of the proj lens. I am not sure, but this offset is not something I can eliminate. This brings me to my dilema: Since I have to live with the offset, I can't table mount becasue the image would be too low and I cetainly don't have the height to even think about it. I keep reading that table mounting is ideal for high power, but is there any way my setup could possibly work with a ceiling mount?


The rest of my set up is this: On my 81 inch high wall/sceen, and with tilting the proj upward a bit, the top of the image is 8 inches from the ceiling while the bottom of the image is 11 inches from the floor. The Proj is installed about five inches down from the ceiling. My seating arrangement is such that the Proj is about about two feet behind and three feet above my head. I would really appreciate any comment from Tryg or anyone else on this matter.



Thanks, Milit


----------



## Joseph Clark

I can't wait to get the HP! Tonight I experimented a little more with my Sharp 20000 projector and was getting very good brightness in High Contrast mode (iris closed fully), with the lamp set to high, on the Firehawk. With the HP and the close-to-eye-level I'll be able to set it, I should have plenty of brightness in economy lamp mode (saving roughly 1000 hours on the lamp life) and maximum contrast. With the cost of the Sharp lamp ($600), that makes the HP an even better investment. If I always use the Sharp in high lamp mode, by the time it gets to 1500 hours, the image will be unacceptably dim. In economy mode, the lamp maintains more of an even brightness over its lifetime, which should be extended from 2000 to 3000 hours. Add to this the ability to adjust gain for the HP simply by raising and lowering the projector and it begins to look like a way of keeping fairly uniform brightness over a lamp's life, while at the same time saving money on lamps. (We'll see if this theory plays out in real life.)


If I can get hold of a digital camera, I'd like to do a few comparison shots between the SS and the HP. Depending on the orientation, you get radically different impressions with the HP sample flat on top of the larger SS sample. Put your head near the light source (retro-reflective posture) and the HP looks like a snowy field next to a dull gray strip. Move your head down and orient the SS for maximum gain (angular-reflective posture) and the SS has the advantage in brightness. All in all, though, if you can get the right angle, I still prefer the HP for whiteness/brightness. If the surface is as uniform as reported, I know I'm going to love it.


----------



## Imageek2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *milit* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Today I ordered a High Power Screen from Da-lite and I should have it in about two weeks. After reading TRYG's comments/review and seeing the accompanying screen shots, I just had to have it. I probably should have asked some questions about proper setup first and now I am wondering if made a mistake. I have a low ceiling ( six feet, nine inches or 81 inches total). My Proj is ceiling mounted and has a 115 degree offset which, I understand, means that the image is projected downward about 15 inches from the center of the proj lens. I am not sure, but this offset is not something I can eliminate. This brings me to my dilema: Since I have to live with the offset, I can't table mount becasue the image would be too low and I cetainly don't have the height to even think about it. I keep reading that table mounting is ideal for high power, but is there any way my setup could possibly work with a ceiling mount?
> 
> 
> The rest of my set up is this: On my 81 inch high wall/sceen, and with tilting the proj upward a bit, the top of the image is 8 inches from the ceiling while the bottom of the image is 11 inches from the floor. The Proj is installed about five inches down from the ceiling. My seating arrangement is such that the Proj is about about two feet behind and three feet above my head. I would really appreciate any comment from Tryg or anyone else on this matter.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, Milit



How far back from the screen is your seating. We can calculate the gain with that and the distance between your eyes and the projector.


----------



## Garman

Milit: I have almost a similar setup I was impressed with how much gain you get, but my PJ is about my head about 3-4 feet, and my projector does also project down, and I notice when I stand up the sample piece got much brighter, so I have some concerns about ordering this screen and will look into some other options before I decide.


----------



## mlang46

Thanl you for suppling the retroreflecting gain curves on the highpower Da-lite. I am going to a 2:35 screen which will be 49 by 115 inches from my 49 by 87 inch Stewart Firehawk. I have considered a curved screen but thought that a retro-reflective screen would be better for ambient light rejection. the reflective screen is fine but as you go to a wider viewing angle the light will reflect horizontally away from you and a curved screen become almost a necessity. the curved screen are not curved enough to direct the normal of the screen surface toward the center of your seating position.


I have my screen in th eliving room and most of the ambient light is coming from the side windows. the projector sits two feet above my head and I am 14ft from the screen. this gives me a 10 degree viewing angle.


thanks again


----------



## milit




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Imageek2* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> How far back from the screen is your seating. We can calculate the gain with that and the distance between your eyes and the projector.



Imageek2, thanks for responding. My seating position is 14 feet from the screen.


Milit


----------



## milit




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Garman* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Milit: I have almost a similar setup I was impressed with how much gain you get, but my PJ is about my head about 3-4 feet, and my projector does also project down, and I notice when I stand up the sample piece got much brighter, so I have some concerns about ordering this screen and will look into some other options before I decide.



Garman, I noticed the increased in brightness when I stand up too. However, the sample was still noticeably brighter thant my present screen (goo paint) and all the other samples I had up. It was also clear that colors were much more vibrant on the HP. Dark scenes did seem a bit washed out though, but I don't know if that is attributable to the size of the sample as compared to the background surface. I hope I have made the right choice. BTW, what other screens are you considering?


----------



## Free

Those of you who got samples, how fast did you get them after requesting them from Da-lite. I want to get my screen ordered, but need to wait for the sample to be sure it is the right thing to do.


----------



## milit




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Free* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Those of you who got samples, how fast did you get them after requesting them from Da-lite. I want to get my screen ordered, but need to wait for the sample to be sure it is the right thing to do.



Freee, I sent an e-mail requesting samples and seven days later I had them--lots of them--and I live in Canada. Hope you get yours soon.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Free* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Those of you who got samples, how fast did you get them after requesting them from Da-lite. I want to get my screen ordered, but need to wait for the sample to be sure it is the right thing to do.



Mine came in just 2-3 days.


----------



## Free

Cool guy's, Thanks.


----------



## Garman

milit: Considering Vutec SS screen, might be way too bright for my environment, we will see sample coming soon along with some pieces from Stewart. Studiotek and a few others. The only thing I am worried about is that if I go with the HP that it will look brighter in one area verses another and won't be uniform, I am about 15 feet away, PJ is 3 feet above my head. Current Vutec looks good, but I wan't something with more pop too it. Using a Sony Pearl which I am very impressed with.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Garman* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> milit: Considering Vutec SS screen, might be way too bright for my environment, we will see sample coming soon along with some pieces from Stewart. Studiotek and a few others. The only thing I am worried about is that if I go with the HP that it will look brighter in one area verses another and won't be uniform, I am about 15 feet away, PJ is 3 feet above my head. Current Vutec looks good, but I wan't something with more pop too it. Using a Sony Pearl which I am very impressed with.



I hope the brightness doesn't vary from one part of the screen to another. If so, it goes against what a lot of people here have claimed is one of the screen's strengths. It may dim from one angle to another, but it's supposed to dim evenly across the screen - without hotspotting. One thing I think I can tell from the holding the SS and the HP samples together and moving them around at relative angles to the light is that this seems to be the case with the HP. The SS, on the other hand, looks as though it might be uneven. There's definitely a sheen that isn't present with the HP. If you get samples of both, try superimposing the HP on top of the larger SS sample and move it around. I think you'll be surprised how evenly the HP changes.


----------



## Joseph Clark

I just found out something about the HP and SS. I got a smudge on the HP, so I brought in a cloth and some water and wiped it off. At first, it looked as though it would leave awful streaks, but it dried perfectly. OTOH, I applied a little fingernail to what looked like a tiny black spot on the surface. Big mistake - permanently scratched, and not with a lot of effort. That spot, though, was an actual flaw in the surface - a superficial "tear." When I tried to duplicate the scratch in a different area, I couldn't do it, even with a lot more fingernail force applied. I thought the SS looked more immune to such attacks, so I scratched away just as with the HP. The marks my nail left were obvious - as though I had buffed shiny a dull finish. The HP was actually a little more immune to such abrasions than the SS, but I wouldn't want to have a rowdy bunch of kids too near either of them. I suppose that's true of all screens, though.


----------



## jutty

Trying to get a hold of samples let alone trying to find anywhere who has a whole screen is almost impossible here in Perth Australia. Need to find someone who has a HP and SS sample they no longer need who would be willing to ship for me (i'll pay for postage of course).


Shipping a hp will more than likley be cheaper because it can be rolled up but with my hs50 roof mounted and seating I may have to get the SS.


How bad and how many people see sparklies.


----------



## Imageek2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *milit* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Imageek2, thanks for responding. My seating position is 14 feet from the screen.
> 
> 
> Milit



At 14 ' back and 36" from eyes to projector you will be around a 12 degree viewing angle. You should see some very nice gain with the HP, lots of pop.


----------



## milit




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Imageek2* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> At 14 ' back and 36" from eyes to projector you will be around a 12 degree viewing angle. You should see some very nice gain with the HP, lots of pop.



Thanks Imageek, I don't know how you calculated the above but it sounds great. I can't wait to get my screen and put it to the test. I am so afraid I might have to watch all my movies all over again since the HP seems to reveal so much more details that was previously hidden.


----------



## milit




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I just found out something about the HP and SS. I got a smudge on the HP, so I brought in a cloth and some water and wiped it off. At first, it looked as though it would leave awful streaks, but it dried perfectly. OTOH, I applied a little fingernail to what looked like a tiny black spot on the surface. Big mistake - permanently scratched, and not with a lot of effort. That spot, though, was an actual flaw in the surface - a superficial "tear." When I tried to duplicate the scratch in a different area, I couldn't do it, even with a lot more fingernail force applied. I thought the SS looked more immune to such attacks, so I scratched away just as with the HP. The marks my nail left were obvious - as though I had buffed shiny a dull finish. The HP was actually a little more immune to such abrasions than the SS, but I wouldn't want to have a rowdy bunch of kids too near either of them. I suppose that's true of all screens, though.



Joseph Clark, this is good to know. I will be very careful around the HP


----------



## milit




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Garman* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> milit: Considering Vutec SS screen, might be way too bright for my environment, we will see sample coming soon along with some pieces from Stewart. Studiotek and a few others. The only thing I am worried about is that if I go with the HP that it will look brighter in one area verses another and won't be uniform, I am about 15 feet away, PJ is 3 feet above my head. Current Vutec looks good, but I wan't something with more pop too it. Using a Sony Pearl which I am very impressed with.



Garman, I was interested in the SS too but the price ruled it out. I hope the HP has uniform brightness because that would be unbearable. From what I have read that doesn't seem to be a trait though. I guess I will find out in about a week or so.


----------



## Joseph Clark

I just got tracking confirmation that my screen arrived this evening in Fort Wayne, Indiana, not too far from St. Louis. It should be here by the end of the week. It's going up ASAP. My Chief mounting gear should be here soon, too, but I don't know if it will come in time to put it up this weekend. I won't be able to tell too much, but one experiment I intend to try is placing the HP and the Firehawk side by side for a while to see how they compare with the projector in its current position (high shelf mount, about 7' high and just below the top of the screen - my head at about the bottom of the screen - 110" screen). That'll give me a good idea about HP gain in a less than optimal arrangement.


----------



## Garman

milit/Joeseph Clark: Well I did a extensive screen test last night, if you could call it that with the limited about of material they give you







Stewart was very kind and sent me 5 different pieces of screen material. Studiotek 130, Ultramatte 130,150, 200 and Firekhawk SST and then I had a couple from DA-LITE and the Vutec SS.. I must say which I found odd, is that all the pieces from Stewart didn't seem to make any improvements to the picture at all, in fact the Studiotek 130 and my current Vutec where so close I could not tell the difference. The brightest of course was the VuTec SS and a very very close second was the DA-LITE HP, it was a toss up between these two, but the DA-Lite HP won me over because it did not have that sheen on bright sceens in movies and pictures, used Blu-Ray as source material and some high-Res pictures.. So it looks like I will be going the HP route with a thicker boarder....


----------



## romanesq

Just got the HP and replaced a similar sized 106" Optoma Graywolf mated with the Sony Pearl.

The HP is just an impressive screen. The smoothness and corner to corner consistency is just amazing.


All the chatter about the cone has been interesting but the Graywolf actually showed more change in moving around than the HP based on my room setup: 30 feet long by 11 feet wide. Obviously my room is just about perfect for the HP due to its narrow width but thus far all I can say is there is no hype to the value and performance of Da-lite's HP.


It's that good.


----------



## Makomachine

romanesq - How is your PJ mounted and what's the distance from the viewer to the lens? Still stuck on what to do with the new RS1 and figured out a way to shelf mount at the back of the room if I had to...


----------



## milit




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I just got tracking confirmation that my screen arrived this evening in Fort Wayne, Indiana, not too far from St. Louis. It should be here by the end of the week. It's going up ASAP. My Chief mounting gear should be here soon, too, but I don't know if it will come in time to put it up this weekend. I won't be able to tell too much, but one experiment I intend to try is placing the HP and the Firehawk side by side for a while to see how they compare with the projector in its current position (high shelf mount, about 7' high and just below the top of the screen - my head at about the bottom of the screen - 110" screen). That'll give me a good idea about HP gain in a less than optimal arrangement.



Joseph Clark, I hope you get your screen by the weekend so you can conduct your experiments/comparisons. If you get the chance, please post some pics.


----------



## milit




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Garman* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> milit/Joeseph Clark: Well I did a extensive screen test last night, if you could call it that with the limited about of material they give you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stewart was very kind and sent me 5 different pieces of screen material. Studiotek 130, Ultramatte 130,150, 200 and Firekhawk SST and then I had a couple from DA-LITE and the Vutec SS.. I must say which I found odd, is that all the pieces from Stewart didn't seem to make any improvements to the picture at all, in fact the Studiotek 130 and my current Vutec where so close I could not tell the difference. The brightest of course was the VuTec SS and a very very close second was the DA-LITE HP, it was a toss up between these two, but the DA-Lite HP won me over because it did not have that sheen on bright sceens in movies and pictures, used Blu-Ray as source material and some high-Res pictures.. So it looks like I will be going the HP route with a thicker boarder....



Hi garman, it's reassuring to hear that the HP performed so well as I should be receiving mine in about a week or so. I just can't wait.


----------



## milit




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *romanesq* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Just got the HP and replaced a similar sized 106" Optoma Graywolf mated with the Sony Pearl.
> 
> The HP is just an impressive screen. The smoothness and corner to corner consistency is just amazing.
> 
> 
> All the chatter about the cone has been interesting but the Graywolf actually showed more change in moving around than the HP based on my room setup: 30 feet long by 11 feet wide. Obviously my room is just about perfect for the HP due to its narrow width but thus far all I can say is there is no hype to the value and performance of Da-lite's HP.
> 
> 
> It's that good.



Interesting that your room size is just about the same as mine. From your comments, I am even more excited about getting my HP.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *milit* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Joseph Clark, I hope you get your screen by the weekend so you can conduct your experiments/comparisons. If you get the chance, please post some pics.



I'll try to get hold of a digital camera. Mine is on the fritz right now.


----------



## romanesq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *milit* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Interesting that your room size is just about the same as mine. From your comments, I am even more excited about getting my HP.



You have absolutely nothing to be concerned about then. Of the few screens I've used, the HP is absolutely superb in its consistency across the board. And that's my most neutral endorsement.


I'm much more impressed with it.


----------



## milit




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *romanesq* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> You have absolutely nothing to be concerned about then. Of the few screens I've used, the HP is absolutely superb in its consistency across the board. And that's my most neutral endorsement.
> 
> 
> I'm much more impressed with it.



NICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Garman

milit: I will be ordering mine this week, I have a narrow room and I won't have the problem of it falling off viewing from the side. The only thing that concerns me, I have no keystoning yet but might have to with this next screen since it is larger and the PJ will have to be pointed down more now. Still the brightness is about double or more as is, just hope it doesn't drop off too much because I have to change the degree of viewing,


----------



## spann-man

I am considering the HP with an RS1 ceiling mounted (not ideal, I know) in a non-dedicated room with white cielings. Any thoughts and to advantages/disadvantages as to how the HP will be affected by the reflections off of the cieling. I am assuming that the HP will be better at rejecting this stray light but would just like someone to confirm.


Thanks


----------



## Garman

spann-man: Depending on your environment the HP will be a good fit with the RS-1, that being said the Sony and RS-1 have low lumens so one would think these types of screens could only help. If I didn't have such bad luck with JVC products in the past, I might have boughten the RS-1... The SS would also work well even in ambient light, some one posted some good pics of light changes and what the SS looks like and it did a great job, the only problem I have with the SS screen is you need to be sitting back about 20 feet otherwise you see the sheen affect is what I call it in the screen. Good luck.........


----------



## Tryg

It will do the best of reflecting ceiling reflections. After you get it and fall in love with it. Then paint the room a little darker. You'll add $10,000 to the performance of your system.


Make sure you mount the projector as far back as you can and as low as you can


----------



## Joseph Clark

Welcome back, Tryg. There's been a lot of activity here since you ducked into CES.


----------



## spann-man

Tryg,


I assume you meant to say it would do the best job of "rejecting" ceiling reflections. I will probably have about a 15 degree veiwing angle with the projector depending upon the mount which should give me a little gain at worst. Another reason I am looking at the HP is its ability to resist waves in the screen.


I know this is off topic but is there a ceiling mount that would work with the RS-1 that would allow it to rotate or telescope down a few feet during operation and be raised back up for storage? It would have to be sturdy and lock into the same position each time. This might be an option to get the most out of the HP.


Thanks


----------



## Vinylvision




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spann-man* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> ... I know this is off topic but is there a ceiling mount that would work with the RS-1 that would allow it to rotate or telescope down a few feet during operation and be raised back up for storage? ...



You might want to investigate Draper scissor lifts. I used a SL8 with my G90. Now Draper makes less expensive models that work with lighter projectors. AVS is a Draper dealer.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spann-man* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Tryg,
> 
> 
> I assume you meant to say it would do the best job of "rejecting" ceiling reflections. I will probably have about a 15 degree veiwing angle with the projector depending upon the mount which should give me a little gain at worst. Another reason I am looking at the HP is its ability to resist waves in the screen.
> 
> 
> I know this is off topic but is there a ceiling mount that would work with the RS-1 that would allow it to rotate or telescope down a few feet during operation and be raised back up for storage? It would have to be sturdy and lock into the same position each time. This might be an option to get the most out of the HP.
> 
> 
> Thanks



Or check out Chiefmfg.com. Someone provided me with the link and I found just what I was looking for there. Be aware that they have two basic series of mounts - CMA and CMS. The CMA series is more basic, but the CMS uses what they call Speed-Connect, which allows for quicker changes. That's what I ordered. It should be here next week.


----------



## Joseph Clark

I lost about 5 pounds tonight getting the High Power screen attached to a Cinema Contour frame. I have to say that the fit and finish of the Firehawk is much better than the High Power. Holes don't quite line up exactly, and following the directions for mounting the screen to the frame left me huffing and puffing, not to mention dripping sweat all over the thing.


The first snaps go on pretty easily, but according to the instructions you're supposed to attach all the snaps while the screen and the frame are on a clean surface. I prepared the floor and tried to do as the instructions indicated. Half an hour later, with only about a third of the snaps in place, I gave up and leaned the frame and screen carefully against the the wall, with the snaps already attached along the top and the the black screen surface facing out. Getting the remainder of the snaps to fit was pretty easy after that. I might have had a stroke if I'd continued to try to do it the way the instructions indicated.


After all that, I didn't have time to mount it on the wall. That's tomorrow, if we don't lose our power here in St. Louis with the ice storm moving in.


----------



## Dizzyboy

Tryg, your review is very exciting to read. I just purchased a Sanyo Z5 and am about to get a screen, Until reading this thread, I was planning for a Carada BW, but the Da-Lite sounds like something I should really be looking at. My question is, if I get a 120 inch HP and the seating are is around 12 feet from the screen (with the projector shelf-mounted behind us), is there a chanace that the HP will be *too* bright in that situation (as in, either uncomfrotable or distorting)?


----------



## milit




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I lost about 5 pounds tonight getting the High Power screen attached to a Cinema Contour frame. I have to say that the fit and finish of the Firehawk is much better than the High Power. Holes don't quite line up exactly, and following the directions for mounting the screen to the frame left me huffing and puffing, not to mention dripping sweat all over the thing.
> 
> 
> The first snaps go on pretty easily, but according to the instructions you're supposed to attach all the snaps while the screen and the frame are on a clean surface. I prepared the floor and tried to do as the instructions indicated. Half an hour later, with only about a third of the snaps in place, I gave up and leaned the frame and screen carefully against the the wall, with the snaps already attached along the top and the the black screen surface facing out. Getting the remainder of the snaps to fit was pretty easy after that. I might have had a stroke if I'd continued to try to do it the way the instructions indicated.
> 
> 
> After all that, I didn't have time to mount it on the wall. That's tomorrow, if we don't lose our power here in St. Louis with the ice storm moving in.




Joseph Clark, I am gald you got your screen in time for the weekend, however, I am sorrry about the problems you encountered while mounting it. I hope this is not a common occurrence. Don't forget to report back once you get things sorted out.


----------



## Garman

Tryg: What screen where you talking about in your last post? HP or SS? I have low ceilings white walls for now, that is changing this summer. Projector is right above our heads and about 15 feet from the screen. I tried all shorts of other materials and the only things that made a huge improvement where the HS and SS, the SS had a tad more brightness but had a sheen to it that I did not like on bright scenes in movies etc... The only thing I notices about the HP is it brightened up a tad when standing up, but had a smoother film like performance to it.. Ironically I did not notice any difference between the VuTec Bright White Easy Vu and the Stewart Studiotek 130. Thanks again for the good thread on screens and everyones input!


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *milit* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Joseph Clark, I am gald you got your screen in time for the weekend, however, I am sorrry about the problems you encountered while mounting it. I hope this is not a common occurrence. Don't forget to report back once you get things sorted out.



My fingers are still sore from struggling with the snaps. Here's the funny thing, though - once I got most of the top row snaps in place and turned the screen on edge, against the wall, it was easy. (Of course I struggled for over half an hour before I decided I had to try something different.) I could see what I was doing and I could get a good grip. Trying to follow the directions (with the screen and the frame flat on the floor) made it very difficult after the first snaps were in place. I just had to be careful not to let the screen fold or fall against anything sharp. Maybe that's what they are afraid of, but the directions made the assembly almost impossible. Today I have to clean the dried sweat from the screen. Experience with the sample tells me that should be easy.


I hesitate to say all this, for fear someone will try what I did and have a scratched screen on their hands. I'd be interested in finding out how attaching the screen to the frame went for others who are using a Cinema Contour.


I should also mention that it took just about a minute or two to get the rest of the snaps in place once I repositioned the frame against a wall. (I put some of the flexible foam packing on the frame so its coating wouldn't rub off against the wall.) Also, it looks every bit as good as the Stewart Firehawk did when I set it up - smooth and wrinkle free. And the HP has a black screen backing, while the Firehawk doesn't (at least mine doesn't).


----------



## ericsilv

i had similar problems i have a permwall mount 133 diag. snaps were very difficult to get on . good thing with permwall frame is attached to wall so yo you don't have to lay screen on floor and risk scratching it. i attached the top snaps first then let material hang an went around an snapped the rest. yes i also had sweat drip on screen . maybe they need to package a sweat band with screen like carada give you cotton gloves. i also took a large pair of long nose pliers covered them with a rubber strip and used this to pull the screen hard and another person to push the snap down . as the frame was firmly fixed to the wall thru studs the frame did not flex or give . the end result is perfect no waves i cant believe the people who cut the material themselves and stretch it pull it anywere near as tight. also when i spoke to dalite they said make sure the screen is warm before stretching


----------



## milit

Wow, sounds like a nightmare!!! I haven't had the previlege of installing my screen as yet but when I receive my HP in about a week, at least I know what to expect. I have the Permwall on order. If there are any other tips to make this any easier, please post!!!!!!!


Thanks.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ericsilv* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> i had similar problems i have a permwall mount 133 diag. snaps were very difficult to get on . good thing with permwall frame is attached to wall so yo you don't have to lay screen on floor and risk scratching it. i attached the top snaps first then let material hang an went around an snapped the rest. yes i also had sweat drip on screen . maybe they need to package a sweat band with screen like carada give you cotton gloves. i also took a large pair of long nose pliers covered them with a rubber strip and used this to pull the screen hard and another person to push the snap down . as the frame was firmly fixed to the wall thru studs the frame did not flex or give . the end result is perfect no waves i cant believe the people who cut the material themselves and stretch it pull it anywere near as tight. also when i spoke to dalite they said make sure the screen is warm before stretching



Just to be clear, the screen is face up on the floor when you're doing all this, not face down. I can't imagine the damage you'd inflict on the screen and the frame if they were face down. I wouldn't call it a nightmare, but it would have been if I'd continued to struggle with trying to get the snaps in place in its original orientation on the floor. If you can get it up on edge when the screen is secure enough not to bend and sway against the wall or objects in the room, it becomes quite easy. The end result looks great.


One other note - the HP is indeed going to be flat against the wall when I'm finished. The Stewart screen actually protrudes from the wall, since its mounting hardware is substantially different than the Da-Lite hardware. The Da-Lite hardware is extremely simple for my 110" screen - one long bracket (wall mounted) at the top, that the frame slips onto via a groove in the frame's back, and two small brackets attached to the bottom of the frame that screw into the wall.


----------



## millerwill

Joe, Can you tell how far out from the wall the screen material is when you have mounted the frame right against the wall? (I have to mount mine over a window frame, so will need to use some wooden spacer blocks, and thus need to decide how thick they need to be so that the screen material clears the window frame.) Bill


----------



## Free

Can you put the edge of the frame against the wall, while still laying flat on the floor, or slightly tilted, or is there an advantage to having it completely vertical when pulling the material?


I ask, because I am going to be getting a fixed one, and want to be prepared once I get it.


Of course, I am still waiting for my sample material... over a week now, so I haven't ordered the screen yet.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Joe, Can you tell how far out from the wall the screen material is when you have mounted the frame right against the wall? (I have to mount mine over a window frame, so will need to use some wooden spacer blocks, and thus need to decide how thick they need to be so that the screen material clears the window frame.) Bill



The screen fabric attaches directly to the back of the frame with snaps. I won't be able to put it up until later today (if all goes well), but it looks like the fabric will be almost flush against the wall. I have a closed air vent behind the Firehawk, so I'll have to do something similar to what you will with the window frame. It has an adjustment lever that sticks out. I may end up using spacers, too.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Free* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Can you put the edge of the frame against the wall, while still laying flat on the floor, or slightly tilted, or is there an advantage to having it completely vertical when pulling the material?
> 
> 
> I ask, because I am going to be getting a fixed one, and want to be prepared once I get it.
> 
> 
> Of course, I am still waiting for my sample material... over a week now, so I haven't ordered the screen yet.



I got the first snaps in place with the screen and frame flat on the floor. In this orientation, the screen and its snaps are face up, with the frame's snap receptacles pointing down. (So, both screen and frame fronts are NOT touching the floor. Under no circumstances should you lay the screen's face or the frame's face onto the floor.) I got the top row snapped and a few on the sides. Then, I was stuck. I just couldn't see or get enough leverage to line up the other snaps. Once I shifted the screen to the wall, it couldn't have gone much easier. I just had to be careful not to let the fabric buckle and sway against anything while I did that.


You have to be very careful not to scratch the surface of the screen. I don't think it can be repaired once the coating is scraped off. If anyone has a better way of doing this, please post. I'm sure it will help a lot of people.


----------



## rmccormack

well i just got my hi power and woah this sucker is bright! it looks like im watching a huge plasma screen, just in time to see da bears play new orleans


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rmccormack* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> well i just got my hi power and woah this sucker is bright! it looks like im watching a huge plasma screen, just in time to see da bears play new orleans



Screen size, pj, mounting location of pj, etc.? And do you LIKE it?


----------



## rmccormack

106" i have a Sanyo Z3, screen is off to the side of a 3 person couch directly behind the screen, screen is on a shelf rack in the center of the screen, about 12 ft back, its great...i do want more contrast ratio now though, but im watching Band of Brothers on DVD now and it looks excellent...im also a bit close i think for a 106"

i sit about 7-8 ft away, haha


----------



## rmccormack

I took a quick photo from my recliner just a big off to the side of the projector, still very bright....sorry for the blur, as you can see i sit pretty close to the screen


----------



## Joseph Clark

I got the High Power up today (well, yesterday). I wasn't able to take any photos before and after - no access to a camera and I had to take advantage of help today to do the mounting. My Chief mounting gear is not here yet, so no opportunity to drop the pj down from the high shelf mount. I have watched a fair number of shows that I know well from the secondary seating position, which is about 3' down from the projector. Here are just a few initial observations.


Setup: 110" High Power with Cinema Contour frame, bottom about 30" off the floor. Projector is 15' back, primary viewing area is 12' back, seats about 1-1 1/2' inside the screen edges, eye level is close to the bottom of the screen. Secondary viewing area is about 16' back, roughly 8-12" higher. Projection lens is just below the top of the screen.


1. From my secondary seating position (about 3' directly under the projector, which is on a high shelf mount) I am able to drop the Sharp 20000 from medium iris to minimum iris and still get more brightness than I was getting with my first generation Firehawk. The image is spectacular, and the increase in contrast is noticeable. If I go up about a foot closer to the lens, the image really takes off. Very bright! That's about the height I'll be able to drop the pj to once the Chief mounting gear arrives.


2. Uniformity is as reported. I think the image looks brighter even at my primary viewing area because there is no perceptible drop off in brightness from one edge of the screen to the other. With my Firehawk, the image varies in brightness left to right (and color shifts) depending on your seating position. Once you get past a foot and a half or two away from the lens with the HP, the drop off in light is pronounced, but the uniformity of brightness across the screen surface makes up for a big part of that.


3. I like whites better with the HP than with the Firehawk. I have a lot of material that I know intimately - episodes of Bones, Men in Trees, Rick Steves' Europe, Cardinals World Series games (had to watch those several times - it was 24 years ago that they last won), and lots of stuff from Discovery HD Theater (Secrets of Denali National Park high on the list for its scenic variety).


I notice in the Rick Steves shows that the lower third text looks brighter and has more pop, even with the Firehawk mounting setup. The Christmas 2005 episode of Bones is one of my favorites, and it really tests black levels and contrast. The wide shots of the inside of the Jeffersonian are spectacular, and I've never seen the contrast this good. Under low light, I saw fabric texture and facial features in the diverse cast that I didn't notice before.


4. Contrast improvements from using the High Contrast iris setting on the Sharp 20000 were exactly what I was hoping for. Men in Trees is one of my favorite shows for visual quality (and sound for that matter). Interiors and exteriors revealed more low light detail and more bright light depth. The always strong use of back lighting just makes shots sing with the High Power.


5. One thing that's been reported a lot is that the new 1080p projectors are dimmer than what we have become used to. My Sharp falls into that category, I suppose, but more so for the ability to close down the iris to improve contrast. In Medium iris mode, the brightness is acceptable, but you lose contrast. The HP compensates very well for that.


6. The HP has no sheen that I could pick up on, and no sparkles. That was a trait of the Firehawk that I had gotten used to, but it was very noticeable in bright scenes (such as snowy expeditions up Mt. McKinley in Denali National Park). Not a problem with the HP.


7. One final observation: as I moved from about 3' below the lens to about a foot away, the image just seemed to pop off the screen. I'm not a big fan of calling any 2D image 3D. I've seen some pretty good 3D, and no regular projector looks 3D to me. However, that move from 3' to 1' was just about as close as I've come to saying a 2D image looked 3D to me. Really impressive.


I don't know what Stewart has done to improve the Firehawk since generation 1, but there's no way I would want to go back to watching a first-gen Firehawk after a day with the HP.


----------



## milit

Joseph Clark and rmccormack, thanks for the updates on your recently installed HP screen. This is useful onformation for those who are contemplating the HP or, like myself, awating delivery of the HP. I can't tell you how anxious I am to get mine and actually watch a movie on it. Please post any other developments/experiences you may have as I would be most interested to hear.


----------



## Free

I am still awaiting delivery of a sample.


----------



## milit




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Free* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I am still awaiting delivery of a sample.



Free, if you don't get yours soon, pm me and i will send you my sample.


----------



## Free

Thanks Milit.










I called and ordered another sample last Friday, so hopefully it will come through this time.


----------



## rmccormack

here is another photo with some moderate ambient light to the side, kitchen light is on...now i just wish i had a nicer projector







The Z3 will have to do for now, its a fine projector, im thinking i may have gone too big for my room though 106 inch and i only sit about 10 feet away, if anything i will buy some felt and attach it to the screen to make a somewhat smaller screen ...i dont even really watch letterman but the last two shots have been of him


----------



## rmccormack

Oh, also this shot is taken from the middle of the couch the projector is actually about 4 ft to the right of where i took this i so this is def not the highest gain spot in the room, the recliner infront of the rack gets that honor but the downside is the motion sickness because that person is only about 7-8 ft from the screen


----------



## neilher

Joesph Clark,

R: post # 256


With your proj. lense at top of the HP screen , did you notice a drop off of gain from the middle to bottom of the screen, I noticed that on my sample placements.

Thanks,

Neil


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *neilher* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Joesph Clark,
> 
> R: post # 256
> 
> 
> With your proj. lense at top of the HP screen , did you notice a drop off of gain from the middle to bottom of the screen, I noticed that on my sample placements.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Neil



Not sure I understand the question. If you mean a lack of uniformity, then no. If you mean a drop in total screen gain as your eye level lowers to the middle and bottom, then yes.


----------



## Free

I am on hold with Da-lite right now, the third time I have called in the last few weeks, trying to get a sample. If it is this hard to get a simple screen sample, I am having serious reservations about ordering a screen from them.


----------



## neilher

Joe,

Yes, I mean do you notice a drop in gain and in turn brightness and intensity as the picture goes from top to bottom of the screen, its tough to judge with small samples moved around on my screen, I have a ceiling mounted proj. also and have put the HP on the back burner because I thought the picture would look shaded the further down you go on the screen towards the bottom.Its is my understanding the HP is retro flective and is made for a proj. lense at center or below center of the screen.Any thoughts???

Neil


----------



## lightwaver

I agree da-lite sent me out there promotional material and said they would send me some samples but they never came









So I have emailed them yet again to try and get some samples from them.

I don't know why they are so reluctant to send out samples

I phoned stewart and the were very accomodating and even sent the samples out via fedex, they have great customer service.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Free* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I am on hold with Da-lite right now, the third time I have called in the last few weeks, trying to get a sample. If it is this hard to get a simple screen sample, I am having serious reservations about ordering a screen from them.



Amazing, isn't it? I asked for and got samples in about 2-3 days. That really impressed me. Don't give up, though. The screen is worth it, if you can get close to its viewing cone. My Firehawk doesn't hold up well for me in comparison to the HP. I like the HP much better. Also, on several occasions I've put the HP on top of the SS and moved them around. The SS definitely displays a sheen compared to the HP. No matter the gain, the HP looks more even than the SS, even across the surfaces of just the samples.


I have on a couple of occasions noticed a bright pinpoint of light someone mentioned, while viewing bright snowy scenes. I put up the 622 grid and went to the spot on the screen and lightly rubbed with my (clean) finger. I couldn't see it after that. I'll have to experiment more.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *neilher* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Joe,
> 
> Yes, I mean do you notice a drop in gain and in turn brightness and intensity as the picture goes from top to bottom of the screen, its tough to judge with small samples moved around on my screen, I have a ceiling mounted proj. also and have put the HP on the back burner because I thought the picture would look shaded the further down you go on the screen towards the bottom.Its is my understanding the HP is retro flective and is made for a proj. lense at center or below center of the screen.Any thoughts???
> 
> Neil



Neil,


No, I haven't noticed that at all. On the contrary, the screen looks quite uniform across the whole surface, no matter where I stand. It's just that the brightness overall drops off as your eyes get further away from the lens. That's why I'm lowering my projector. Where it is now, the move from the Firehawk to the HP wouldn't be worth it for me, even though I do appreciate that there is no sheen with the HP.


As to brightness, I can state as a certainty that the gain on the HP is phenomenal if you can get close to that viewing cone. As I stand about a foot below the lens, the screen just catches fire for my Sharp 20000. That's in High Contrast/low lamp mode, meaning the Sharp is letting through as little light from the lamp as it possibly can. I couldn't use these settings with my Firehawk - it was just too dim. I could use Medium Iris and low lamp or High Contrast and high lamp, but I couldn't do both. With the HP, I can get the maximum contrast with the minimum wear for the lamp, which means I can extend lamp life from 2000 to 3000 hours, and it's still a lot brighter than with the Firehawk. Over the course of 4 or 5 lamps, the new screen should pay for itself. And the image definitely has more pop and is more enjoyable to watch.


I just got the UPS tracking number from Jason for my Chief mounting gear, and it's out for delivery today. It should be up tomorrow.


----------



## neilher

Joe,

I cant get my proj. any lower than the top of the screen , mine is out in the middle of the room and I have to walk under it, so my concern is that from the middle to bottom of the screen there will be no gain and it will look dimmer than the upper half of the screen or shaded from top to bottom.

Neil


----------



## KenWH




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I got the first snaps in place with the screen and frame flat on the floor. In this orientation, the screen and its snaps are face up, with the frame's snap receptacles pointing down. (So, both screen and frame fronts are NOT touching the floor. Under no circumstances should you lay the screen's face or the frame's face onto the floor.) I got the top row snapped and a few on the sides. Then, I was stuck. I just couldn't see or get enough leverage to line up the other snaps. Once I shifted the screen to the wall, it couldn't have gone much easier. I just had to be careful not to let the fabric buckle and sway against anything while I did that.
> 
> 
> You have to be very careful not to scratch the surface of the screen. I don't think it can be repaired once the coating is scraped off. If anyone has a better way of doing this, please post. I'm sure it will help a lot of people.




I followed Da-Lites instructions pretty much to the "T" with my 133" Da-Snap hi-power. One bit of advice I can give is to don't try to do it by yourself. I had someone help me. One person would hold/keep the tension on the screen fabric while the other would "snap" the snaps. There are several snaps on the 133" and our hands were a bit sore by the time we were done.










It's worth it though as the screen looks fantastic. I've had it for a few months and I'm still thrilled with it. I just can't wait for my new RS-1 to come in.







.


Ken


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *neilher* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Joe,
> 
> I cant get my proj. any lower than the top of the screen , mine is out in the middle of the room and I have to walk under it, so my concern is that from the middle to bottom of the screen there will be no gain and it will look dimmer than the upper half of the screen or shaded from top to bottom.
> 
> Neil



That won't happen. It doesn't work that way. No matter where you sit, the image brightness top to bottom, left to right will be even. The lower your seating position is, however, the dimmer the screen will be. It's the distance of your eyes from the center of the projector's lens that matters. Too far from lens center and you won't realize much gain from the screen. It could even be less than you're getting now, depending how far off center the viewing position is.


There's a calculator earlier that should give you a clear idea about the amount of gain you can expect, depending on your room conditions.


----------



## smithfarmer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> No matter the gain, the HP looks more even than the SS, even across the surfaces of just the samples.



Joe,


My hat's off to you for the excellent job you've done so far in conveying your impressions on the performance of the HP. With that said, I believe the statement above may be a little over the top with regards to the HP vs. SS and I'm sorry to say that I'm having a great deal of difficulty with it.


Please don't take this the wrong way but I seriously can't understand how you could possibly evaluate the brightness uniformity of either brand with the small samples you have at your disposal. Could you please elaborate on this? Were you projecting a solid color or was it a mixed scene from a movie? Any further details you can provide on this are appreciated.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smithfarmer* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Joe,
> 
> 
> My hat's off to you for the excellent job you've done so far in conveying your impressions on the performance of the HP. With that said, I believe the statement above may be a little over the top with regards to the HP vs. SS and I'm sorry to say that I'm having a great deal of difficulty with it.
> 
> 
> Please don't take this the wrong way but I seriously can't understand how you could possibly evaluate the brightness uniformity of either brand with the small samples you have at your disposal. Could you please elaborate on this? Were you projecting a solid color or was it a mixed scene from a movie? Any further details you can provide on this are appreciated.



You're right, it's not fair for me to have made such statements without seeing a larger area of the SS screen.


Here's what I did: I placed the smaller HP sample over the larger SS sample and moved it around at different angles from the light source (both my Sharp 20000 with a frozen static snowy scene and an overhead light). Held this way, the HP sample was the larger part of the sample surface - roughly 75% vs 25% for the SS. In each case, it seemed to me that the HP sample maintained a uniform brightness, whether that was low gain or high gain - off axis from the projections lens or light source, or reflecting that source straight back. The SS, it seemed to me, displayed an uneven illumination. That contrast seemed more pronounced because I had the HP sample right on top of it. The edge to brightness varied from the SS to the HP, depending on the angle from the light, but the uniformity was maintained with the HP, and not the SS.


When I positioned the SS sample in front of my Firehawk, so that the entire surface of the SS sample could be compared to the Firehawk, I noticed a sheen on the SS sample. It was different than the Firehawk sheen (which is probably better described as a sparkly sheen). From my normal viewing distance of about 12', the sheen was noticeable on both.


Anyway, that is what I got from the samples I was sent. I know I preferred the overall look and uniformity of the HP to both the SS and my old Firehawk. I had no way of evaluating a larger surface for the SS, since I don't know anyone who has one, but I can say that my impression of the HP didn't change substantially from viewing the sample to seeing the 110" screen in place. Since the sheen was visible even on a very small SS sample to me, it seems unlikely it would be better with a larger sample.


Trying not to be over the top here. If you want a negative, I do think the viewing cone is quite small to realize the gain I want for my Sharp 20000, but I will be able to achieve it. I don't think a lot of people will be able to. Whether they will be happy may well depend on how bright their projector is. If I use my Sharp in low lamp/high contrast mode, it's more than acceptable in the cone, but much outside that cone and it's too dim.


That said, I see no downside for me so far. I really like the image, and I'm going to be able to get the brightness I want.


YMMV.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KenWH* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I followed Da-Lites instructions pretty much to the "T" with my 133" Da-Snap hi-power. One bit of advice I can give is to don't try to do it by yourself. I had someone help me. One person would hold/keep the tension on the screen fabric while the other would "snap" the snaps. There are several snaps on the 133" and our hands were a bit sore by the time we were done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's worth it though as the screen looks fantastic. I've had it for a few months and I'm still thrilled with it. I just can't wait for my new RS-1 to come in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Ken



Yes, I did this alone. It would have been easier with some help. Once the frame was

on edge, though, it was quite easy.


----------



## smithfarmer

Joe,


Thanks for clarifying what you saw and I hope to have not offended you, I just found it difficult to understand your observations with the small sample you had. I'm curious if you could see this brightness non-uniformity on the SS sample without the HP sample being laid over top or when projecting a solid white image?


I find it interesting that you describe the sheen on the Firehawk to be sparkly. I have heard of people saying the same of the SS but even when I could see it I never thought it looked that way to me but I really couldn't find the right words to describe it.


I honestly wasn't looking for any negatives with regards to the HP and am glad that you're able to get it working in your set up and are happy with it. Like I said earlier, I'm considering getting a 11' wide 2.35:1 HP for myself and your detailed reviews are most helpful.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smithfarmer* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Joe,
> 
> 
> Thanks for clarifying what you saw and I hope to have not offended you, I just found it difficult to understand your observations with the small sample you had. I'm curious if you could see this brightness non-uniformity on the SS sample without the HP sample being laid over top or when projecting a solid white image?
> 
> 
> I find it interesting that you describe the sheen on the Firehawk to be sparkly. I have heard of people saying the same of the SS but even when I could see it I never thought it looked that way to me but I really couldn't find the right words to describe it.
> 
> 
> I honestly wasn't looking for any negatives with regards to the HP and am glad that you're able to get it working in your set up and are happy with it. Like I said earlier, I'm considering getting a 11' wide 2.35:1 HP for myself and your detailed reviews are most helpful.



Absolutely no offense taken. I'm new to these screen threads, and I'm so very far from being an expert on any of this. I've been pretty happy with my Firehawk for about 5 years now, but with the Sharp I decided I wanted to try to get the most from the projector in terms of contrast. I knew after a short while with the old screen that I wasn't going to be happy with the low light. Once the bulb aged, I knew it was going to be far too dim to enjoy.


I wouldn't describe the SS "sheen" as sparkly. I think the texture is too smooth to call it sparkly or glittery. That's how I would describe the Firehawk sheen - sort of how the sun glistens on a blanket of snow. The SS sheen is more even - like pewter that isn't evenly buffed. It just highlights, and I could see it even with the small sample (with or without the HP sample on top). It didn't have that nearly perfect neutrality that the HP has. BTW, you can take those "glistening snow" and "unevenly buffed pewter" metaphors and divide them by 5. The screen effects are much more subtle.


----------



## hmcewin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Absolutely no offense taken. I'm new to these screen threads, and I'm so very far from being an expert on any of this. I've been pretty happy with my Firehawk for about 5 years now, but with the Sharp I decided I wanted to try to get the most from the projector in terms of contrast. I knew after a short while with the old screen that I wasn't going to be happy with the low light. Once the bulb aged, I knew it was going to be far too dim to enjoy.
> 
> 
> I wouldn't describe the SS "sheen" as sparkly. I think the texture is too smooth to call it sparkly or glittery. That's how I would describe the Firehawk sheen - sort of how the sun glistens on a blanket of snow. The SS sheen is more even - like pewter that isn't evenly buffed. It just highlights, and I could see it even with the small sample (with or without the HP sample on top). It didn't have that nearly perfect neutrality that the HP has. BTW, you can take those "glistening snow" and "unevenly buffed pewter" metaphors and divide them by 5. The screen effects are much more subtle.



I have the 110" SS after owning the same size HP. From my perspectice there is no comparison. The uniformity across the image is equal. Both are great. Where the HP loses out is the uniformity of gain from different seating positions in my 15' wide HT. The Hp drove me crazy when moving from the couple of seats in the viewing cone to just outside this cone. This was unacceptable for me to have my guests not benefit from the same picture I was enjoying. In my estimation the differences are much greater than the HP lovers are willing to admit. The HP is a great screen for two people to watch. The SS is a fantastic screen for the whole audience. I realize there is a hefty premium for the SS but I think it is worth it. It is the last screen I will buy. It makes my very modestly priced Mits HD 1000 look unbelievable.


There is no way you can fairly evaluate any screen from the small samples that are provided.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hmcewin* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I have the 110" SS after owning the same size HP. From my perspectice there is no comparison. The uniformity across the image is equal. Both are great. Where the HP loses out is the uniformity of gain from different seating positions in my 15' wide HT. The Hp drove me crazy when moving from the couple of seats in the viewing cone to just outside this cone. This was unacceptable for me to have my guests not benefit from the same picture I was enjoying. In my estimation the differences are much greater than the HP lovers are willing to admit. The HP is a great screen for two people to watch. The SS is a fantastic screen for the whole audience. I realize there is a hefty premium for the SS but I think it is worth it. It is the last screen I will buy. It makes my very modestly priced Mits HD 1000 look unbelievable.
> 
> 
> There is no way you can fairly evaluate any screen from the small samples that are provided.



Interesting report. Can you compare how the 2 screens compared wrt ambient light, either external or that reflected off ceiling/walls? TIA


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hmcewin* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I have the 110" SS after owning the same size HP. From my perspectice there is no comparison. The uniformity across the image is equal. Both are great. Where the HP loses out is the uniformity of gain from different seating positions in my 15' wide HT. The Hp drove me crazy when moving from the couple of seats in the viewing cone to just outside this cone. This was unacceptable for me to have my guests not benefit from the same picture I was enjoying. In my estimation the differences are much greater than the HP lovers are willing to admit. The HP is a great screen for two people to watch. The SS is a fantastic screen for the whole audience. I realize there is a hefty premium for the SS but I think it is worth it. It is the last screen I will buy. It makes my very modestly priced Mits HD 1000 look unbelievable.
> 
> 
> There is no way you can fairly evaluate any screen from the small samples that are provided.



Thanks for clarifying. As I said, the viewing cone for the HP is pretty small. In my theater (only 11' wide), my seating is all within the screen width. The HP works well for me, but for others the benefits of the HP would be limited. Curious, though, that you don't see any sheen with the SS. At least that's how I would describe the effect I see. Since the questions have been raised, I've looked again several times, and the effect seems real to me. Maybe over a larger surface it isn't apparent.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Thanks for clarifying. As I said, the viewing cone for the HP is pretty small. In my theater (only 11' wide), my seating is all within the screen width. The HP works well for me, but for others the benefits of the HP would be limited. Curious, though, that you don't see any sheen with the SS. At least that's how I would describe the effect I see. Since the questions have been raised, I've looked again several times, and the effect seems real to me. Maybe over a larger surface it isn't apparent.



Many people have commented on this 'sheen' of the SS screen; some are bothered by it, and some are not. So it's good that we have choices! My room situation is much like yours; nobody will be viewing from outside the width of the screen. So I think the HP is clearly the one for me.


----------



## Free

Well... I finally got my sample today!! Yea!!


I put up the 12" sample on my SS, and from my viewing position in the back row, directly under the projector, there is a bit more brightness. From the seat directly in front of me, it matches the Silverstar, and in the seats off to the sides, it is slightly dimmer than the SS.


My plan is to get a pull down HP, and use it mostly for my viewing, and perhaps for all viewing, but if I find I have an issue with it being too dim to the sides, when I have a full house, I can always switch back to the SS.


Now, here is my dilemma. I have a Sharp 20K, and, if I stay with this projector, I would want to match my 120" SS size, or go a hair smaller. I am, however on the RS1 preorder, and If I like that projector, it is going to be significantly brighter than the Sharp. So, I am not sure if I want to size the screen for the Sharp, or for the JVC.


I am leaning towards sizing it for the Sharp, since I can always use ND filters, on the JVC, and my screen size is already pretty ideal. Any thoughts??


----------



## MongoAVS

Kudos to Carada and Dalite, I ordered sample by email and received them in just a couple of days. While I had only asked for three samples from DL, they sent my a complete packet.


I always thought that I'd get a Carada 2.35 BW. Since I'm just getting started with the setup, my current screen is nothing more than a piece of luan ply with two coats of white primer on it. I had set that up just to get an idea of what size screen would make sense for where we sit and what we view.


To all who viewed it, the Carada BW screen looked identical to the primed ply. From all viewing angles. The Carada had less "texture" to it, but I was anticipating a brighter pic than the ply.


The Dalite HP? Wow. I was shocked at the pop. My projector is right behind and slightly (15") above my head, recessed into the back wall. The HP is technically near-perfect with these viewing angles.


I was also impressed with how the screen disppeared when compared to some of the other high gain screen samples. Some of the others were slightly sparkly, or the screen material suddenly rendered itself apparent to the eye in certain screen shots.


The HP really stood apart from the other higher gain screens by...well, by not standing out.


Where the HP really intrigued me was with rejection of ambient light. I have two 150watt pendant lights on the ceiling, between the viewers and the screen. With those lights on, the screen still popped. The room was bright, but the screen? It was brighter!


It was remarkably bright when compared to the other screen materials and my cheesey primed plywood.


I do almost think there is too much "pop" for dark room, light controlled, cinema viewing. I was almost thinking of potential problems with eye fatigue from too bright a picture. I'm going to try tweaking the projector's controls to dim the projector as see how the screen looks.


Still, this would be a fabulous screen for daytime or bright room viewing, or when ambient light is desired for picking the chip dust out of your belly button while watching NFL games, etc.


Still, the success of the Dalite HP technology comes down to where your projector is in relation to the viewer's eyeballs. It's definitely right for some setups, it's definitely wrong for others. "Wrong" may be poor word choice, because the screen still offers a quality picture when viewed off-axis, but you're not going to take advantage to the high gain.


In my situation, the three center seats get a big gain pop. Huge. The two seats to either side are slightly less, but still brighter than the Carada BW.


And with lights on, it's light rejection ability blows the other materials away.


I'm pretty happy, but I still have more head scratching to do, as I feel I'm being tugged down another unexpected path.


Live and learn. Learn and live.


And I'm certainly learning from you'z folks. Thanks much!


Mongo


----------



## milit

Good info mongo. I hope to have my HP next week.


----------



## Joseph Clark

I installed my Chief mounting gear today. In my small theater, the projector has always been on a high shelf, about 7' up. With the Chief gear, I was able to flip the projector over and mount it on the underside of the shelf. I got a 1 1/2' adjustable pole (it telescopes from 12" to 18"). Total drop for the lens was more than 2 1/2'. I'm getting so much brightness now that I have the option of raising the pj by as much as 6" and still having more than enough brightness for the Sharp 20k in its best mode (low lamp/high contrast).


One note on the Chief gear. I got the CMS series, which allows for easy cable routing. The power and HDMI cable both fit through the center post and are pretty much hidden from view as they tail out the back of the 18" pole a couple of inches above the projector. I used an HDMI cable, because DVI connectors are too big to fit through the Chief pole. An HDMI cable with a DVI adpater will work, if need be. That's what I'm using (along with a Geffen DVI booster for my unusually long DVI cable run from a Lumagen video processor).


With the projector's lens at this height, I'm getting close to optimum gain. (Eye level is now about a foot below the lens and no more than two feet left or right for the main seats.) The image may be just a little too bright, but I doubt I'll do anything about it. I like bright, and by the end of the lamp's life, it might be just about right.


The HP is definitely not for all situations, but I'm glad I found a way to make it work in my room. It's a big step up from the Firehawk. One thing that the Firehawk did a little bit better was maintain contrast in ambient light, but in almost every other respect I like the HP better. I have a batcave, so ambient light is not a concern. My brightness concerns are all gone. The image really pops.


----------



## bivalve

I mounted a 110" cinema contour hi-power by my self yesterday.I think it is not to hard to get all or most of three sides snapped while the screen is lying on the floor,it is that fourth side that would be hard to do that way.


I did all of the left side snaps,any one side with nothing else snapped yet is very easy.Then I went from the bottom side to the top side snapping about 2' at a time toward the right side,this is not too hard because you are pulling parralel with the snaps.


Then I stood it up on its bottom edge and snapped half way down the right side,stood it up on the top edge and finished the right side.

I don't think I could have done the right side by myself with the screen lying on the floor,but it was pretty easy this way.


While I had the screen standing on its top and bottom sides,I also felt all the snaps on the screen and found two I had not completely seated.This was much easier to check for with the screen standing up.


----------



## milit




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I installed my Chief mounting gear today. In my small theater, the projector has always been on a high shelf, about 7' up. With the Chief gear, I was able to flip the projector over and mount it on the underside of the shelf. I got a 1 1/2' adjustable pole (it telescopes from 12" to 18"). Total drop for the lens was more than 2 1/2'. I'm getting so much brightness now that I have the option of raising the pj by as much as 6" and still having more than enough brightness for the Sharp 20k in its best mode (low lamp/high contrast).
> 
> 
> One note on the Chief gear. I got the CMS series, which allows for easy cable routing. The power and HDMI cable both fit through the center post and are pretty much hidden from view as they tail out the back of the 18" pole a couple of inches above the projector. I used an HDMI cable, because DVI connectors are too big to fit through the Chief pole. An HDMI cable with a DVI adpater will work, if need be. That's what I'm using (along with a Geffen DVI booster for my unusually long DVI cable run from a Lumagen video processor).
> 
> 
> With the projector's lens at this height, I'm getting close to optimum gain. (Eye level is now about a foot below the lens and no more than two feet left or right for the main seats.) The image may be just a little too bright, but I doubt I'll do anything about it. I like bright, and by the end of the lamp's life, it might be just about right.
> 
> 
> The HP is definitely not for all situations, but I'm glad I found a way to make it work in my room. It's a big step up from the Firehawk. One thing that the Firehawk did a little bit better was maintain contrast in ambient light, but in almost every other respect I like the HP better. I have a batcave, so ambient light is not a concern. My brightness concerns are all gone. The image really pops.



I too have a batcave and I am willing to live within the "cone" if it means a super image.


----------



## EyalR

Hi,

I'm thinking on buying a 106" diagonal HP screen and my viewing distance is about 13 ft. my sofa is 9 ft. wide, will the viewers on the sides of the sofa see a good picture?


Thanks


----------



## dinode

Ok, Here is what I would like to do, perhaps someone can help me with the angles thing to see it there is going to be enough benefit for me?


78' x 139" contour electrol.


1) Bottom of screen 2.5ft from floor

2) Primary seating at 15'-16' from screen

3) Projector wall mounted 7' above floor, 20' back from screen. I can't go any lower because it is over a doorway.



How much gain do you think I will see?


Thanks!


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *milit* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I too have a batcave and I am willing to live within the "cone" if it means a super image.



I'm happy within the cone. I'm close enough to the optimum viewing area that I'm getting close to full brightness from the screen. There's a calculator earlier in the thread which you can use to figure out how much gain you're going to get. You plug in the relevant numbers and it gives you a very good idea of how much of an increase you'll see from a particular spot.


My impression is that you can be very happy with the screen if: you have a small room but can stay close the lens (up, down, left, right), or, you have a larger room and are viewing from much further back. The further back you sit, you bigger the cone gets.


Since for about 98% of the time it's just a couple of us watching (4 at most), I can live with dropping the projector down to where I had to put it in my small space. For those times when we have several more people over, I can put the projector back where it was (on the shelf) and switch the projector to high lamp and/or wider open iris. People with a larger space for a home theater will be able to realize greater benefit more of the time.


----------



## ericsilv

in my room I sit 16 ft backwith a 133 diag screen and a ceiling mount projector. The picture is great .a positive gain is a plus. when I have a full room i have a L shaped couch somebody sits apx 11 foot back and is even with edge of screen picture is okay not great (nobody complains) i am more then happy with this as 80% of the time its its only a few people watching and everybody gets the benefit of positive gain .so why get a screen where if you are in the cone 80 % of the time and you dont get the benifit of positive gain experience for only 20 % of the time the few people at the edge of the room can achive a 1.0 gain?


----------



## javry




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Free* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Well...
> 
> Now, here is my dilemma. I have a Sharp 20K, and, if I stay with this projector, I would want to match my 120" SS size, or go a hair smaller. I am, however on the RS1 preorder, and If I like that projector, it is going to be significantly brighter than the Sharp. So, I am not sure if I want to size the screen for the Sharp, or for the JVC.
> 
> 
> I am leaning towards sizing it for the Sharp, since I can always use ND filters, on the JVC, and my screen size is already pretty ideal. Any thoughts??



Free,

Are you planning on keeping the Sharp after the JVC comes in? I assume you'll use the JVC as your principal PJ once it gets in. The first thing I'd do is play with them both for awhile and see just how much brighter the JVC is than the Sharp. Maybe it won't be too much. I'd be real curious as to what the JVC looks like on the SS.


----------



## WicKeDcHilD

doh


----------



## Free

Javry, I am not sure how it will all turn out. I have two concerns about the JVC. One is that it won't be Sharp enough, and the other, is the unknown contribution that the Sharp's high ansi cr makes to the image.


If the brightness numbers hold up, I expect the JVC to be between 450 and 600 lumens, depending on lamp mode. My Sharp, right now, with 200hrs on the bulb, is coming in at around 200lm in High Contrast mode, and about 275 in Medium Contrast mode, with high lamp, so it should be significantly dimmer than the JVC.


I also plan on having the High Power by then, so I will see how both projectors look on both types of screen. It really will be the best test of the very best in each category.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Free* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Javry, I am not sure how it will all turn out. I have two concerns about the JVC. One is that it won't be Sharp enough, and the other, is the unknown contribution that the Sharp's high ansi cr makes to the image.
> 
> 
> If the brightness numbers hold up, I expect the JVC to be between 450 and 600 lumens, depending on lamp mode. My Sharp, right now, with 200hrs on the bulb, is coming in at around 200lm in High Contrast mode, and about 275 in Medium Contrast mode, with high lamp, so it should be significantly dimmer than the JVC.
> 
> 
> I also plan on having the High Power by then, so I will see how both projectors look on both types of screen. It really will be the best test of the very best in each category.



Free,


I'm thinking about raising my Sharp 20k as high as I can with the telescoping Chief pole. It's a little too bright on a bulb with 200+ hours on it. I keep going back and forth on whether to do this - I do like bright. It's not calibrated yet, but Tom Huffman reports that it loses little if any brightness after calibration. (I have set color temp to 6500, High Contrast iris, economy lamp.)


One thing is certain from where I sit: the Sharp when mated with the HP has killer performance, as long as you are within the cone. And that's in economy lamp/High Contrast mode! Killer - it should be arrested.


----------



## Free

I hear you Joe, it is a phenomenal projector, and combined with the High Power I can imagine would be even better than my SS. It is so close at the factory 6500 setting, I don't think the brightness will change much after you calibrate it.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Free* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I hear you Joe, it is a phenomenal projector, and combined with the High Power I can imagine would be even better than my SS. It is so close at the factory 6500 setting, I don't think the brightness will change much after you calibrate it.



That's what Tom said, too. I watched Smallville on the High Power/Sharp tonight. I hadn't seen it since it went on hiatus last Nov. or Dec. It was like watching a different show. The dark scenes had so much more depth and contrast, and I could pick up on so much more detail in dark areas of the picture. Unless they suddenly started shooting that show with a new lighting director (it really looks like it - does anyone know if that happened?), the combo of the HP and Sharp reveals a lot more than I ever saw with my Optoma H79.


----------



## javry




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Free* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Javry, I am not sure how it will all turn out. I have two concerns about the JVC. One is that it won't be Sharp enough, and the other, is the unknown contribution that the Sharp's high ansi cr makes to the image.
> 
> 
> If the brightness numbers hold up, I expect the JVC to be between 450 and 600 lumens, depending on lamp mode. My Sharp, right now, with 200hrs on the bulb, is coming in at around 200lm in High Contrast mode, and about 275 in Medium Contrast mode, with high lamp, so it should be significantly dimmer than the JVC.
> 
> 
> I also plan on having the High Power by then, so I will see how both projectors look on both types of screen. It really will be the best test of the very best in each category.



Free,

it sounds liike you have your work cut out for you. I'm sure you've thought about this but here are the obvious four configurations you'll have at your disposal.


JVC>>>>>>>> HP

JVC>>>>>>>> SS


Sharp>>>>>> HP

Sharp>>>>>> SS


If it is indeed true that the only real difference between the SS and the HP is how they perform in the cone periphery, then it's going to be interesting to see how the tie-breaker goes and which one you end up with as your favorite. your'e going to have four top end combinations to play with. That's exciting! Just for grins, I'm going to go out on a limb and wager the JVC >>>>>>SS as the winner.....mainly because I'm sure everyone else will go for the JVC and the HP


----------



## EyalR

I have a light controlled dark painted room and I'm thinking about buying one of the 1080p LCD projectors such as the ae1000, HC5000 or the tw1000. Screen size would be about 100"-110" diagonal (16X9), will the HP still be the best choice or perhaps a grey screen or even a white 1.2 gain screen would be a better choice?


----------



## avatarthe

Okay, I've been lurking for a while and trying to pick up some info (you guys really know your stuff!) but now I am going to renovate my loft and plan on adding a nice theater area. The piece of wall I am going to use for the screen is 13 feet across (although the actual room is much wider) and the room is 24 feet across. I plan to place seating about 12-14 feet from the screen (in the middle of the room) and use a 120" or 133" screen. I plan to use a Pearl projector and was originally going to ceiling mount it about 14' from the screen however the ceiling is 11'6" high and the screen wall has an outcropping near it's top which will force me to mount the screen about 1' bellow the ceiling. I'd like to use a motorized screen and was looking at the high power or maybe the EluneVision but it seems that in order to get a good angle for this retro-reflective screen I would need to use at least a 3 or 4 foot pole on the ceiling mount to bring the projector down to 7' or so above the floor (still about 4' about the 3' seating viewing height). This still might not be enough not too loose most of the HP's gain and would likely look rather stupid hanging down in the middle of the loft.

My other thought is to mount the projector of some shelves I am putting on the wall which faces the screen wall. This would put the projector 24' away from the screen, but I could choose the height based on which shelf I put it on, any where from about 7' to 4' above the ground. I figure with the long throw I'd likely have to put it up around 7' to avoid getting the heads on the viewers in the projector beam. Does this logic work, or am I missing something? Maybe the HP isn't a good screen for my set up? Thoughts?


Sean


----------



## cal87

Can someone comment on the appearance of the Cinema Contour vs Da-Snap frames? I can go up to 106" with the Cinema Contour, and up to 110" with the Da-Snap. Need to decide on the tradeoff between a little increase in screen size vs. appearance of the frame.


On another note, can someone define to me "large" vs. "small" screen size and "short" vs. "long" throw ratios. I don't know where to fit my 106-110" screen and 1.8 throw ratio for discussion purposes. I would personally call both of them "medium".


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cal87* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Can someone comment on the appearance of the Cinema Contour vs Da-Snap frames? I can go up to 106" with the Cinema Contour, and up to 110" with the Da-Snap. Need to decide on the tradeoff between a little increase in screen size vs. appearance of the frame.
> 
> 
> On another note, can someone define to me "large" vs. "small" screen size and "short" vs. "long" throw ratios. I don't know where to fit my 106-110" screen and 1.8 throw ratio for discussion purposes. I would personally call both of them "medium".



I got a 110" Cinema Contour. It's not listed on their web site yet, but you can order one. Contact Jason at AVS.


----------



## Free

What is the difference between the two frames?


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Free* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> What is the difference between the two frames?



Hard to tell from the pictures on their web site, but the Cinema Contour is a more deluxe frame with beveling, and you can get an optiional Pro-Trim coating (velvety, very absorptive, like my old Stewart Firehawk frame). The other frame is a little more basic.


----------



## cal87




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Hard to tell from the pictures on their web site, but the Cinema Contour is a more deluxe frame with beveling, and you can get an optiional Pro-Trim coating (velvety, very absorptive, like my old Stewart Firehawk frame). The other frame is a little more basic.



Yeah, I can't tell much from the website. I have exactly 100" to work with horizontally. The 110" Da-Snap is 99" horizontally, the 106" Cinema Contour is 98" horizontally. So would you go with the better aesthetics or the larger screen?


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cal87* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Yeah, I can't tell much from the website. I have exactly 100" to work with horizontally. The 110" Da-Snap is 99" horizontally, the 106" Cinema Contour is 98" horizontally. So would you go with the better aesthetics or the larger screen?



I'd probably go with the larger screen. I had to go about an inch out into a doorway with the 110" Cinema Contour, but I didn't want to drop from 108 3/4" to 106". That extra few inches might not seem like much, but it would be noticeable. But that's just me.


----------



## EyalR




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *EyalR* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I'm thinking on buying a 106" diagonal HP screen and my viewing distance is about 13 ft. my sofa is 9 ft. wide, will the viewers on the sides of the sofa see a good picture?
> 
> 
> Thanks





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *EyalR* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I have a light controlled dark painted room and I'm thinking about buying one of the 1080p LCD projectors such as the ae1000, HC5000 or the tw1000. Screen size would be about 100"-110" diagonal (16X9), will the HP still be the best choice or perhaps a grey screen or even a white 1.2 gain screen would be a better choice?



Can anyone please help me out?


----------



## Jagercola

I'm thinking of joining the high power club, and was thinking about getting their cheapest fixed frame, the perm wall. Anyone make any comments on it's quality of frame and if the built in masking will be adequate for white walls? I could drill the frame into the wall over a black piece of cloth or something.


Thanks


----------



## ericsilv




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jagercola* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'm thinking of joining the high power club, and was thinking about getting their cheapest fixed frame, the perm wall. Anyone make any comments on it's quality of frame and if the built in masking will be adequate for white walls? I could drill the frame into the wall over a black piece of cloth or something.
> 
> 
> Thanks



its fine i got the permwall you don't see the frame. i am planning to make a mask system for 2.35 but the black vinyl around screen looks like its a frame and from the seats you dont see the snaps .Since it really looks so good i haven't rushed to make the masking system > i am still in planning stages i figure i would use moulding cover in black velvet and have some type of rod system that will create the mask. shipping is a lot cheaper with permwall vs other frames or roll down as i have a 133 diag and the box is under 6 ft so it went ups instead of truck freight


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ericsilv* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> its fine i got the permwall you don't see the frame. i am planning to make a mask system for 2.35 but the black vinyl around screen looks like its a frame and from the seats you dont see the snaps .Since it really looks so good i haven't rushed to make the masking system > i am still in planning stages i figure i would use moulding cover in black velvet and have some type of rod system that will create the mask. shipping is a lot cheaper with permwall vs other frames or roll down as i have a 133 diag and the box is under 6 ft so it went ups instead of truck freight



Very interesting! I'm also planning on getting a 133" diag fixed-frame HP and had been thinking that I should really bite the bullet (or wallet!) and get the Cinema Contour frame; I thought that the PermWall might be too 'flimsy' perhaps to work with a screen this large. How did you find the PermWall? Was the frame very flexible, did you have much trouble getting it 'square', etc.? Thanks much!


----------



## KenWH

I was advised that the perm walls would need to be braced when going to such large sizes.


Due to vertical space limitations between my large center speaker and the ceiling I ended up going with the 133" Da-Snap frame with the pro-trim option. The da-snap is 3" shorter vertically than the contour because it has the square frame instead of the tapered/beveled frame like the cinema contour or imager. One drawback some may have with the square frame is it can cause shadows if not aligned with the pj properly but since my pj has shift I don't get any problems.


IMO the da-snap is a very nice looking frame...especially with the pro-trim option which I would advise using on any of the Da-Lite frames that offer it.


----------



## ericsilv




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Very interesting! I'm also planning on getting a 133" diag fixed-frame HP and had been thinking that I should really bite the bullet (or wallet!) and get the Cinema Contour frame; I thought that the PermWall might be too 'flimsy' perhaps to work with a screen this large. How did you find the PermWall? Was the frame very flexible, did you have much trouble getting it 'square', etc.? Thanks much!



in response to las two posts. not flimsy at all its basically a apx 1 inch square aluminum tube. as far as bracing my size did not have any . for mounting it it does not hang free but rather gets mounted on wall you need to drill frame to fix to wall i drilled holes every 16 inches and screwed into the studs didn't need wall anchors that way and with 3 inch screws into studs it is not flexing at all. After the frame is fixed it was easy to get square all you do is screw in top let bottom and sides hang put a square in corner double check both diag measurement and the screw in bottom. the screen then snaps on over frame hiding frame vs contour or Da snap the snaps are opposite and snap behind frame showing frame. the screen is tight without the slightess wrinkle or fold. all in all an extremely strong mount with little chance of sagging in middle as its fixed to the wall studs. when i make my mask i will hide the frame if i got the contour frame there is no place between frame and screen for mask if i make my own frame i can leave a gap where the mask can raise and lower for different formats I am still working on that design if anybody has done this any advice or pictures would be welcomed


----------



## Jagercola

Can you take an actual picture of the perm-wall screen in light showing how the material snaps in on the front and what the material border looks like?


----------



## ericsilv

camera is in office will do tonight


----------



## shingor6

Just received my model C High power screen, combine with the PLV-Z5, it's unbelievable, it's freaking awesome, compare to my richvision screen, it's like going from an old school antena directly to HD TV. I can't distinguish the screen texture in super high white, it's so bright, I can't use the screen with the iris fully open, it's just too bright.


I highly recommand this screen, great bargain.


----------



## milit




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *shingor6* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Just received my model C High power screen, combine with the PLV-Z5, it's unbelievable, it's freaking awesome, compare to my richvision screen, it's like going from an old school antena directly to HD TV. I can't distinguish the screen texture in super high white, it's so bright, I can't use the screen with the iris fully open, it's just too bright.
> 
> 
> I highly recommand this screen, great bargain.



Damn! just found outmy HP will be shipping on Friday and I won't have it until nest Wednesday or Thursday. I can't wait.


----------



## Joseph Clark

It's a great, great, great combination - the High Power and my Sharp 20k. I watched some more Rick Steves Europe episodes tonight - stunning! I had a guest over and my head was literally about 12" from the projector's lens. In the secondary seating area, where I was, my eyes are literally at exactly the same level as the lens, about a foot to the left. (I gave the guest my normal seat.) I could not be more pleased with this screen. Combine the HP's gain with the Sharp's contrast and you have a wonderfully rich, detailed, bright image.


Happy, happy!!


----------



## Troytn

Does anyone know why Da-lite does not make a High power size between 119" and 133" for a fixed frame? It seems like a large spread. Why not make a 126" HP? I do not believe Da-lite makes a HP screen between size 119" and 133" for a fixed frame 16x9. Do they?


My HT seating is 13' first row and 18' second row. 133" might be to big but 119" is to small. Does one go with a different screen material and get a 126" or stay with HP at 133". I'm leaning towards the 133" HP. Mits5000 projector, completely dark room.


My previous home had a 126" Carada at 13' and it was great. (Sanyo Z4) After a few months you get used to the screen size and I felt I could have went with a 133" at that time.


----------



## Jagercola

They will make what ever size you want... For instance I'm looking at a custom 126" 2.37:1 in Perm Wall High Power. I think the price is like ~40 more for the custom cut.

Link to screen


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jagercola* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> They will make what ever size you want... For instance I'm looking at a custom 126" 2.37:1 in Perm Wall High Power. I think the price is like ~40 more for the custom cut.
> 
> Link to screen



Good to know. I went as big as I could (to the point that the screen is actually an inch into the doorway on one side). I know it's preaching to the choir here, but bigger is definitely better when it comes to HD. People who think a 50" plasma is the height of HD viewing have no idea what they're missing. My front speakers are limited to the screen width, because I wouldn't give up the space on the sides of the screen I'd need for even relatively small speakers.


Getting closer to a small screen, so that it fills the same angle of view as a larger screen, doesn't do it for me, either. The experience is not the same, even for a single individual watching, much less a group. The great thing about the HP is that you can go very large and still have plenty of brightness. I'd love to be able to go with a 133" screen - I just don't have the space. If I get the opportunity, that's what I'd like to do.


----------



## millerwill

Some while ago I emailed Dalite about custom sizes, and they said that they charge you for the larger standard size; e.g., a 126" diag would be the price of the 133" one. And there is no charge for the 'cut down' on a fixed frame screen, but $50 (IIRC) for the Model C pulldown.


----------



## Garman

Joseph Clark - ALL: Glad to hear the screen is looking great!! I haven't pulled the trigger yet, although the Dalite HP is the front runner right now. I have one more screen sample coming from Vutec that is a BriteWhite 3.1 gain and I will see how that goes. My Specs on my room is about 12 feet across and about 22-23 feet long, low ceilings and projector is ceiling mounted about 3 feet above my head. The only thing is, when I stand the HP brightens up a tad, but over all it still looks much better. Anyone thinks this is the right screen, of they have a better suggestion I am all ears!!! Thanks so much for the help everyone!!


G


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Garman* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Joseph Clark - ALL: Glad to hear the screen is looking great!! I haven't pulled the trigger yet, although the Dalite HP is the front runner right now. I have one more screen sample coming from Vutec that is a BriteWhite 3.1 gain and I will see how that goes. My Specs on my room is about 12 feet across and about 22-23 feet long, low ceilings and projector is ceiling mounted about 3 feet above my head. The only thing is, when I stand the HP brightens up a tad, but over all it still looks much better. Anyone thinks this is the right screen, of they have a better suggestion I am all ears!!! Thanks so much for the help everyone!!
> 
> 
> G



It's all about the cone with the HP. If you can get close to the cone, it's a fabulous screen. You have the advantage here because of your longer room (5-6' longer than mine). The cone gets wider the further back you sit. By lowering it, I was able to get my projector to within a couple of feet of eye level in all directions for my primary and secondary seating. I'm sure it wouldn't be an arrangement that everyone would be able to do (or want to do), but the look isn't nearly as bad as I feared it might be. With my room's color scheme, the projector blends in really well. The Sharp 20k is a jet black, glossy finish that disappears into the dark furniture and navy blue walls. I was more afraid of what viewers on the couch might have to put up with unless I moved the pj up to the shelf again, being close to a pj rated as loud as the Sharp 20k. I sat there for a couple of hours tonight with a guest, and it wasn't bad at all. It's a lot louder than my Optoma H79 was, but it's a "gentle" sound. Hard to describe, but not terribly intrusive.


Next step is to resolve a couple of cabling issues with 1080p output from my Lumagen, and this project is almost complete.


----------



## ericsilv




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jagercola* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Can you take an actual picture of the perm-wall screen in light showing how the material snaps in on the front and what the material border looks like?




here are pictures sorry if a little fuzzy no tripod for camera


http://gallery.avsforum.com/showphot.../23830/cat/508 

http://gallery.avsforum.com/showphot.../23831/cat/508 

http://gallery.avsforum.com/showphot.../23832/cat/508 


As i said i will get around to make a masking system but unless you get up close no one sees the snaps


----------



## millerwill

Thanks much for the pics--very interesting, since I'm also planning on a 133" HP. The first pic of the permwall looks very nice; as you say, you don't see the snaps from that distance. And in some ways the 2" border is less overwhelming than the 3" border of the Cinema Contour. A couple of questions:


The top of the screen looks pretty close to the ceiling; what is the distance from ceiling to the top edge of the viewing surface? Do you get much reflected light from the ceiling? Also, what is the distance from the floor to the bottom of the surface (or equaivalently, how high is your ceiling)?


Also, in looking back up at your earlier posts I see that you sit ~ 16 ft from the screen, correct? Have you tried sitting closer and found it 'too close'? My viewing distance will be ~ 12.5 ft; so it's possible that 133" will be too large and I drop back to the 119" HP. Would appreciate hearing your experience and thoughts. Thanks again for all the info! Bill


----------



## Garman

Joe Clark: I am about 15 1/2 feet back, and about 23 feet long but only 12 feet wide to be exact, just remeasured. Eventually I would love to mount the projector back more and down when I remodel the room but then I need longer runs of wire, which is a royal pain in the ass to wire. Regardless it sure does brighten up more than anything that I have used so far plus the projector isn't that far above me. 2 1/2 feet from sitting position. I think I should be good to go... How good is the viewing angle of this screen? Again my room isn't too wide, so I would think it would be good.


----------



## millerwill

Garman: I agree that your narrow room is ideal for the HP and its viewing angle. And the long throw also helps wrt the vertical angle. Calculate the angle between the lens of the pj, to the center of the screen, to your eyeball; anything less than 15 deg is ideal.


----------



## ericsilv




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Thanks much for the pics--very interesting, since I'm also planning on a 133" HP. The first pic of the permwall looks very nice; as you say, you don't see the snaps from that distance. And in some ways the 2" border is less overwhelming than the 3" border of the Cinema Contour. A couple of questions:
> 
> 
> The top of the screen looks pretty close to the ceiling; what is the distance from ceiling to the top edge of the viewing surface? Do you get much reflected light from the ceiling? Also, what is the distance from the floor to the bottom of the surface (or equaivalently, how high is your ceiling)?
> 
> 
> Also, in looking back up at your earlier posts I see that you sit ~ 16 ft from the screen, correct? Have you tried sitting closer and found it 'too close'? My viewing distance will be ~ 12.5 ft; so it's possible that 133" will be too large and I drop back to the 119" HP. Would appreciate hearing your experience and thoughts. Thanks again for all the info! Bill



top of screen about 10 inches from ceiling . i have a L shaped couch in the room the L is even with the side of the screen

Is the picture to large there ? no

Is it dimmer because of the cone? yes

does anyone complain sitting there? no.

the ceiling is 8 foot

reflected light i guess so but its in the living room so i cant paint it black but the refection i dont notice

as i said previous why sacrifice all the benefits of the gain when the extreme seats are not used most of the time. As far as picking size i kept thinking 133 would be to big but i kept watching the image at that size before the screen on the bare wall so i went with that size. As far as a custom size i was told no problem price was as next size but if you need replacment surface would need to mail frame back for they can match the snaps up. since the permwall goes ups freight was $26 not such a big deal compared to a contour frame


also your sitting distanc of 12.5 foot the equivelent screen size would be 104 in so 119 will be larger then mine


----------



## rchcah

Hi All,

Any opinions on using the 92" HP with the Mits HD1000U from 10 feet? Too much of a good thing?


Best Regards,

Ricky


----------



## ad-man

Great reading. I am just building a new theater room. Using the new Sim2 single chip HD. My front row of seats is only back about 10' from the screen. Second row, 15/16 ft. Is 110" horiz. going to be too wide at this distance? Any comments on screens for this 'dedicated' (no light) room?


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> It's a great, great, great combination - the High Power and my Sharp 20k. I watched some more Rick Steves Europe episodes tonight - stunning! I had a guest over and my head was literally about 12" from the projector's lens. In the secondary seating area, where I was, my eyes are literally at exactly the same level as the lens, about a foot to the left. (I gave the guest my normal seat.) I could not be more pleased with this screen. Combine the HP's gain with the Sharp's contrast and you have a wonderfully rich, detailed, bright image.
> 
> 
> Happy, happy!!



Hi Joseph,


Something I haven't seen you comment on yet re your Stewart screen vs the High Power: Black levels and image sharpness.


Is there much difference in the depth of the black levels between the two? I would expect the black levels of the FireHawk to be deeper (?). Likewise, the projectorcentral review asserted high gain screens like the SS and HP will have a slightly softer image than the FireHawk. Have you compared to see whether this is the case?


I recently watched the Sharp 20K projector on a 100" Firehawk screen in a store. It was actually the most impressive projected image I've ever seen in terms of sheer sharpness, vibrancy, contrast and black levels. Insanely punchy with _great_ apparent ANSI contrast.


The Sony pearl looked excellent as well, although a little duller and not as high ANSI.


I'm really into good black levels, as I find they make the image look more solid and believable, so one of my concerns with the HP screens is raised black levels. Also, I see rainbows on all 1 chip DLPs so it's almost assuredly some version of Lcos for me - I'm looking at the new JVC HD1 for instance.


Thanks,


----------



## noah katz

"one of my concerns with the HP screens is raised black levels. "


There's no more reason to worry about black levels from a gain screen as there is from using a smaller screen and/or a brighter pj w/the same CR.


----------



## Joseph Clark

The images are far from soft compared to the Firehawk - that's the last thing I'd worry about. They're very crisp. I also have no problem with black level - and I'm picky about that, too. The only advantage that I can see with the Firehawk is that it maintains contrast (not brightness) a little better than the HP as I raise the room lights. I never do that for critical viewing. Rainbows are a non-issue for me; I'm much more sensitive to mis convergence problems caused by 3-chip designs (no matter what the technology).


The HP isn't going to be for everyone. As I keep saying, the high gain viewing cone is very real. But, if your concerns are black level and sharpness, you have nothing to worry about.


----------



## R Harkness

Thanks Joseph and noah.


In my case I also have 2 issues with going HP screen related to projector placement:

*1.* I have the main wall onto which the image would be projected. Across from the wall would be the sofa, and just behind the sofa there is a cove of bay windows. Obviously I'd use curtains (doing all critical viewing at night anyway). For the HP screen the projector should apparently be somewhat in line with the screen. But aesthetically it just won't fly to put a projector around head height because it would sit hovering right in front of the nice bay window view.


The only way around this I could see would be to have some sort of _lift_ device, with the projector in a cabinet (or whatever) out of site behind the sofa, and it only lifts up into view to the right height when viewing movies. Now, I've seen plenty of devices that do the opposite - e.g. scissor "lifts" the drop down projectors hidden in the ceiling. But so far no devices that do the reverse - actually elevate a projector up from a lower position. Has anyone seen anything that would do this?

*2.* Then there is the noise factor. I'm looking at the JVC HD1 most likely. However, there's only a few feet behind the viewing sofa and the bay windows behind. This would mean, if the projector is placed as low as recomended for an HP screen, that it will likely be about 8 inches behind the sofa, and then - i dunno - maybe a 1 1/2 feet higher over our head (?) Would this not likely result in fairly objectionable noise from the projector, being so close?


(From having demoed the Sony Pearl it was amazingly quiet and perhaps wouldn't pose a problem, but I'm more interested in the performance offered by the JVC).


Thanks for any wisdom folks can pass this way.


----------



## javry

I have my Sim2 300e about 1 foot behind me and about 2 feet above me. At first, you notice the sound but after a while you just tune it out. I actually have to listen for it to hear it anymore.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *javry* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I have my Sim2 300e about 1 foot behind me and about 2 feet above me. At first, you notice the sound but after a while you just tune it out. I actually have to listen for it to hear it anymore.



Especially the Sharp. I've been around some noisy projectors, but this machine isn't one of them. I sat for a few hours right next to it, and I hardly noticed.


----------



## millerwill

I wouldn't mind the cost of a Firehawk, but with the RS1 on a 123"diag FH, say, the 700 lumens of the FH only generates ~18 to 20 ftL. And after this decreases by a factor of 2 with lamp aging, I think it will just be too dim. The HiPower generates 2.8/1.25 ~ 2.24 times more ftL provided one can mount it optimally. That's why I'm planning on the HP route.


----------



## noah katz

Joseph,


I don't know of anything specifically, but in principle all you need is a scissors lift on the top shelf.


If the RS1 is too loud, you could put it in a hushbox.


Further complexity to solve the aesthetics problem: Have the pj on the 2nd from the top shelf, on a pullout TV shelf (they make those) to allow the scissors lift to be deployed.


You cover up the pj+hushbox with a false front of books (they make those for staging properties for sdale), which is hinged on one edge for convenience.


----------



## rick e




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Joseph,
> 
> 
> I don't know of anything specifically, but in principle all you need is a scissors lift on the top shelf.
> 
> 
> If the RS1 is too loud, you could put it in a hushbox.
> 
> 
> Further complexity to solve the aesthetics problem: Have the pj on the 2nd from the top shelf, on a pullout TV shelf (they make those) to allow the scissors lift to be deployed.
> 
> 
> You cover up the pj+hushbox with a false front of books (they make those for staging properties for sdale), which is hinged on one edge for convenience.




Noah


I'm not sure which question you're answering but since you brought it up I thought I'd chime in.

I'm also on the prebuy and will be getting a high power, 10' wide. I just bought, last week, a Draper MPL scissor lift. This is a relatively new lift for the lighter weight digital projectors.

http://www.draperinc.com/Lifts_Mount...jectorLift.htm 


it weighs only 35lbs and has a capacity of 35lbs and can drop up to 4 feet. The weight of the RS1, a mount bracket and the panamorph UH380 slightly exceeds the capacity but I think it'll be ok. The RS1 will retract into the cherry hushbox I built for my G-15 7 years ago, at least thats the plan.


Rick


----------



## milit

Okay, my HP screen finally arrived and I will be installing it tomorrow. It is a permwall custom sized at 127 inches diagonal. Does anyone have any last minute tips to make this go smoother? One question: am I supposed to assemble the frame completely before mounting to the wall? If so, how is it possible for one person to do this after it is assembled?


Thanks.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Garman: I agree that your narrow room is ideal for the HP and its viewing angle. And the long throw also helps wrt the vertical angle. Calculate the angle between the lens of the pj, to the center of the screen, to your eyeball; anything less than 15 deg is ideal.



How does the viewing cone work in the horizontal plane? Your description sounds like it's for the vertical plane as the "center of the screen" wouldn't make sense for the horizontal. Is a seating area as wide as the screen safe?


----------



## rto




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *milit* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Okay, my HP screen finally arrived and I will be installing it tomorrow. It is a permwall custom sized at 127 inches diagonal. Does anyone have any last minute tips to make this go smoother?



Have a blow dryer ready to heat the fabric on the back side of the last corner so it will be more flexible. Getting those last few snaps together can be a real PIA.



> Quote:
> One question: am I supposed to assemble the frame completely before mounting to the wall?



Yes.



> Quote:
> If so, how is it possible for one person to do this after it is assembled?



You'll have already installed two lip brackets on the wall, so it's simply a matter of hooking the top of the frame over them, then applying some downward pressure on the frame assembly and marking the holes for the two small tab brackets on the bottom. The assembled frame isn't heavy, but I'd recommend using a helper both to steady a rather awkward load ( standing the frame on the bottom edge during assembly makes it easier to connect the fabric to the frame ), and to ensure that you don't pull the frame off the wall when marking the tab bracket screw positions before drilling.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *milit* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Okay, my HP screen finally arrived and I will be installing it tomorrow. It is a permwall custom sized at 127 inches diagonal. Does anyone have any last minute tips to make this go smoother? One question: am I supposed to assemble the frame completely before mounting to the wall? If so, how is it possible for one person to do this after it is assembled?
> 
> 
> Thanks.



I think you are supposed to assemble the frame before attaching it to the wall. Would be GREAT to have some pics of your intermediate steps!


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rto* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> You'll have already installed two lip brackets on the wall, so it's simply a matter of hooking the top of the frame over them, then applying some downward pressure on the frame assembly and marking the holes for the two small tab brackets on the bottom.



I think you are thinking about the Cinema Contour frame here. For the Permwall one drills hole in the frame and screws it directly to the wall. There are no 'lip brackets' to hook it over.


----------



## rto




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I think you are thinking about the Cinema Contour frame here. For the Permwall one drills hole in the frame and screws it directly to the wall. There are no 'lip brackets' to hook it over.



Doh! And I knew mounting a Permwall required drilling through the frame.......guess I need to work on my reading comprehension skills ( or lack thereof )


----------



## noah katz

"How does the viewing cone work in the horizontal plane? "


The same, except it's now a compund angle; it's always the angle between the line from the pj to the center of the screen, and the line from the center of the screen to your eyes.


----------



## ericsilv




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *milit* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Okay, my HP screen finally arrived and I will be installing it tomorrow. It is a permwall custom sized at 127 inches diagonal. Does anyone have any last minute tips to make this go smoother? One question: am I supposed to assemble the frame completely before mounting to the wall? If so, how is it possible for one person to do this after it is assembled?
> 
> 
> Thanks.



2 people is best next i located studs in wall . assembled frame made marks where frame was to go. marked on frame where to drill hole to correspond with studs. drilled hole closest to center on top bracket frame . put center screw first then got level made sure top frame level and check with measurements on wall then finish fixing screws on top. next i put a square to inside amid outside corners to make sure all square then screw in bottom near corner i also made a template of wood strip with the exact height so when i screwed in screw on middle of lower frame bracket so it would not droop and the distance from top to bottom was constant next put few screws in side brackets note the sides may not line up with studs so i used wall anchors. all so far was easy just need to be accurate. as far as attaching screen that was physical work. more the one person has said they dripped sweat on screen while trying. may want to wear sweat band i am not kidding. the top snaps go on first and you are supposed to continue around in a circular direction according to dalite and not opposite ends . the first ones are easy then its near impossible if you have canvas pliers it will help or i took a large long nose plier covered the flat jaws with rubber strip grabbed the black border and pulled while my assitent pushed the snap on when i pulled far enough. i didn't use a hair dryer but they said make sure screen is room temp. good luck


----------



## millerwill

Eric--thanks much for the blow-by-blow, very useful. A question: if one screws in the top and bottom frame pieces as you describe, how necessary is it to screw in the side pieces of the frame? I'm sure it's not necessary to hold the frame on the wall; is it necessary to keep the screen from pulling the sides inward? TIA


----------



## javry

talked with a THX expert last night that advised against going with a high gain screen. Before I pull the plug here, are you guys who have already bought and intsalled the HP having any regrets or recommendations with reservation?


----------



## milit




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *javry* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> talked with a THX expert last night that advised against going with a high gain screen. Before I pull the plug here, are you guys who have already bought and intsalled the HP having any regrets or recommendations with reservation?



Did the Thx expert say why he doesn't recommend hig power? I just got my HP but haven't had the chance to put it all together yet.


Also, I just wanted to say thanks to all who have responded to my questions about installation. I will need all the help I can get.


----------



## noah katz

"I talked with a THX expert last night that advised against going with a high gain screen. "


Try a screen expert.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *javry* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> talked with a THX expert last night that advised against going with a high gain screen. Before I pull the plug here, are you guys who have already bought and intsalled the HP having any regrets or recommendations with reservation?



I have a reservation about my installation of the High Power. I regret I didn't do it earlier.


----------



## Jagercola

Mine just arrived. It's 49" x 116" for around a 2.37:1 ratio. I'll hang it tommorow, but I don't have the RS-1 to test it out!


----------



## javry




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *milit* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Did the Thx expert say why he doesn't recommend hig power? I just got my HP but haven't had the chance to put it all together yet..............



His jist was that the farther away from a plain white screen with a gain of 1.0 you get, the more conservative the requirements become to maximize the screens performance spec. And as you travel back up the video stream [ PJ> processor> player] or consider seating arrangements, the bandwidth of options at your disposal continues to narrow. A bit of a purist, especially when it comes to THX. But I thought his comments were spot on.


----------



## ericsilv




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Eric--thanks much for the blow-by-blow, very useful. A question: if one screws in the top and bottom frame pieces as you describe, how necessary is it to screw in the side pieces of the frame? I'm sure it's not necessary to hold the frame on the wall; is it necessary to keep the screen from pulling the sides inward? TIA




i had to pull hard to get side snaps snaped so i did put wall anchors and screws as there was no stud there to screw into


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *javry* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> His jist was that the farther away from a plain white screen with a gain of 1.0 you get, the more conservative the requirements become to maximize the screens performance spec. And as you travel back up the video stream [ PJ> processor> player] or consider seating arrangements, the bandwidth of options at your disposal continues to narrow. A bit of a purist, especially when it comes to THX. But I thought his comments were spot on.



While all of this may be true (although I'm not at all sure I understand what it means), it's very much a theoretical argument. How much help would the above comments be if given to address the following situation? "I have a problem. My projector is too dim for the size screen I want to use in my home theater. What are my options?" What action does the THX expert want you to take? Should you buy a 1.0 gain screen? I doubt anyone here would say unilaterally that you should buy the HP if you have plenty of light output from your projector with a 1.0 screen. There is the issue of the viewing cone. I would have lived with the snowy sheen on my Firehawk if it had been bright enough, but it wasn't. Except for a couple of things (viewing cone, contrast in less than optimal conditions), I would never choose the Firehawk over the HP in my world.


I'll take the real world advice of this forum over theoretical arguments that do little to solve problems.


----------



## javry

nuff said. I'll leave it there.


----------



## Joseph Clark

Sorry if that sounded harsh - not my intention. It's just that no screen is going to be ideal for every situation. If my projector were a light canon or I had a wide seating area, I wouldn't want the HP. I think it's pretty hard to argue against a high gain screen like the HP for a situation like mine. That's all I was trying to say.


----------



## raminolta

I would say if the required viewing area is not 'narrow', there is no point in buying HP!




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Sorry if that sounded harsh - not my intention. It's just that no screen is going to be ideal for every situation. If my projector were a light canon or I had a wide seating area, I wouldn't want the HP. I think it's pretty hard to argue against a high gain screen like the HP for a situation like mine. That's all I was trying to say.


----------



## Garman

jarvy: Depends on your projector etc.. Room environment etc.., HP and Sliver Screen by Vutec and other higher gain screens go well with projectors that have a low lumens rating in most cases. I ordered one yesterday, just deciding on the border right now, because I do have some over scan from my projector.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *raminolta* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I would say if the required viewing area is not 'narrow', there is no point in buying HP!



I think I'd agree with that in general. If you had a wide seating area for a High Power screen, your guests would have a very different viewing experience depending on where they sat. The exception would be a wide and deep room, where more people could sit within the cone (such as Tryg's room at the beginning of this thread).


----------



## javry

just to set the record straight guys, I've already ordered a HP. It just happens that it fits my viewing environment to a tee. The THX guys' comment was basically a well placed caution flag to me and nothing more. I thought I would pass it on to you all as practicle wisdom for those still on the fence. And Joe, I've read enough of your posts to know that you're not in here trying to put anybody down. We're cool.


----------



## Chadci

I requested samples from Da Lite. The rep that responded was Damian, don't remember the last name. He requested more info about my set up and said he sent me a sample of video spectra as well, said its only 1.5 gain but its more suitable for ceiling mount, which, I need.


----------



## millerwill

Can someone that has a 133" HP with the Cinema Contour frame post a picture of it? I'm debating over whether to get the Permwall or CC frame, the question being whether or not the 3" border of the CC frame will be too 'overwhelming' with that size. (Post # 324 above has a nice pic of a 133" Permwall screen.)


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *javry* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> just to set the record straight guys, I've already ordered a HP. It just happens that it fits my viewing environment to a tee. The TXH guys' comment was basically a well place caution flag to me and nothing more. I thought I would pass it on to you all as practicle wisdom for those still on the fence. And Joe, I've read enough of your posts to know that you're not in here trying to put anybody down. We're cool.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Can someone that has a 133" HP with the Cinema Contour frame post a picture of it? I'm debating over whether to get the Permwall or CC frame, the question being whether or not the 3" border of the CC frame will be too 'overwhelming' with that size. (Post # 324 above has a nice pic of a 133" Permwall screen.)



I have a 110" HP, and it's not overwhelming for the smaller size. It replaces a very similar Stewart frame, and I think it adds a beautiful accent to the screen. From what I've read, it also might be even easier to install than the Permwall. When I removed the frame mounting hardware, I thought they had neglected to put in some parts - it's that simple. Basically, it includes a top bar about 3' long that provides a "lip" that juts out after attaching it with 6 screws/anchors. Get that level and the frame will be level - very easy. The screen just slips onto that bar and the bottom attaches with two small brackets (two screws each).


I tried to take a picture of the CC, but the bounce from the flash just kills the auto exposure control on my camera and all you see is the screen surrounded by darkness - a good lesson in how much light bounces straight back from the HP to the light source. My whole room is dark, so even without a flash you can't get a clear idea of how it looks.


----------



## millerwill

Joe, Thanks for the comments. Yes, from reading Dalite's info it certainly does sound like it is easier to mount the Cinema Contour than the Permwall. With the CC, it sounds like once the mounting bracket is on the wall, you can slide the screen a few inches to the left or right to fine tune the position (before you screw down the bottom brackets).


Re the CC or PW frame, I suppose my real concern is whether the CC frame would be too much for my wall more than for the screen itself. The wall on which the screen will go is 100" H and 150" W. A 133" screen (116" W) will thus leave 17" to the L and R of the screen area, and about the same amount above and below. I can't decide whether adding another 3" border will make the wall look 'too full'. If I were to go with a 119" HP (104" W)--I still haven't decided between 199" or 133" (trying to put off the final choice until I throw the RS1's pic onto a sheet on the wall)--then I would definitely go with a CC frame since there would be much more space around the screen is this case.


----------



## milit

I spent the last day or so trying to install my HP permwall and I am not having much success at all. I guess I should have fastened the screen to the frame while it was still on the floor. I attached the frame to the wall as per instructions but attaching the screen to the frame is/was subsequently impossible. Anyway, I finally gave up and attached the bottom and one side with velcro. I guess I will have to remove the frame and attach the screen while on the floor and then re-install the fully assembled frame/screen. Not looking for sympathy, but last week I fractured a bone in my right thumb and, being right handed, I just couldn't grip the screen in the manner necessary. But I suspect that even if I had full use of my right hand, I still wouldn't be able to snap on those fasteners while attached to the wall.


On a positive note, after I did the patch job with the velcro, I watched a couple of movies. Man, HP ROCKS!!. I only wish I had bought one sooner. I can't imagine how any home theatre could be complete without one.


----------



## javry

Good you got something positive out of it Milit







Hey Joe, how do you think the CC will look with a 92" screen? Too big?


----------



## Jagercola




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *milit* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I spent the last day or so trying to install my HP permwall and I am not having much success at all.



My HP perm-wall got here Friday and I've got the frame assembled. I know that the screen just screws right into the wall, but for ease of tensioning the material on the ground, hanging the screen level then being able to adjust it sideways by several inches, and ease of removal, I'm going to use a heavy duty picture hanger.











I'll just screw in the smaller part to the frame then the bigger part in the wall. The screws it comes with are anchorless too, so its ready to rock. I think this is the same way their cinema counter screen mounts, but for only $16 bucks for the 30" 300 pound one, it's a no brainier. Link


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *javry* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Good you got something positive out of it Milit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Joe, how do you think the CC will look with a 92" screen? Too big?



Not at all. It should look great.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jagercola* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> My HP perm-wall got here Friday and I've got the frame assembled. I know that the screen just screws right into the wall, but for ease of tensioning the material on the ground, hanging the screen level then being able to adjust it sideways by several inches, and ease of removal, I'm going to use a heavy duty picture hanger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll just screw in the smaller part to the frame then the bigger part in the wall. The screws it comes with are anchorless too, so its ready to rock. I think this is the same way their cinema counter screen mounts, but for only $16 bucks for the 30" 300 pound one, it's a no brainier. Link



Great idea. You'll probably have to shim it out at the bottom, or your screen will tilt out a little. My Stewart screen was offset from the wall with its mounting system. One thing about the CC is that if you any protruding objects behind the screen, you'll need to get rid of them or shim the mounting hardware. The CC ordinarily mounts flat against the wall.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jagercola* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> My HP perm-wall got here Friday and I've got the frame assembled. I know that the screen just screws right into the wall, but for ease of tensioning the material on the ground, hanging the screen level then being able to adjust it sideways by several inches, and ease of removal, I'm going to use a heavy duty picture hanger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll just screw in the smaller part to the frame then the bigger part in the wall. The screws it comes with are anchorless too, so its ready to rock. I think this is the same way their cinema counter screen mounts, but for only $16 bucks for the 30" 300 pound one, it's a no brainier. Link



I thought that the reason you needed to screw the Permwall frame firmly to the wall was because the screen pulled to tightly over it, and the 1x1 aluminum tube so flimsy, that the frame would not stay straight and square unless it was screwed down tightly to the wall. I.e., I didn't think it was possible to attach the screen to the frame unless it was already screwed down firmly on the wall.


So please let us hear if indeed you can attach the screen first and hang it as you suggest.


----------



## ericsilv

i think the frame will flex if you attach it first. I needed to use plier to grip the black border to get enough strenth to pull see previous post for details


----------



## KenWH

Couple pics of my 133" da-snap frame if anyones interested.


Close up of frame with the pro-trim option. The da-snap frame is 1.5" wide.

http://gallery.avsforum.com/data/501/P1010442.JPG 


In this pic you'll see why I chose the da-snap frame...going with it over the cinema contour or imager saved me about 3" in height which is important when you have fairly low ceilings, a big center channel, and a BIG screen.









http://gallery.avsforum.com/data/501/P1010441.JPG 


I don't regret getting the da-snap/high power combo one bit...I love it and expect it to get even better when I replace my 13hd with the RS-1.


That said...the hp's not the one screen fit's all solution but if your room allows you to use it...go for it.


----------



## millerwill

Ken, Wow, that is a close fit; see why you needed every inch. But it certainly looks nice!


----------



## millerwill

Ken, Re the da-shap frame; does it have the velvet-like 'pro-trim' convering on the frame? Tx, Bill


edit: Oops, just read your above note more carefully! You DO have the pro-trim option; looks nice!


----------



## Free

What is the difference in the width of the frame, between the CC and the PW?


I am installing in a shadow box that I built that is 111" wide, and if I went with the 104" wide screen material, and had 3" of frame on either side, I would end up at 110. I am wondering if that is too close for comfort?


----------



## KenWH




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Ken, Re the da-shap frame; does it have the velvet-like 'pro-trim' convering on the frame? Tx, Bill



Yes it does and I HIGHLY recommend getting it...I consider it money well spent for sure. Whats nice about the pro-trim option is it allows me to zoom out so the image extends beyond the actual screen material slightly. By doing this it hides the irregularities with the edges on some source material.


In the closeup pic my camera's flash doesn't even light up the Pro-Trim in the least. That stuff really sucks up the light.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KenWH* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Yes it does and I HIGHLY recommend getting it...I consider it money well spent for sure. Whats nice about the pro-trim option is it allows me to zoom out so the image extends beyond the actual screen material slightly. By doing this it hides the irregularities with the edges on some source material.
> 
> 
> In the closeup pic my camera's flash doesn't even light up the Pro-Trim in the least. That stuff really sucks up the light.



Ken, Yes, I saw in your earlier post that you got the pro-trim; I would certainly do the same, and especially in light of your supporting testimony! I do like the smaller width of the da-shap frame; it is not as 'imposing' as the larger Cinema Contour.


Another question: some people have commented that the square da-snap frame can shadow the picture in some setups (e.g., if the pj is located a sizeable above the screen). In my case the pj will be right near the center of the screen, so I shouldn't have any problem in this regard. Do you have any comments on this issue?


----------



## KenWH




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Ken, Yes, I saw in your earlier post that you got the pro-trim; I would certainly do the same, and especially in light of your supporting testimony! I do like the smaller width of the da-shap frame; it is not as 'imposing' as the larger Cinema Contour.
> 
> 
> Another question: some people have commented that the square da-snap frame can shadow the picture in some setups (e.g., if the pj is located a sizeable above the screen). In my case the pj will be right near the center of the screen, so I shouldn't have any problem in this regard. Do you have any comments on this issue?



Yes I have also heard/read about the chance shadowing due to the non-tapered corners of the da-snap. Seems to me the most shadow susceptible installs would be the ones where the pj has to be mounted outside of the borders of the frame and as such the install needs/uses a lot of offset, lens shift or keystoning to get the image on to the screen.


If your pj's lens falls inside the frame borders...then I don't think you'll have any problems with shadowing. My pj is ceiling mounted but the lens still falls inside the borders of the frame and I don't get any shadowing at all.


Hope this helps.


edit:

Just to clarify my install. The center line of my lens is maybe 4" to 5" inside the top of the frame. So even with my lens being that close to the top edge of the frame I still don't have any shadows.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KenWH* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Yes I have also heard/read about the chance shadowing due to the non-tapered corners of the da-snap. Seems to me the most shadow susceptible installs would be the ones where the pj has to be mounted outside of the borders of the frame and as such the install needs/uses a lot of offset, lens shift or keystoning to get the image on to the screen.
> 
> 
> If your pj's lens falls inside the frame borders...then I don't think you'll have any problems with shadowing. My pj is ceiling mounted but the lens still falls inside the borders of the frame and I don't get any shadowing at all.
> 
> 
> Hope this helps.
> 
> 
> edit:
> 
> Just to clarify my install. The center line of my lens is maybe 4" to 5" inside the top of the frame. So even with my lens being that close to the top edge of the frame I still don't have any shadows.



Very good. This makes sense, and as noted, my pj will be very close to the center of the screen, so shouldn't be an issue.


----------



## KenWH




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Free* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> What is the difference in the width of the frame, between the CC and the PW?
> 
> 
> I am installing in a shadow box that I built that is 111" wide, and if I went with the 104" wide screen material, and had 3" of frame on either side, I would end up at 110. I am wondering if that is too close for comfort?



Phil,


Sorry it took me so long to reply to your post.










Example:

A 110" diagonal 16x9 perm-wall is 58" x 100" overall and the cinema contour is 60"x102". The two inch size difference each way should remain constant regardless of screen size.


In comparison a 110" da-snap is 57"x99".


Again all sizes stated above are 16x9(hdtv) aspect ratio.


For more info on the specific frames:
http://www.da-lite.com/products/index.php?cID=20 


For overall dimensions click on the "product information" link for each frame.


Btw...Da-Lite can make custom sizes and aspect ratio's for most of their frame/screen combo's. You might get with Jason or Tryg for more info on custom sizing and ANY pricing.










EDIT for Phil,

If your opening is 111" wide you could fit a 119" diagonal(viewable) da-snap in there and have an inch of width to play with.







You didn't say how tall your opening is but you'd need at least 65" in height to mount it. Overall size for a 119" viewable da-snap is 110"X64". You need at least an inch of vertical clearance above to allow clearance to slip the frame over the hangers.


----------



## Free

Thanks Ken, I am planning the fixed screen for the other theater. I have a retractable high power coming this week, for my home. I can't wait to see how it looks with my 20K.


----------



## milit

FINALLLY!!! After several hours of huffing, puffing, cussing and sweating I was finally able to attach the last dozen or so fasteners. I have had intense weight training routines that were easier. To get the last three, I used a blow dryer to entice the material to stretch a couple of milimeters. I really appreciate all the help from everyone who posted their suggestions on this board. Now I can sit back and enjoy the fruits of my labour. HP screens ROCK!! PERIOD!!! For those who are contemplating buying a new screen, PLEASE do whatever you have to do to audition a HP screen before you place your order. I guarantee you will love what you see. BTW, for those who think that black level will suffer due to the brightness of the screen, worry no more. In fact, I swear my black levels have actually improved. It is true however, that to get the best from this screen you really have to live within the "sweet spot" AKA the dreaded cone. If you are willing to do that, you will be stunned.


----------



## rto




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Very good. This makes sense, and as noted, my pj will be very close to the center of the screen, so shouldn't be an issue.



Interesting. Mine is mounted on a Chief extension post, 13.5 feet back, with the lens *exactly* centered on the screen. My room was too long for the max throw of the Pearl, so a shelf mount at the rear was a non-starter. I placed a large set of shelves sized for LPs ( what can I say ) behind the sofa, in part, to keep people from slamming their heads into the projector, since it's mounted relatively low, and so I can lower it further and increase effective gain as the bulb ages......hardly ideal aesthetically, but functionally perfect.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rto* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Interesting. Mine is mounted on a Chief extension post, 13.5 feet back, with the lens *exactly* centered on the screen. My room was too long for the max throw of the Pearl, so a shelf mount at the rear was a non-starter. I placed a large set of shelves sized for LPs ( what can I say ) behind the sofa, in part, to keep people from slamming their heads into the projector, since it's mounted relatively low, and so I can lower it further and increase effective gain as the bulb ages......hardly ideal aesthetically, but functionally perfect.



One deals with their own room and its idiosyncracies as they are! In my case, it's basically just my wife and I: we have 2 recliners, with a narrow table between us, and the pj is on a stand just behind this table, about 1.5 ft above our heads and just behind them. Should be ideal for the HP screen. This will be my first front projection setup, so I quite excited waiting for the new JVC RS1 to arrive. Haven't yet decided between a 119" or 133" diag HP, viewing it from ~ 12.5 ft away; will wait untl I actually can show the pj on the wall to make this final decision.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Free* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Thanks Ken, I am planning the fixed screen for the other theater. I have a retractable high power coming this week, for my home. I can't wait to see how it looks with my 20K.



Your Sharp 20000 will look STUNNING! Contrast drips off the screen and onto the floor. You'll need a wet shop vac. I've been staying up way too late since I got the new screen and the 20k up and running. And the Sharp still isn't even calibrated - still some cabling issues to work out before that happens.


----------



## Joseph Clark

Here are some shots of the HP setup in my home theater. The screen shot is blown out because the screen bounced the light directly back to the lens, leaving the surroundings extremely dark. You can see the screen better in the shot of the speakers beneath it. The Sharp 20k projector is mounted against the back wall of the 11x17 room, on a Chief telescoping pole. I used to have the projector sitting in the shelf that the mount is now attached to. If I need the extra seat, I can remove the telescoping pole and attach the projector to a shorter 3" pole that I also ordered. It takes about 5 minutes. You lose some gain, but not as much as putting it back in the shelf. In this configuration, I can use the Sharp's High Contrast/Low Lamp mode to save lamp life and dramatically improve the projector's contrast. From the main seating area (used for over 98% of our viewing anyway), the lens is no more than about 1 1/2 feet from our eyes, up/down/left/right.


I still have some cosmetic work to do on the room after the minor surgery of a new screen and new projector. I just can't pull myself away from watching this new setup.


----------



## Joseph Clark

BTW, I've sat in the seats right next to the Sharp when guests have been over, and my eye level is almost exactly even with the lens. The noise from the Sharp, surprisingly, doesn't bother me much at all even there, much less in the main seating area. Gain just doesn't get any higher for an HP than from a position like this. I could have moved the couch forward a little and put the projector on a shelf, saving the cost of the Chief mount, but I like the mount better for my room.


----------



## KenWH




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> One deals with their own room and its idiosyncracies as they are! In my case, it's basically just my wife and I: we have 2 recliners, with a narrow table between us, and the pj is on a stand just behind this table, about 1.5 ft above our heads and just behind them. Should be ideal for the HP screen. This will be my first front projection setup, so I quite excited waiting for the new JVC RS1 to arrive. Haven't yet decided between a 119" or 133" diag HP, viewing it from ~ 12.5 ft away; will wait untl I actually can show the pj on the wall to make this final decision.



The following is simply my opinion and you do whatever you like...but

from 12.5' the 133" will be too big. Regardless of whether or not you'll see screen door or any other pj limitations...the physical hugeness







would be too much. To follow any on screen action would be like sitting front row center court at a tennis match. Your head and eyes would be constantly moving around.


My first row is just over 14' feet from my 133" and it's almost too close...and i like big images. I'm sure when i get the rs-1 the image quality will be a ton better that close compared to my 13hd, but it's still awefully big. I actually like to sit on my 2nd row which is about 19'. Again that may change when i get the rs-1.


Here's a a link to a website with a thx screen calculator that gives viewing angles in relation to screen size and viewing distances. http://www.myhometheater.homestead.c...alculator.html


----------



## Joseph Clark

Here's a funky observation - I wouldn't want a screen so large that I couldn't sit in my recliner as far back as I want without my feet becoming visible at the bottom of the screen. That said, I'm about as close as I can comfortably be with a 110" screen and my 8' high ceiling. If I had more head room (10' or more), I'd happily go bigger.


----------



## millerwill

Ken, Thanks for the comments--I appreciate the input. Well, I may indeed find that 133" diag is too much for my 12.5 ft viewing distance (my wife is a foot further back!), and drop back to 119" diag. Will try it out a week or so after I get the RS1 and see before making a decision. The 133" diag would correspond to a viewing distance of ~1.3 screen widths (SW). I am familiar with the 'calculator' you reference; the THX MAXIMUM recommended viewing distance is 1.5 SW--it gives no recommended MINIMUM value. Also, this 'calculator' has been around for quite a while, well before 1080p displays were available. [1.5 SW for a 133" screen is 14.5 ft.]


From the many posts I've read on various threads, it does seem that ~ 1.5 SW is the most popular viewing distance with a good 1080p display and a good source, though I have seen plenty of posts from persons who like it much closer, even down to 1.0 (or less!) SW. I did have access to a Infocus IN76 (720p) dlp pj, with a 120" Graywolf screen, several months ago, and from 12.5 ft I certainly felt that I would like it a bit larger. (I have a 73" Mits 1080p dlp right now, which I like a lot, but I have the itch for the 'really big' screen!)


1.5 SW from 12.5 ft would suggest a 115" diag screen, which I already know is smaller than i would like; I will certainly get a HP no smaller than a 119". The nice thing about Dalite, too, is that one doesn't have to get one of their 'standard' sizes, i.e., 119" or 133", but can get anything in between. So I will show the pj on a 'sheet on the wall' for a week or so to see what looks best.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Here's a funky observation - I wouldn't want a screen so large that I couldn't sit in my recliner as far back as I want without my feet becoming visible at the bottom of the screen. That said, I'm about as close as I can comfortably be with a 110" screen and my 8' high ceiling. If I had more head room (10' or more), I'd happily go bigger.



Now that IS a funny (but relevant) criterion! So how low can the viewing surface be to pass this test of yours?


----------



## Joseph Clark

That's 34" to the base of the visible area of the screen with my current room layout. If my feet were really big, I'd have to have a smaller screen.


----------



## KenWH




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Ken, Thanks for the comments--I appreciate the input. Well, I may indeed find that 133" diag is too much for my 12.5 ft viewing distance (my wife is a foot further back!), and drop back to 119" diag. Will try it out a week or so after I get the RS1 and see before making a decision. The 133" diag would correspond to a viewing distance of ~1.3 screen widths (SW). I am familiar with the 'calculator' you reference; the THX MAXIMUM recommended viewing distance is 1.5 SW--it gives no recommended MINIMUM value. Also, this 'calculator' has been around for quite a while, well before 1080p displays were available. [1.5 SW for a 133" screen is 14.5 ft.]
> 
> 
> From the many posts I've read on various threads, it does seem that ~ 1.5 SW is the most popular viewing distance with a good 1080p display and a good source, though I have seen plenty of posts from persons who like it much closer, even down to 1.0 (or less!) SW. I did have access to a Infocus IN76 (720p) dlp pj, with a 120" Graywolf screen, several months ago, and from 12.5 ft I certainly felt that I would like it a bit larger. (I have a 73" Mits 1080p dlp right now, which I like a lot, but I have the itch for the 'really big' screen!)
> 
> 
> 1.5 SW from 12.5 ft would suggest a 115" diag screen, which I already know is smaller than i would like; I will certainly get a HP no smaller than a 119". The nice thing about Dalite, too, is that one doesn't have to get one of their 'standard' sizes, i.e., 119" or 133", but can get anything in between. So I will show the pj on a 'sheet on the wall' for a week or so to see what looks best.



I have little doubt, from the projector is the limiting factor standpoint, that the 1080p projector(especially lcos based) will let you sit closer than 1.5sw. But you still have to consider viewer fatigue when they have to follow the action on very large screen sitting that close. That's what the thx viewing angle standard is most concerned with imo. Viewing angles really don't have much to do with pj resolution/smoothness.


My previous screen was a 118" diy painted screen and it was fine from my front row at 14'. With the RS-1 the 119" should look pretty sweet from 12.5'.


----------



## Rayboy

Here's a quote from Tryg's thoughtfully complete review:

"I recommend trying to set up your system the best you can to capture its gain. If done properly, the images delivered from its surface are nothing short of spectacular. The screen surface absolutely disappears and all you see is what's coming from the projector."


A question about masking for Tryg, and/or anyone else out there: If "the screen surface disappears" (when properly set up) does this mean masking is less of an issue with the hi power compared to other screens? Maybe Trygg's exaggerating a bit ("absolutely disappears" is a purty darn strong statement). But even if it "kinda sorta" disappears, this, coupled with the hi power's much documented increased perceived contrast, would seem to render masking a moot issue. "Moot patootootie kablooie undt kerplunk," I think, is the technical term.

--------

equip: panasonic 900; oppo dvd; DIY Home Depot 13 buck dog-eared white melamine screen--works great actually. Planning to get 54 x 127 hi power, maybe marginally smaller.


----------



## KenWH




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rayboy* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> But even if it "kinda sorta" disappears, this, coupled with the hi power's much documented increased perceived contrast, would seem to render masking a moot issue. "Moot patootootie kablooie undt kerplunk," I think, is the technical term..



The main reasons for masking is for hiding the black bars when the aspect ratio of the source material doesn't match your screen. If the slightly grayish black bars on top and bottom don't bother you when watching the wider aspect ratio movies then no you won't need masking. If you don't like seeing the slightly gray/black bars then yes masking will be needed. I personally don't mask...and my pj has notoriouly gray blacks...I just have learned to ignore them.


This is more a limitation with digital pj's and their inability to produce deep blacks. No fault of the screen really.


What Tryg meant by saying the screen disappears is that the surface doesn't have a sheen, sparkles, show texture or hot spots like some other high gain screen material does.


----------



## Rayboy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KenWH* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> What Tryg meant by saying the screen disappears is that the surface doesn't have a sheen, sparkles, show texture or hot spots like some other high gain screen material does.




Thanks for clearing that up, Ken.

As to bars, yeah, they don't bother me a lot either, (apparently!), because in almost a year of using a projector I haven't felt compelled to try masking even once to see if I like it better. Still, I suppose I was kinda sorta hoping the bars would, indeed, kinda sorta disappear, along with the sparklies and hot spots and such. I guess I read too much into Tryg's statement.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KenWH* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I have little doubt, from the projector is the limiting factor standpoint, that the 1080p projector(especially lcos based) will let you sit closer than 1.5sw. But you still have to consider viewer fatigue when they have to follow the action on very large screen sitting that close. That's what the thx viewing angle standard is most concerned with imo. Viewing angles really don't have much to do with pj resolution/smoothness.
> 
> 
> My previous screen was a 118" diy painted screen and it was fine from my front row at 14'. With the RS-1 the 119" should look pretty sweet from 12.5'.



Ken, Thanks again for the feedback. I was looking back at some of this THX 'recommended viewing angles' business, and came upon this site,

www.cinemaequipmentsales.com/athx2.html .


Here it states quite clearly that the THX 36 deg 'recommended viewing angle' (which corresponds to a viewing distance of 1.54 screen widths) is for the 'farthest seat in the auditorium', i.e., the back row of the theater. It doesn't say anything about what a MINIMUM 'recommended viewing distance' (or equivalently, a MAXIMUM viewng angle) is; it leaves it up to the individual I suppose (which is of course appropriate). FWIW, a viewing distance of 1.3 screen widths (which is what a 133" diag screen would be at 12.5 ft away) corresponds to a viewing angle of 42 deg, 6 deg more than THX's minimum recommended value. I will try it out and see if it's too large for me!


----------



## KenWH

By all means experiment and see what you like.










Once I get the RS-1 up and running I too may rethink my row/viewing distance preference also.


----------



## Free

Well... I got my High Power today, and have it set up. I haven't had a whole lot of time to play with it, but so far it is looking good. It is a hair brighter than my Silverstar, but it is about 25% larger, so it is pretty much a wash in that department. The image appears a bit creamier, without the slight grainy sheen that the SS has. I don't know if it is due to the smoother surface, or the fact that the screen area is 25% bigger, but it looks a hair softer to me, and my perception is that black level is a bit higher. I need to play around and the image dialed in before I make a final decision. It is also a bit wavy due to it being a pulldown. Hopefully that will straighten out over the next few days.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KenWH* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> By all means experiment and see what you like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once I get the RS-1 up and running I too may rethink my row/viewing distance preference also.



Let us hear what you decide re your viewing distance!


----------



## Free

Everything seems just a hair softer with my High Power. Could that just be due to the fact that it is 25% larger than my Silverstar?


----------



## smithfarmer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Free* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Everything seems just a hair softer with my High Power. Could that just be due to the fact that it is 25% larger than my Silverstar?



Didn't you get a 2.35:1 HP?


----------



## ad-man

I am considering the Snap-AV white matte screen for my dedicated (totally dark) room with Sim2 1080p single chip dlp. Anyone have experience with the Snap-AV Dragonfly screen? They also have a high gain screen, but I'm thinking it's not really necessary with the room/PJ combination. Thoughts?


----------



## Free




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smithfarmer* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Didn't you get a 2.35:1 HP?



Nope, 16:9. I am thinking that the larger size is enough to give me the perception of softening due to the larger pixels, even though I am feeding it 1080p.


----------



## bqmeister

Ok, this thread and my minor issues with my graywolf ii have got me thinking.


To clarify, this is primarily a thread about the DA-LITE High Power screen, right? Or is there another high power maker besides da-lite?


And I've looked at some of the forum sponsors. Curious where other folks have bought this screen and if anyone knows anywhere local in the houston area to find one of these.


thanks!

bq


Edit - My requirments would be the 119" screen, with black casing. Most likely the low-end Model C. I'm not looking for prices or anything like that - but just want to know who carries this.


----------



## KenWH




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Free* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Everything seems just a hair softer with my High Power. Could that just be due to the fact that it is 25% larger than my Silverstar?



Imo the softness is likely due to the size difference. Just so you get more of an apples to apples comparison can you zoom in the image on the HP so it's the same relative size as is was with the SS?


When I went from 118" to 133" I noticed a slight softening also...especially from the front row. Basically it's just we're spreading out the same number of pixels over a much larger area.


----------



## Free

I also notice a slight negative direction in regards to contrast as well, with the larger size. There are definately advantages to going smaller. I am hoping that the brighter, higher contrast RS1 will be a better match for this size screen, but am curious if there will be further softening due to it being LCOS.


----------



## KenWH




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bqmeister* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Ok, this thread and my minor issues with my graywolf ii have got me thinking.
> 
> 
> To clarify, this is primarily a thread about the DA-LITE High Power screen, right? Or is there another high power maker besides da-lite?
> 
> 
> And I've looked at some of the forum sponsors. Curious where other folks have bought this screen and if anyone knows anywhere local in the houston area to find one of these.
> 
> 
> thanks!
> 
> bq
> 
> 
> Edit - My requirments would be the 119" screen, with black casing. Most likely the low-end Model C. I'm not looking for prices or anything like that - but just want to know who carries this.



Yes the bulk of this thread is devoted to the da-lite.


I bought mine from AVS(yep...they sale gear also







). Talk to Jason, Daniel , or Tryg. I think you'll find their pricing VERY competitive and the service is top notch...plus your helping to support the forums. http://www.avscience.com/contact.htm


----------



## bqmeister

Just sent them an email for a quote.

thanks!


----------



## smithfarmer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Free* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I also notice a slight negative direction in regards to contrast as well, with the larger size. There are definately advantages to going smaller. I am hoping that the brighter, higher contrast RS1 will be a better match for this size screen, but am curious if there will be further softening due to it being LCOS.



I doubt that the RS1 will be as sharp as the 20K but I don't think (hope) it will be that much of a difference. I would definitely agree with your reasoning on the larger screen size is what's causing the softer look. Did you try Ken's suggestion on zooming in?


----------



## millerwill

Ken and Free: I forget what pj's you are currently using. They are presumably 720p (I'm guessing), so it might not be unreasonable that the pic is a bit softer on the larger 133" screen. I would imagine that this softness will disappear with the higher resolution of the RS1 (or other good 1080p pj's).


Ken, Thanks again for the pics you showed of the Da-Snap frame for the HP. I'm now really focusing in on this one for me. I prefer the narrower frame (compared to the Cinema Contour frame); it reminds me of the 'thin bezel' rptv's that look so neat. I think when I get the frame assembled, with the screen material snapped on, I will first suspend the frame with picture hanging wire to two picture hooks on the picture molding about the top of the wall (this is an old house, built in the 1920's!). That way it will be easy to adjust the frame up and down, left and right, to decide exactly the best position. Then I'll mount it permanently as described in Dalite's instructions.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Free* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Well... I got my High Power today, and have it set up. I haven't had a whole lot of time to play with it, but so far it is looking good. It is a hair brighter than my Silverstar, but it is about 25% larger, so it is pretty much a wash in that department. The image appears a bit creamier, without the slight grainy sheen that the SS has. I don't know if it is due to the smoother surface, or the fact that the screen area is 25% bigger, but it looks a hair softer to me, and my perception is that black level is a bit higher. I need to play around and the image dialed in before I make a final decision. It is also a bit wavy due to it being a pulldown. Hopefully that will straighten out over the next few days.



I have a friend who's thinking about the High Power/Sharp combo. He has spcae in his room for a pull down, and he's looking at a non-powered 100-110". I'd be really interested in hearing how your problems with waves turn out. Please keep us updated.


----------



## Rockokma

So I just got my panny 1000u. Hooked it up, put some screens up and the high power is the brightest, till you get to about 20%. Starts to loose its flavor. but man, in that 15%, its brights, brings the picture alive, i love it. problem is my outer seats are at a 30% angle.







I'm in a bad situation now.


Any one know another way to get this bright of a picture with no angle drops?


----------



## smithfarmer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rockokma* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Any one know another way to get this bright of a picture with no angle drops?



The HP's only drawback is the narrow viewing cone. You need a SilverStar.


----------



## Joseph Clark

Yes, the cone of brightness is very real. Go outside it and the screen is still uniform, but the brightness drops dramatically. I thought at first that I wouldn't be able to use it, but I was able to do some creative projector positioning and I'm now at just about optimum brightness. For some people, this isn't going to be practical. Since 98% of my viewing is just a couple of people, I could make it work. What I did for those times when I'll have more people over was to get a second Chief mounting pole. I'll be able to reposition the projector temporarily, open its iris and move it to high brightness mode. When I'm done entertaining, I'll put it back the way it was. I can do that in about 5 minutes, give or take.


----------



## Rockokma




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smithfarmer* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The HP's only drawback is the narrow viewing cone. You need a SilverStar.



only comes in a custom made 133" and it's pretty darn pricey.


----------



## Free

Millerwill, I am using the Sharp 20K, and I am reasonably certain, that it is probably the Sharpest 1080P currently available. When I get a chance, I plan to spend some time experimenting with the different image sizes, and viewing the Silverstar, to see if it is the texture of the Silverstar that gives a false sense of sharpness, or if it is the increse of size in the new High Power that is responsible for my perception of a slight softening of the image.


As of today, the wrinkles are still there in the High Power. This is why I don't like pull downs.


----------



## bqmeister

So anyone switch from a graywolf to a HP and care to give a comparison?


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Free* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> As of today, the wrinkles are still there in the High Power. This is why I don't like pull downs.



What impact do they have on the image when you're watching a program?


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Free* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Millerwill, I am using the Sharp 20K, and I am reasonably certain, that it is probably the Sharpest 1080P currently available. When I get a chance, I plan to spend some time experimenting with the different image sizes, and viewing the Silverstar, to see if it is the texture of the Silverstar that gives a false sense of sharpness, or if it is the increse of size in the new High Power that is responsible for my perception of a slight softening of the image.



I would be very interested in how you perceive the sharpness to change as you change the image size. I presume you could just zoom down to a smaller image on your large screen; not good, of course, for long term use, but you would certainly see if the sharpness is noticeably changed. Tx, Bill


----------



## KenWH

For you guys that have a lot of seats falling outside the optimum viewing cone of the hi-power may start researching the Draper M2500 screen material. It's kinda been hit and miss in the past as to quality control but it seems that if the reviewer gets a good one they seem to love it. It does yield a gain of around 2.0 or so and it's angular reflective so it has a wider viewing cone.


Drapers tend to be a bit pricier than comperable Da-Lites from what I've seen...but they're still much more affordable than the Stewarts etc.


I was considering the M2500 but all the quality control issues back last summer when I was screen shopping turned me off. From what I've been able to gather recently about this screen is draper addressed the issue and made some changes. It used to have a gain of around 2.5(hence m2500 name) but the new "formula" has less gain(now 2.0) but is supposed to be much more consistant in quality...they kept the m2500 name however.


----------



## Free




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> What impact do they have on the image when you're watching a program?



I am not sure yet. I will spend more time with this tonight, and also try shrinking the image to see if the percieved sharpness is greater. There is a fair amount of wrinkling though, and I think, for those of us who are perfectionists, this material requires a fixed screen.


----------



## bqmeister

I will probably order next week.

And based on location, I really do prefer a pull-down.


But I'm not ruling out fixed frame.


Are there any fixed frame hi power designs comparable to the Model C pulldown? I'm looking at 119".


----------



## smithfarmer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rockokma* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> only comes in a custom made 133"



Someones given you bad info.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smithfarmer* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Someones given you bad info.



I think he meant that only the SS can be obtained at 133" by a custom order. At the CES I did ask the Vutec guys at their both why they didn't offrer a SS in something larger than 120" diag, and they said that they could do something larger on a special order. And I'll bet it would be pricey.


----------



## smithfarmer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I think he meant that only the SS can be obtained at 133" by a custom order. At the CES I did ask the Vutec guys at their both why they didn't offrer a SS in something larger than 120" diag, and they said that they could do something larger on a special order. And I'll bet it would be pricey.



I think I understand now. The SS can be ordered in a 119" wide 2.35:1 AR and the cost is actually slightly less than the 120" 16:9 AR since the total screen area is about 1 square ft smaller. At least that's how it was when I ordered mine a couple of years ago. Just trying to help.










BTW, how was Vutec's CES setup? I don't remember anyone mentioning what they thought of their demo.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Free* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I am not sure yet. I will spend more time with this tonight, and also try shrinking the image to see if the percieved sharpness is greater. There is a fair amount of wrinkling though, and I think, for those of us who are perfectionists, this material requires a fixed screen.



My friend is waiting on word about how well the HP pull down works. Do you have any more impressions to share? I've read other posts which say that small waves don't impact the image, because they disappear when the projector comes on. Any truth to that?


----------



## Free




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> My friend is waiting on word about how well the HP pull down works. Do you have any more impressions to share? I've read other posts which say that small waves don't impact the image, because they disappear when the projector comes on. Any truth to that?



I spent some time tonight, paying attention to the waves in the screen, and honestly, I couldn't see them. I really was looking hard trying to find a defect, but I was finding the image just about perfect. I think the waves are visible to me, when the overhead lights are on in the theater, shining down on the screen creates shadows, where the waves are, but when the projector is shining at the screen the waves dissapear.


I think that it does look a bit softer, just a hair, because all of the pixels are about 25% larger. Even with a 1080p projector, the bigger the image gets, the resolution is compromised.


I also spent time looking in bright white scenes, and was noticing how clean the image looked. I was used to seeing the slight sparkly sheen of the Silverstar, and this just looks cleaner, and brighter.


One interesting thing I have noticed, is that the High Power seems to make whites much whiter, while the overall brightness of the image is slightly brighter. There is something about the white parts of the image, that just seem to gain so much more from this screen material.


Overall, I like this screen and think it is a keeper.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Free* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I spent some time tonight, paying attention to the waves in the screen, and honestly, I couldn't see them. I really was looking hard trying to find a defect, but I was finding the image just about perfect. I think the waves are visible to me, when the overhead lights are on in the theater, shining down on the screen creates shadows, where the waves are, but when the projector is shining at the screen the waves dissapear.
> 
> 
> I think that it does look a bit softer, just a hair, because all of the pixels are about 25% larger. Even with a 1080p projector, the bigger the image gets, the resolution is compromised.
> 
> 
> I also spent time looking in bright white scenes, and was noticing how clean the image looked. I was used to seeing the slight sparkly sheen of the Silverstar, and this just looks cleaner, and brighter.
> 
> 
> One interesting thing I have noticed, is that the High Power seems to make whites much whiter, while the overall brightness of the image is slightly brighter. There is something about the white parts of the image, that just seem to gain so much more from this screen material.
> 
> 
> Overall, I like this screen and think it is a keeper.



That's good news about the waves. I'd read that the HP surface solved the problem, but it's good to hear you confirm it. I have a friend who would have had to come up with another solution if the pull down wouldn't work - maybe a movable frame of some sort.


I like the whites of the HP, too. And my old Firehawk had a snowy sheen that I had grown accustomed to, but which did call attention to itself from time to time. That's gone with the HP. The HP and the Sharp are letting me experience much of the archived programming I have in a whole new way.


----------



## ad-man

I have the new SIM2 single chip HD. My theater is 'very controlled' light - virtually totally dark when needed. Thoughts on the best screen for 110" hor. space? I'm not sure I really need the gain of some of the screens discussed here. Isn't there a compromise in quality image with the higher gain?


----------



## KenWH




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ad-man* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I have the new SIM2 single chip HD. My theater is 'very controlled' light - virtually totally dark when needed. Thoughts on the best screen for 110" hor. space? I'm not sure I really need the gain of some of the screens discussed here. Isn't there a compromise in quality image with the higher gain?



The primary drawback to the Da-Lite high power discussed in this thread is that it has a relatively narrow viewing cone due to it being retro reflective(light bounces back to it's source). Outside of that the HP is a wonderful screen imo and if your inside the viewing cone (sweet spot) the image is hard to beat.


There are some high gain screens that aren't really suited to high quality video...such as glass beaded screens. Those type screens yield a lot of gain but are best left to board/conference rooms for showing spread sheets and power point presentations as they introduce far too many sparklies, hot spots, etc.










You also have the exotic high $$$ "one piece" high gain/high contrast" screens like the silver star and vizage. They are nice screens but they can add a bit of sheen/texture from what I've seen in samples and heard from users. But they don't have the viewing cone restirctions like the Da-Lite does.


If your pj has dual lamp power modes, one of the nice thing about using a higher gain screen(even with brighter pj's) is you can run you pj in low lamp mode which extends bulb life and still get a bright punchy image. Then as the bulb ages and gets too dim on low, you can switch the pj over to the high lamp mode to compensate.


There's a lot of good info in this thread...if your looking at buying the Da-Lite I'd definitely go back and read this thread from the beginning(if you haven't already done so). There also many other threads on the hp here at avs. It's probably the most discussed screen material here so there's tons of info on it.


----------



## mlbrand

How well will the High Power screen reject the ambient light from a lit fireplace that is off to the side of the room, at about 55 degrees from the center of the screen?


----------



## KenWH




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mlbrand* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> How well will the High Power screen reject the ambient light from a lit fireplace that is off to the side of the room, at about 55 degrees from the center of the screen?



At that angle it should reject the light very well. If you look in the gallery at my theater you'll see I have several wall sconces and the hp does a very good job of rejecting them.


With my previous painted screens I couldn't have much light at all in the theater or it would wash out the image. With the hp I can run the lights at a very comfortable level. This in nice during football games etc. so everyone can eat snacks etc. and actually see what they are eating yet the image is still very good.










Like I metioned in an earlier post...the lights that will do the most "damage" to the image will come from the wall/direction opposite the screen.


----------



## Jagercola

Here is my High Power screen install. It's a 126" perm-wall 2.37:1 screen . I used one of these heavy duty picture hanger / wall cleats to mount it into the dry wall instead of making holes for the entire screen perimeter. Pretty simple, it screwed in easy to the frame then I just a used couple of the included screws to mount it to the wall. I now have the flexibility of shifting the screen 5-10" left or right, and I can take it down with ease if need be.


I'm still waiting on my projector, but my initial impression is that you can really see the gain on this puppy. It's uniform too even being that wide, so it has the same brightness from end to end. I'll update with comments once my projector arrives about the viewing cone and how it looks.




















ps. Ascend rocks my house...


----------



## Joseph Clark

Beautiful screen! I wish I had the room for a wider/bigger screen. You should be very happy with the gain if you stay in the cone. I am no more than about 1 1/2 feet from the lens (to my eye) in any direction for the main and secondary seating areas. Wait'll you see that image when you get your projector!


----------



## bqmeister




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jagercola* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting on my projector, but my initial impression is that you can really see the gain on this puppy. It's uniform too even being that wide, so it has the same brightness from end to end. I'll update with comments once my projector arrives about the viewing cone and how it looks.



Great pics.

Are you thinking of painting that back wall darker?


Also - great review of the screen - without a projector no less! I'm getting excited. Hope to order my HP within the next 1-3 days.


----------



## millerwill

Jagercola: BEAUTIFUL looking screen! Re the mounting: did you attach this mount only to the top horizontal frame tube? Are the sides and bottom attached in any way? Tx, Bill


----------



## Jagercola

Yup, the mount is attached the to the top horizontal frame tube in the middle. Nothing on the sides or bottom. I got the idea from the laminate screen thread. I was going to build a 116" laminate screen and had the hanger from that. It turned out that it was actually cheaper to shelf/rack mount my projector and buy a HP screen then to have an electrician come to do the wire work, get a mount, and build a DIY screen. Further my screen is bigger 116" ->126" and brighter with the gain 1.3 -> ~2.5!


----------



## KenWH

I can attest to the strength of the mounts Jagercola used for his screen. I bought some similar mounts from Lowes last year to mount my 80lbs diy rear center speakers. It's surprising just how sturdy those thin metal pieces are.


----------



## smile




Jagercola said:


> This is an idea worthy copying. The perm-wall screen, I've read it is a challenge to snap the screen on, so I'm assuming it carries some tension? Was that a problem, assemblying it on the floor then lifting to hang? Or did you attach the screen after mounting to the wall?


----------



## Hughman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jagercola* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting on my projector, but my initial impression is that you can really see the gain on this puppy. It's uniform too even being that wide, so it has the same brightness from end to end.



The high powers gain prevent it from being uniform in brightness from side to side but the brain is fooled because the shift is gradual. Compare directly the center of the screen to the edges and things become a little more telling.


Here's a shot of your screen with a center reference square copied and pasted to other locations of the screen.


----------



## Tryg

Try doing that with an angular reflective screen with some gain.


----------



## Hughman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Try doing that with an angular reflective screen with some gain.



I'd love to, which one would you like to send me







? Actually, I've done this with a few gained angular reflective screens with similar results.


The purpose of the post was to counter ascertions that gained screens are uniform in brightness from side to side which, as you know, is not entirely correct.


I'll pay for shipping costs, one way, should I pm you my address?


I should add that I own and use a HP screen and love it.


----------



## Jagercola




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smile* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'm assuming it carries some tension?



Yes, the perm-wall carries some tension. Since it is only 1" square tubing, the frame is not very stiff, but when the screen is attached it makes it tight like a drum.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smile* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Was that a problem, assemblying it on the floor then lifting to hang? Or did you attach the screen after mounting to the wall?



I assembled the frame on the floor, drilled in the hanger part, attached the HP material to the frame, and attached the screen to the wall all by myself in about 20 minutes time.


----------



## smile

As to uniformity of gain, I posted this elsewhere thou w/ no interest. It fits this topic so,


How to calculate the gain to your seating position.


The circumference of a disc is pi times the diameter,


So 12' from the screen 3.14 (2 * 12)= 3.14 * 24= 75.36'

A degree is 1/360 so 15 dg is (75/360*15) = 3.1'


According to this Da Lite chart gain is down to 1.4 only 15dg off axis. http://www.audiogeneral.com/DaLite/...untensioned.gif 


Therefore, at 12' from the screen, the perfectly centered chair sees a 2.8 gain while the chair beside it only sees a 1.4 gain. Similarly, the edges of the screen will be dramatically different gain from front and center.

Did I calculate this correctly?


If this is accurate, simply shifting in your chair will meaningfully change the gain. Seems this would be distracting, but I haven't read mention of it.


----------



## bqmeister

I ordered this screen today to replace my graywolf ii (I'm seeing textures from the screen).


I'm hopeful I won't be disappointed. My projector is taple mounted. I should be right in the viewing cone sweetspot. I don't mind if need to wear sunglasses while watching this.


Can't wait!


----------



## spann-man

I am strongly considering the HP pulldown/electric for my installation with the RS-1. I will not be able to use the HP to its full extent in the fact that I will not be able to mount the projector so as to get optimally in the veiwing cone. I will be at about 9 -11 degrees for my veiwing angle. At that, I should get more gain than a traditional 1.0 screen. Reading another thread, several people stated that the HP looked washed out not using it in the ideal setup. Does anyone have experiance with this type of installation? If not, does anyone have a recommendation for a higher gain screen in a pulldown application with wider veiwing cones?


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smile* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> As to uniformity of gain, I posted this elsewhere thou w/ no interest. It fits this topic so,
> 
> 
> How to calculate the gain to your seating position.
> 
> 
> The circumference of a disc is pi times the diameter,
> 
> 
> So 12' from the screen 3.14 (2 * 12)= 3.14 * 24= 75.36'
> 
> A degree is 1/360 so 15 dg is (75/360*15) = 3.1'
> 
> 
> According to this Da Lite chart gain is down to 1.4 only 15dg off axis. http://www.audiogeneral.com/DaLite/...untensioned.gif
> 
> 
> Therefore, at 12' from the screen, the perfectly centered chair sees a 2.8 gain while the chair beside it only sees a 1.4 gain. Similarly, the edges of the screen will be dramatically different gain from front and center.
> 
> Did I calculate this correctly?
> 
> 
> If this is accurate, simply shifting in your chair will meaningfully change the gain. Seems this would be distracting, but I haven't read mention of it.



I'm not sure about the calculation, but the gain doesn't seem right. I sit 12' back from a 110" screen. There is no perfectly centered chair, since the two main seats are to either side, roughly equidistant off center (with a small chair table in the middle between them). The gain in each chair is therefore roughly the same, but certainly not half of what it is at dead center. My Firehawk was about 1.3 gain from that same seat, and I couldn't use the small iris mode because the screen was too dim. The HP yields much greater brightness.


Also, the sides are not dramatically different than the middle of the screen. Someone earlier in this thread, or in another HP thread, did measurements and IIRC the edges were no more than 3% different in brightness than the middle. A screen shot earlier here shows that there is a slight lowering of brightness at the edges, but it's nowhere nearly as severe as my Firehawk was. That screen looked significantly dimmer on one side than the other, by a considerably larger percentage (although I never did formal measurements). According to the formal measurements I read, and my own eyes, the HP is quite uniform across its surface.


I do agree that moving your head by even a foot can create a significant drop in brightness. However, I positioned my seats (or rather re-positioned the projector) so that doesn't happen. As I've said before, the cone is real and if you have to be outside it in your seat, you'd better look elsewhere for your high gain screen. You're not going to be satisfied with the HP.


I'd recommend doing what I did. Send for a sample and figure out a way to position it in front of the screen so you can see the effect first hand. When I saw the sample light up like a torch when I moved my head close to the lens, I knew I had to find a way to make my room work with the HP.


----------



## Desmond34




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The viewing cone chart above pretty much says it all.
> 
> 
> It is a smooth transition though as you move away from optimal. Unlike some rear projection units where all of a sudden it goes black.



What's the difference between the Contour and Cosmopolitan screens?


----------



## KenWH




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desmond34* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> What's the difference between the Contour and Cosmopolitan screens?



The Cinema Contour is a fixed frame screen where the Cosmo is an electrically operated roll up/down screen.


----------



## Desmond34

Can you get get free samples from them to see if you like the High Power screen?


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desmond34* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Can you get get free samples from them to see if you like the High Power screen?



Sure. Just contact them through their web site and make a request. I got a book of samples from them.


----------



## EAS




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hugh2* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The high powers gain prevent it from being uniform in brightness from side to side but the brain is fooled because the shift is gradual. Compare directly the center of the screen to the edges and things become a little more telling.
> 
> 
> Here's a shot of your screen with a center reference square copied and pasted to other locations of the screen.



While I'll agree that in theory the uniformity should not be the same from side to side I don't think the photo shown should be used to represent the effect. It would be better to take a photo from below the projector in a blacked out room while the projector is displaying a single level. To even get more geeky with it you would want a long exposure. You could even take two photo's (human eye distance apart )and merge them. You'd probably also want to try it with multiple cameras and take the shot of the screen in a way that it's not centered in the frame to rule out camera lens effects. Then after all of that do it again in the same space with a matt white screen and compare so you can see if there is a delta in uniformity.


----------



## bqmeister

I'll be relatively brief tonight. (more tomorrow I'm sure)


Got the screen delivered late tonight. Got it installed all by myself.

First impression - Wow, this thing is HEAVY and the build quality is EXCELLENT. Had I not wanted a 119" screen, I'd think the model B would be perfect. As it is, I wanted 119, so I got a Model C.


Very difficult for one person to install just due to size/weight. But I managed. I need to fix my install later (raise up a bit, get my level out) but I'll do that when I have some help.


Fired up the projector.


My DVD player isn't the best indicator, or the movie I used wasn't the best, but it was still GREAT. Decent improvement over my graywolf.

Firing up my HD (American Idol) and my PC (typing on it now) showed a HUGE improvement.


With DVD, I almost preferred dynamic. (panasonic ax100). With my PC, I need sunglasses with cinema 2.


What I really love about it (especially compared to my graywolf II) is the fact that the screen does totally disappear. No texture. No waves. No 'screen interference' at all.


I also love the fact that this thing is available with a black case (which I got). Once I paint my back wall black (this weekend hopefully) everything should disappear into the background save the beautiful picture.


I've sat in pretty much every seat in my theater. Pic is great no matter where I sit.

Brightness is VERY uniform. Don't get me wrong. I'm not giving up my front row center seat, but my family and guests will still be happy with whatever seats they get.











I'm extremely grateful I found this thread. My theater is now almost complete with the exception of some final paint.


OK, I lied. I wasn't all that brief. Great screen. Definitely gave me that last bit of 'pop'!


-bq


----------



## millerwill

Congrats bq! Wow, a ax100 with a 119" HiPower--that must truly be bright. But it sounds like it's not too much. Can't wait to see one on my wall.


----------



## bqmeister

I put in ICE AGE this morning for a few minutes. Looked great. Econo mode w/ Cinema 2. Definitely not too bright.


What got me though was how COLORFUL this movie was. Lots of snow/ice white scenes, but lots and lots of color too. Very vibrant.


This weekend I plan a real treat on the big screen. One of the most vivid, colorful movies ever made (at least that I can think of) is "What Dreams May Come" w/ Robin Williams, Cuba Gooding Jr. and Annabella Sciorra. I've seen this movie before but have been waiting to see it again on the big screen. This should be a true visual treat.


Back to first impressions though - the casing for the model C is huge. Overall more than twice as large as the graywolf II. I almost wish the casing wasn't so overwhelming, but again, I bought it in black and am painting my walls black, so it is/was only an issue during installation.


I watched Boston Legal in HD this morning, along with 30 minutes of L&O SVU (HD), plus a Blake's song from American Idol Tuesday night (HD).


With my graywolf II, I had major distractions with my 120" screen (texture, some lines on the screen from the plastic covering). Returned that and put my 106" graywolf II back up. The 106" had minor distractions with the texture. I could've lived with it, but glad I don't have too.


I wish I could say the High Power had zero distractions. I can say I don't see the texture, waves, lines, etc. But I'm finding myself somewhat distracted by how great the picture looks! That's a distraction I can live with.


This isn't night and day from the Graywolf II. but it IS a big improvement. My wife hasn't watched anything on it yet and she may not notice any difference (wives are funny that way).


Last comment - The graywolf ii is a gray screen as the name implies. I know blacks are supposed to be better on a gray screen. Logically it makes perfect sense. I haven't popped in my DVD Essentials disk yet, but based on the content I've watched already, in my room, black levels with this screen aren't an issue. I've read the higher gain helps to increase the contrast or perceived contrast. Whatever technical jargon, all I know is the thing looks damn good. This one's a keeper.


----------



## Rockokma




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bqmeister* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't night and day from the Graywolf II. but it IS a big improvement. My wife hasn't watched anything on it yet and she may not notice any difference (wives are funny that way).



That's usually the case. Not sure why, but my brother is that way. Especially w/ sound. He didnt notice the difference between my logitech desktop speakers and my polk audio speakers... eh.


Congrats on the new screen. I have a model C 159" on the way, my ae1000u is dying for it







. Can you send some screen shots of the black case? I am very interested in how this sucker is gonna turn out


----------



## bqmeister

Not the best pics
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...GL:en%26sa%3DN 


this one gives you somewhat of an impressions of the size - http://vgonpic4.tempdomainname.com/i/c/f/1139618224.jpg 


also, look at the pdf on da-lite's website
http://da-lite.com/products/spec_pdfs/230.pdf 

The back bracket is almost 6 inches and the case diameter is over 4 1/2 inches.


I really do need to take pics of my setup, and will try my bestest to do so tonight (may not post them until morning though).


Something cool about the black case (and maybe the white is like this - I don't know)

On the black case, the Da-Lite emblem is on a clear window-cling type sticker. Very easily removeable to give the case a complete black look all around. In a dark room with only the movie on, the case won't be a distraction - you won't see it at all.


----------



## Garman

Well finally got the HP screen for my Pearl.... Great match up very, very, very pleased with outcome. Only thing I am pissed about is there are about 7 spots that it looks like the material has rubbed off, one corner looks like finger prints that won't come off. But the defects are clear, hopefully they will take care of this sooner than later. White gloves is all I have to say when putting together any fixed screen. Regardless I can live with a few defects for a short while that is, picuture is surely stunning! The ironic thing is the company that did the install is top notch and I left them some white gloves to use but clearly they didn't!


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Garman* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Well finally got the HP screen for my Pearl.... Great match up very, very, very pleased with outcome. Only thing I am pissed about is there are about 7 spots that it looks like the material has rubbed off, one corner looks like finger prints that won't come off. But the defects are clear, hopefully they will take care of this sooner than later. White gloves is all I have to say when putting together any fixed screen. Regardless I can live with a few defects for a short while that is, picuture is surely stunning! The ironic thing is the company that did the install is top notch and I left them some white gloves to use but clearly they didn't!



Sorry to hear about the problems with the screen. I treated the sample I got a little rough to see how it would hold up. It's pretty tough, but if something gets nicked, it can go bad quickly.


I'd love to hear more about your impressions of the screen with the Pearl. A friend has taken my recommendation and is getting the screen, and he's buying a Pearl. (He may be reading this - hi, Mike.) Anyway, any impressions would be welcome.


I just finished watching Lost a while ago, and I had to pause during the show several times to marvel at how terrific the image was. Beautiful, deep contrast is something I'd kind of learned to live without when I moved from a CRT front projector (Dwin 700) to a Sharp 9000 DLP. With the Sharp 20000 and a High Power, that sense of awe has returned. That sense of images so rich you just go weak inside. OK, that's hyperbolic, but not by much.


----------



## Chadci

I am really excited to get my new screen in so reading all of the positive posts just confirms for me that I made the right choice. I have a sample stuck to my wall and I cannot keep my eyes off of that 1 little sample when the projector is on.


----------



## KenWH




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Garman* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Well finally got the HP screen for my Pearl.... Great match up very, very, very pleased with outcome. Only thing I am pissed about is there are about 7 spots that it looks like the material has rubbed off, one corner looks like finger prints that won't come off. But the defects are clear, hopefully they will take care of this sooner than later. White gloves is all I have to say when putting together any fixed screen. Regardless I can live with a few defects for a short while that is, picuture is surely stunning! The ironic thing is the company that did the install is top notch and I left them some white gloves to use but clearly they didn't!



Sorry your having a problem. I was nervous I would mess up the coating when I was installing mine. Luckily I managed to get mine hung without any problems as I can imagine even a tiny blemish would stick out like a sore thumb considering the high gain nature of our screens.


Stick to your guns and make them "make it right".


Good luck,

Ken


----------



## Garman

Joseph Clark: The match up is excellent to say the least. This screen is a perfect mate with any low lumen 1080p projector!! I just saw one of these hooked up to the new JVC with similar results, outsanding. The dealer where I bought mine also has a certified ISF tech, and he was in wowed by how good it looked. All I can say when handling this units "USE WHITE GLOVES" reason being any grease or smudge mark would be hard to get out. I though I had smudges, but it is where some of the material has rubbed off. One spot is abou 1/2 and noticable now, company I am working with is replacing it soon, I am one happy camper with this setup. The ISFT said I was getting about 30 foot lamperts out of the combo which I thought was damn good considering this was set on the low lamp setting!


KenWH: I don't think there will be a problem, I didn't install it, I have done installls along time ago, and I remember us where white gloves when we where installing screens in the past. The problem is there are 4 scuff marks in the middle of the screen, I didn't notice them before till I turned off the screen for the first time and bingo there they where and now I see them, go figure.


----------



## ryoohki

Where do you guys got the samples from? I'am interested in this screen and want a simple to test it out before i buy..


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ryoohki* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Where do you guys got the samples from? I'am interested in this screen and want a simple to test it out before i buy..



Contact Da-Lite through their web site.


----------



## ryoohki




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Contact Da-Lite through their web site.



OK thanks i'll do that.. wonder if they ship samples to canada.. thanks again!


----------



## mpedris




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *QQQ* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> You probably feel like the Indian's felt in 1492 when Columbus arrived and "discovered" America
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .












LMAO!!


----------



## Mark A Gonzalez

WOW, I was looking at getting the High Power 119" Deluxe Electrol screen and this thing is almost $3000. Who has the best deals on screens?


----------



## kits

Tryg, thank you for this great thread. If you remember after I ordered 12' wide CIH High Power Screen I got scared about setup issues which retro reflective screens. Thank god I didn't cancel my order and thank you for making me hold to my initial decision.


I finally got my theater ready yesterday and this screen is making my Panasonic AX100U look all the more better even with low lamp mode.


Projector lens is about 17" inches from ceiling and screen top is about 19" down from ceiling. I watched picture sitting on floor even from just 16' away and the picture still looked too good to me. Once my eyes are about 3-4' from floor the picture looks stunning even when I am doing the poor man's CIH setup my zooming.


BIG THANKS TO TRYG for this THREAD that made me own this incredible screen. BTW, my friend has the same projector and 100" screen which has no gain and his picture is so different from mine that he is now thinking his projector might be having a problem . I had to tell him about my screen.


----------



## Joseph Clark

Da-Lite HP Da-Bomb!


----------



## Tryg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kits* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Tryg, thank you for this great thread. If you remember after I ordered 12' wide CIH High Power Screen I got scared about setup issues which retro reflective screens. Thank god I didn't cancel my order and thank you for making me hold to my initial decision.




Glad you like it! I know there are a lot of different perspectives around here that can get people into a panic. Many not based from experience.


Sometimes I dont know what to believe


----------



## Joseph Clark

I wanted to thank you, too, Tryg. This is the kind of thread that should exist for any technology we talk about here. It's just full of really valuable information - and it has pictures!


----------



## farb

I have the HP Model B pulldown. I will be lowering the projector shortly to pick up some gain. My projector is the Sanyo Z5. I sit a little over one sofa cushion off center and notice a slight drop in gain. If I mount the projector over my head and lens shift will that do anything? Will moving the screen to the right and lens shifting from the current position move the sweet spot? In other words when using a projector with good lens shift are there any other flexibilities that may be had?


Thanks


----------



## Nathan Troutman

I was doing a little more research around here on Silverstar and Hi-Power just to pass the time a little. And was confused by this. Possibly Tryg can answer this for me. Your picture all the way at the beginning of this thread clearly shows that the Hi-Power is, well, more powerful than Silverstar. And, as shown by the picture, quite a bit more powerful than Silverstar. However, Vutec rates Silverstar as 6.0 gain as compared to Da-lite's 2.8 gain for High power. Is Vutec simply lying? Shouldn't Vutec be twice as bright as the Da-Lite High Power? How can they get away with advertising a screen at 6.0 gain that is clearly beaten by a screen with 2.8 gain?


Here's Vutec's page on Silverstar see for yourself if you haven't noticed.

http://www.vutec.com/silverstar.htm 


With a Hi-Power screen costing around $300 for 106" that has a rated gain half of the Silverstar which costs $1500 for 110" to then see in comparison that Da-Lite outperforms (in terms of gain) the Silverstar is, well, shocking. Silverstar's numbers seem to be a flat out lie. They're so overinflated it's not possible to excuse it as just fudging it a little bit. It's rated 6.0 gain and it can't even come close to something rated at 2.8 gain. Can anyone make sense of this for me? I'm not looking to buy either of these as I already have a screen I'm happy with, but I'm always looking for what might be next.







This difference really bothers me about Silverstar.


----------



## Alex9966




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nathan Troutman* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I was doing a little more research around here on Silverstar and Hi-Power just to pass the time a little. And was confused by this. Possibly Tryg can answer this for me. Your picture all the way at the beginning of this thread clearly shows that the Hi-Power is, well, more powerful than Silverstar. And, as shown by the picture, quite a bit more powerful than Silverstar. However, Vutec rates Silverstar as 6.0 gain as compared to Da-lite's 2.8 gain for High power. Is Vutec simply lying? Shouldn't Vutec be twice as bright as the Da-Lite High Power? How can they get away with advertising a screen at 6.0 gain that is clearly beaten by a screen with 2.8 gain?
> 
> 
> Here's Vutec's page on Silverstar see for yourself if you haven't noticed.
> 
> http://www.vutec.com/silverstar.htm
> 
> 
> With a Hi-Power screen costing around $300 for 106" that has a rated gain half of the Silverstar which costs $1500 for 110" to then see in comparison that Da-Lite outperforms (in terms of gain) the Silverstar is, well, shocking. Silverstar's numbers seem to be a flat out lie. They're so overinflated it's not possible to excuse it as just fudging it a little bit. It's rated 6.0 gain and it can't even come close to something rated at 2.8 gain. Can anyone make sense of this for me? I'm not looking to buy either of these as I already have a screen I'm happy with, but I'm always looking for what might be next.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This difference really bothers me about Silverstar.



See Tryg's "White, Gray, and Silver" Thread as he discusses the facts in this case. the Gain of the Silverstar is actually around 3 + and the Hi Power is well north of that number when you are perfectly in the cone. However, if you are not in the cat bird seat with the HI Power, you will lose considerable gain. I was thinking hard about the Hi Power given the gain and price, but the uniformity of gain with Silverstar was the thing that drove my Purchase. I labored over thread after thread and spoke to many who own both. In the end, Siverstar won out. I have now had it for approximately 2 weeks and consider it the best vehicle of improvement for my system yet...worth every bit of 2 grand I spent to get a 123 inch. You say that "this difference really bothers me", I am confident if you owned one you would get over it real quick. Good luck to you. Alex


----------



## Joseph Clark

If I needed a wide viewing area or entertained people a lot who would have to sit outside the HP's sweet spot, I doubt I would have wanted it. However, since probably well over 95% of our viewing is just a couple of people (dead in the center of the sweet spot), the HP was perfect. On those occasions when I need extra light output for the peripheral seating, I can either open the iris and/or bump up the lamp from low to high on my Sharp 20000. I liked the surface of the HP better than the SS sample I got, but I'm sure I would have adjusted to the SS well, moving from a Firehawk.


One of the other advantages of the HP is the price. It's a lot cheaper than the SS, because the SS comes mounted on a hard, thick panel that has to be a lot more expensive to manufacture and ship.


I was awfully tempted by the SS, though, because it wouldn't have required me to change much of anything else in my home theater except the screen. The HP required me to mount the projector significantly lower than I had to before, to get it near eye level with the lens.


Everyone has to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of a particular screen for their situation. Although both the SS and the HP are high gain screens, they take different approaches and require different projector and seating arrangements.


----------



## Nathan Troutman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alex9966* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> See Tryg's "White, Gray, and Silver" Thread as he discusses the facts in this case.



Thanks for your thoughts. I have read through that thread in the past. What I was saying is that it's obvious that it's not 6.0 Gain. My question is why advertise it as 6.0 gain when it is so clearly not an even close statement of what is actually true? The Silverstar seems to give great results and got excellent marks from Tryg and does provide at least a fair amount of gain boost. There seems to be no need to overstate it's gain raiting by Vutec.


I had a negative gain .8 gray screen but I wanted to upgrade. Silverstar (unfortunately for me) was way out of my budget range. I bought the new Hd1000 from Mitsubishi for $850. It's 720HD, DLP darkchip 2 and does a great job. I could hardly spend SS prices for a projector this inexpensive. I must admitt I envy those of you that can bring something like SS or DNP Supernova into your theater. Makes me feel like I'm on a shoestring budget.










HP was a very strong contender, but ultimately the viewing cone made me decide against it (I didn't actual look at the screen, but I decided based on what others have said and the viewing cone that Tryg had measured. Much to narrow for my wider living room style theater.) Like everything in life, every screen has it's trade offs.


----------



## Tryg

Sometimes there's a fine line between Marketing and Facts










Manufacturers can say what they want...and do!


----------



## sarkleshark

This screen sounds great.

When ordering the screen , does the size refer to the white screen size or the size including the 3 inch frame on each side ( ie 6 more inches )

Thanks


----------



## Tryg

image


----------



## javry

Tryg,

What is the angle from your PJ lense to the center of your screen? From your superbowl party photo, it looks to be about 25 to 30 degrees. Also, it doesn't look like anyone at the party was suffering from off-axis viewing.


----------



## Ikari Warrior

Ok, I recieved my 106" this Friday, after moving up from a 92" Graywolf II, for my Optoma HD72. First off, the smoothness and brightness are terrific. Seeing snow and skies without the texture of the GW interfereing in the image is amazing. I have a low ceiling mounted projector, and while the image does get slightly brighter if you stand up, it's perfectly fine while seated, and the viewing cone is no issue at all. Whe the green "This film has been rated.." screen comes up before a BluRay preview, it's so bright and sharp I practically need sunglasses!










Now the one issue I'm having. Blurays, HD DVDs and video games (Xbox 360 and PS3) all look terrific, much cleaner and brighter than before. However, HD cable looks much worse. Pixelation, motion artifacts, and grain are way magnified. Now this could have been a result of the GW II hiding alot of these defects with its high contrast gray nature, and now I'm seeing them more clearly. It could also be an effect of moving up from the 92" to the 106" I moved up because everyone always says if you buy a new screen to go big, since you can always make the image smaller, but you can never go bigger without a new screen, and I plan for this to be my last for a long while.


Did anyone else have similar experiences when they moved to an HP screen?

I feel kind of conflicted, I'm enjoying the clean bright images, but the flaws are really noticeable now. I tried recalibration the projector, but it didn't help that much. The seating as it stands now is at 11.5-12'. The theater room is in a basement with total light control. I was thinking I could move back from the screen a bit, but that would entail moving the whole room layout 90 degrees and moving all the equipment and furniture (due to the placement of beams).


Any ideas, suggestions, or experiences you guys could share?

Thanks

Jason


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ikari Warrior* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Any ideas, suggestions, or experiences you guys could share?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Jason



A simple experiment to see if the larger screen size is responsible for HD cable looking worse: Use the zoom to reduce the picture size back down to 92" (temporarily of course!).


----------



## msink




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I have a few PMs asking me if I still love the Silverstar....yes. But I do like the added brightness and punch from the High Power on the larger screen.
> 
> 
> Silverstar good for wider viewing angles, High Power the best for on axis viewing...
> 
> 
> Absolutely Stunning!



Tryg,


Is this image a fair representation of the Silverstar, considering your flash and camera lens are in perfect position to take advantage of the Hi Powers retro reflective properties? I have a 120" SS, so of course Im intrigued by the photo. In the photo you have showing several screen samples and the ANSI contrast pattern, the SS clearly looks brighter.


Mark


EDIT.. On 2nd thought, maybe your camera/lens is not that well suited to the HP, or the SS. But maybe the SS could still look better if the flash were not directly in line with the lens. Anyway, just looking for more insight given the drastic difference shown in that photo.


----------



## davidcrowe

I after nearly a full year of having my 139" wide model B (purchased from Jason at AVS) I am still thrilled at having purchased it. You have to see one to believe how great it really is. The small samples from dalite do not do the installed screen justice.


----------



## javry

got mine today. It took me less time to do 90% of snaps than it took to do the last 3. Whew! Whole lotta cussin goin on around my house tonight:>)


----------



## Mupi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jagercola* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Here is my High Power screen install. It's a 126" perm-wall 2.37:1 screen . I used one of these heavy duty picture hanger / wall cleats to mount it into the dry wall instead of making holes for the entire screen perimeter. Pretty simple, it screwed in easy to the frame then I just a used couple of the included screws to mount it to the wall. I now have the flexibility of shifting the screen 5-10" left or right, and I can take it down with ease if need be.
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting on my projector, but my initial impression is that you can really see the gain on this puppy. It's uniform too even being that wide, so it has the same brightness from end to end. I'll update with comments once my projector arrives about the viewing cone and how it looks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ps. Ascend rocks my house...



I was under the impression that the PERM WALL Da-Lite screen came with a

silver frame but your screen has a black frame. Did you order the PRO TRIM?


----------



## Tryg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *msink* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Tryg,
> 
> 
> Is this image a fair representation of the Silverstar, considering your flash and camera lens are in perfect position to take advantage of the Hi Powers retro reflective properties? I have a 120" SS, so of course Im intrigued by the photo. In the photo you have showing several screen samples and the ANSI contrast pattern, the SS clearly looks brighter.



Fair yes, perfect no. I am standing up so max gain of Silverstar would be below the lens. BUT with both screens perfectly on axis the High Power is slightly brighter.


----------



## ericsilv




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mupi* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I was under the impression that the PERM WALL Da-Lite screen came with a
> 
> silver frame but your screen has a black frame. Did you order the PRO TRIM?




the silver/aliminum frame is mounted to wall the screen has a black vinyl border covering the frame . unless your close you dont see the snaps


----------



## javry




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jagercola* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Here is my High Power screen install. It's a 126" perm-wall 2.37:1 screen . I used one of these heavy duty picture hanger / wall cleats to mount it into the dry wall instead of making holes for the entire screen perimeter. Pretty simple, it screwed in easy to the frame then I just a used couple of the included screws to mount it to the wall. I now have the flexibility of shifting the screen 5-10" left or right, and I can take it down with ease if need be.
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting on my projector, but my initial impression is that you can really see the gain on this puppy. It's uniform too even being that wide, so it has the same brightness from end to end. I'll update with comments once my projector arrives about the viewing cone and how it looks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ps. Ascend rocks my house...



very nice. I'll post mine as soon as I get things cleaned up and get my CBIII upgrade back from Theta. Is that a cinema contour frame?


----------



## DKA

Jagercola,


That's got to be one of the most useful ideas I've ever seen on this forum. Just wondering - did you only use one hanger at the top of your screen? If so, does the screen lie flat against the wall, or does it tilt down slightly? Seems like that could create a bit of keystoning in the image.


----------



## KenWH




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DKA* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Jagercola,
> 
> 
> That's got to be one of the most useful ideas I've ever seen on this forum. Just wondering - did you only use one hanger at the top of your screen? If so, does the screen lie flat against the wall, or does it tilt down slightly? Seems like that could create a bit of keystoning in the image.




Not Jagercola but I've used the "hangman" type hangers on other things and yes they do stand out from the wall some.


I guess you could just use something to standoff/space the bottom of the screen so it's plum with the wall again. No heavier than these screens are you could probably just tape on some cotton balls or other pads to act as spacers for the bottom. You could run another hanger on the bottom also.


----------



## javry

I hung the cinema contour frame with just the top hanger. There is a slight keystone as a result. I had to adjust the verticle to about -5. I'll add a velcro spacer to the bottom this w'end to flush it out. Shoudn't take that much.


----------



## smile




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DKA* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Jagercola,
> 
> 
> That's got to be one of the most useful ideas I've ever seen on this forum. Just wondering - did you only use one hanger at the top of your screen? If so, does the screen lie flat against the wall, or does it tilt down slightly? Seems like that could create a bit of keystoning in the image.



I mounted my Permwall 106" HP today, but the material isn't taut, it sags leaving waves. I asked the seller about this and was told: "Not uncommon with the Permwall. What you have to do is mount the frame at the top and bottom as to make it more rigid." Does this sound right?


----------



## KenWH

Yes I was told that the permwall would do that. It's designed to be rigidly mounted or braced on all four sides instead of just being hung. My understanding was/is the frame is not stiff enough on it's own to maintain tention.


edit:

I'd focus on stiffening the long horizontal frame members first as they are the most flexible due to their longer length.


I wonder if gussetting the frame would work without being noticed from the front?


If so you could cut some good sized triangluar pieces of plywood,mdf, osb,etc. and screw them into the corners on the back of the frame. This way you can still basically just simply hang the frame yet the frame has stiffness...just a thought anyway.


----------



## Joe_Black

Another option to consider that works incredibly well; Buy whatever screen surface you like in a manual pull down version since it's usually about a quarter of a fixed frame screen price in it's equivalent size.


Then take it into your local picture framing shop and have them mount it onto a canvas frame so it's nice, tensioned and tight (just like a large painting) and have them frame it with whatever size velvet frame you want. It'll still come out costing half as much as buying a fixed frame screen with much more future flexibility.


Plus side to this is next time you want to change or upgrade your screen material you just buy another manual pulldown screen again at a quater of the cost. Take your existing screen into the picture framing shop and just have the new one mounted on the existing canvas frame or a new one so you can interchange them into the velvet frame when you feel like it. You already have the velvet frame and everything else so cost is very minimal.


----------



## Jagercola

That's my screen a couple of posts up. Just as a tip for those that want to try the hanger approach with the perm-wall. Snap together the entire frame and only the two corner bottom snaps, not any more on the bottom row. The material is so heavy, that it lays perfectly flat in the proper rectangle shape. So no more wrinkles. My hanger puts the screen like a half inch from the wall. I took one Styrofoam packing peanut and placed between the bottom of the screen and the wall. Perfect! Now if my RS1 would just get here, it's a long boat ride.


----------



## Joseph Clark

I saw my friend's 119" Model C pull-down High Power tonight with an out-of-the-box Pearl. The Pearl was on low lamp mode and the image looked fabulous (though uncalibrated) - lots of brightness. He had a seating arrangement much like mine, so the viewing cone was not an issue. He's ecstatic - and the picture still has a long way to go before it's optimized. Not a wrinkle in sight.


----------



## DomNY

TRYG,

I am on the RS-1 pre-buy list (next shipment I hope). I have been reading a lot about screen material and would like your opinion on my current screen and configuration.

- I have a 92" diag. Stewart Greyhawk Screen.

- My room is 14' wide (screen wall) by 17' deep.

- My projector will be ceiling mounted 15" down from an 8' ceiling.

- I have painted a 10' wide by 5' section of panels on the ceiling in front of the screen, flat black (SW Promar 400).

- The proj lens will be 10"8" from the screen.

- My seating is 11'6" from the screen (proj pretty much over head).

- I have 4 theater seats in one row (all I have room for).

- My screen wall is a very deep, almost black, forest green color.

- Side walls are a light tan.

- I only use the proj. with all lights out, evenings.

While I plan on testing the RS-1 in the situation above, I am open to suggestions for improvement via changing the screen material. My one requirement is that it be Stewart as my Lexus Deluxe Screen Wall Frame is just to expensive to ditch. Do you recommend a change? If so, what would you recommend? Can I stay in the Stewart line and get better results?

Regards,

Dom


----------



## javry




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jagercola* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> That's my screen a couple of posts up. Just as a tip for those that want to try the hanger approach with the perm-wall. Snap together the entire frame and only the two corner bottom snaps, not any more on the bottom row. The material is so heavy, that it lays perfectly flat in the proper rectangle shape. So no more wrinkles. My hanger puts the screen like a half inch from the wall. I took one Styrofoam packing peanut and placed between the bottom of the screen and the wall. Perfect! Now if my RS1 would just get here, it's a long boat ride.



I took another look at mine. Because of the way the hanger tucks into the back of the contour frame, there doesn't appear to be any out hang from the top of the screen to the bottom. The whole thing is laying flush against the wall with no daylight anywhere.


----------



## Tryg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DomNY* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Can I stay in the Stewart line and get better results?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dom



Maybe? but I would stick with this screen for now and see what you think with your new projector. should be a great image. If the image is bright enough for you no change is necessary.


----------



## smile




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jagercola* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> That's my screen a couple of posts up. Just as a tip for those that want to try the hanger approach with the perm-wall. Snap together the entire frame and only the two corner bottom snaps, not any more on the bottom row. The material is so heavy, that it lays perfectly flat in the proper rectangle shape. So no more wrinkles. My hanger puts the screen like a half inch from the wall. I took one Styrofoam packing peanut and placed between the bottom of the screen and the wall. Perfect! Now if my RS1 would just get here, it's a long boat ride.



The frame of 4 aluminum posts costs >$200 and it doesn't work as designed? And the answer is "yea, they do that", so do some jury-rig that minimizes the fault and live w/ it? What a POS product, or company, to continue to market a flawed product. It ain't like this thing has moving parts.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smile* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The frame of 4 aluminum posts costs >$200 and it doesn't work as designed? And the answer is "yea, they do that", so do some jury-rig that minimizes the fault and live w/ it? What a POS product, or company, to continue to market a flawed product. It ain't like this thing has moving parts.



And your negative comments about Da-Lite and their screen comes from what personal experience with it? And if you have none, then what possible credence do you expect anyone to give to your negative comments? Comments like this are of no benefit to anyone, even you.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> And your negative comments about Da-Lite and their screen comes from what personal experience with it? And if you have none, then what possible credence do you expect anyone to give to your negative comments? Comments like this are of no benefit to anyone, even you.



I think smile is complaining about the limitations of the Permwall frame, not the Dalite screen material itself. It is a very inexpensive frame; it one wants a sturdier, more robust frame, then they need to shell out for the Cinema Contour or DaSnap.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I think smile is complaining about the limitations of the Permwall frame, not the Dalite screen material itself. It is a very inexpensive frame; it one wants a sturdier, more robust frame, then they need to shell out for the Cinema Contour or DaSnap.



I understand that, but the comments are negative generalizations about a company and a product that aren't based on fact. I didn't choose that frame because I wanted a rigid frame with a particular look (similar to my Stewart FireHawk frame). From what I've read, the Permwall works well (and as advertised) if you mount it the way the company suggests. It's not that the design itself is flawed, and I think it's inappropriate for someone to condemn a product and a company based on inaccurate information. It's not helpful and it's bad AVS etiquette.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I understand that, but the comments are negative generalizations about a company and a product that aren't based on fact. I didn't choose that frame because I wanted a rigid frame with a particular look (similar to my Stewart FireHawk frame). From what I've read, the Permwall works well (and as advertised) if you mount it the way the company suggests. It's not that the design itself is flawed, and I think it's inappropriate for someone to condemn a product and a company based on inaccurate information. It's not helpful and it's bad AVS etiquette.



Joe, I agree completely. The PW frame is designed to be screwed down firmly on all 4 sides. To try to side step this is asking for problems.


----------



## ryoohki

I just received my Sample.. and wow .. what a difference between that and my wall.. i'am ordering one as soon as my Tax return arrive.. that's for sure...


----------



## millerwill

My 126" diag HP is scheduled to arrive Tueday; will be my first screen, to go with my first projector (RS1), supposed to arrive tomorrow. I don't think I'll sleep the next few nights.


----------



## Tryg

That should be a bright setup. I estimate 25 foot lamberts in normal bulb mode and 35 in high mode. It will rock.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> My 126" diag HP is scheduled to arrive Tueday; will be my first screen, to go with my first projector (RS1), supposed to arrive tomorrow. I don't think I'll sleep the next few nights.



Your life is about to change.


----------



## Chadci

I got my screen a little over a week ago. It is a 119" pull down with a black case. I am using it with my Z3 projector and I just upgraded dvd players to an A2.


I have not had too much of a chance to watch anything yet. I got it mounted last saturday and watched about half of Backdraft and holy cow, even on low lamp and creative contrast it is bright enough to watch with curitans open. I am really pleased with my purchase. I have a few movies needing to be watched this weekend, Borat and Sherry Baby and a few of my new HD titles as well, I will try to report back next week.


----------



## smile




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I understand that, but the comments are negative generalizations about a company and a product that aren't based on fact. I didn't choose that frame because I wanted a rigid frame with a particular look (similar to my Stewart FireHawk frame). From what I've read, the Permwall works well (and as advertised) if you mount it the way the company suggests. It's not that the design itself is flawed, and I think it's inappropriate for someone to condemn a product and a company based on inaccurate information. It's not helpful and it's bad AVS etiquette.



Joe, if you read my posts above you will see my comments are about my ownership experience w/ the product (why would you slam me by assuming I didn't own the product?). The frame is the item in question, not the screen itself. My delivery came w/ NO installation instructions. I read posts above mine describing the approach I took and assumed that the frame was capable of that method. A post following Joe's drive by shooting tells me it was designed to be mounted by anchoring each frame piece. That is news to me, why didn't DaLite tell me so? I'll try that and see if my results are better, but it's a lot of slack to be removed and I'm sceptical that I am getting that much frame deflection; we'll see. Dalite instructions on installation would have saved me time and money in avoiding my wasted effort of this install. By the way, first blush, the screen itself looks nice.


PS: This morning I agree my POS comment was aggressively strong. It was the frustration talking (which could have been avoided by DaLite instructions).


----------



## KenWH




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smile* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The frame of 4 aluminum posts costs >$200 and it doesn't work as designed? And the answer is "yea, they do that", so do some jury-rig that minimizes the fault and live w/ it? What a POS product, or company, to continue to market a flawed product. It ain't like this thing has moving parts.



VERY informative post there.










Draper also has a similar "pos" frame. These "semi-rigid" frames are designed for rigid mounting of all sides to a wall or niche...not hanging. Iirc it even says so in the install instructions on Da-Lite and/or Drapers website. If you hang these you may very well need to "rig" them. If they are used for the intended purpose you don't. There is a reason the permwall is much cheaper than the other frames from da-lite.










But i do agree with you that just about all the fixed frame screens cost too much for what you get. Seems there's more engineering time and parts spent on roll-up screens yet they are usually cheaper than fixed frames for some reason.


edit:

Sorry Smile...you posted your edit as I was typing.


----------



## bqmeister

I had a HP 119" paired with a table mounted panny ax100u.


Yesterday I got a ceiling mount and now have a panny ax100u mounted 8" or so higher than the top of the same HP screen.


Brightness may be off a little. Not noticable to me yet. I hope to do some more critical watching this weekend.


I do plan on getting a 12" extension pole for my mount to lower the projector a bit (I have to use a bit of keystoning with the mount right now). I also plan to raise the screen 1-2" this weekend. Once I do all that, my image brightness will likely improve (a little) and I should be able to get rid of all of the keystoning.


I will say this though - I'm still VERY happy with the HP even with a ceiling mounted projector. The cone (for me anyway) doesn't appear as bad as I've read.


And i'm just tickled to have the cables off the floor and get rid of the table in the middle of my room. My room feels more open now.

I was also lucky or planned things correctly. My projector is mounted right next to both a power outlet on the ceiling and a cable conduit I ran during construction. I would benefit from a short 18 inch power cord, but everything came together perfectly.


Now I just need to paint!


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smile* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Joe, if you read my posts above you will see my comments are about my ownership experience w/ the product (why would you slam me by assuming I didn't own the product?). The frame is the item in question, not the screen itself. My delivery came w/ NO installation instructions. I read posts above mine describing the approach I took and assumed that the frame was capable of that method. A post following Joe's drive by shooting tells me it was designed to be mounted by anchoring each frame piece. That is news to me, why didn't DaLite tell me so? I'll try that and see if my results are better, but it's a lot of slack to be removed and I'm sceptical that I am getting that much frame deflection; we'll see. Dalite instructions on installation would have saved me time and money in avoiding my wasted effort of this install. By the way, first blush, the screen itself looks nice.
> 
> 
> PS: This morning I agree my POS comment was aggressively strong. It was the frustration talking (which could have been avoided by DaLite instructions).



I had some frustration, too, while mounting my screen. It was a real workout and I think I lost 3-4 pounds in sweat. At the end of the day, though, it is a wonderful screen material and worth all the effort. As I think back to my FireHawk, I suspect the only reason it was so much easier than the HP was the stretchy nature of the material. The HP fabric isn't like that.


Good luck getting your issues resolved. You'll love the screen when you do. (And I missed your earlier posts, so my apologies for that.)


----------



## javry

u d'man Joe. And I'll ditto the comment about spilling blood, sweat, and tears while putting the screen together.


----------



## qwig

Great review!


----------



## ericsilv

smile mine came with instructions if yours did not look at da-lite site http://www.dalite.com/products/spec_download.php it shows you how to mount or call them they will talk to you. as many have said it was tough to get snaps on but i followed the directions and there is not a fold or wrinkle to be seen


----------



## ryoohki

btw here some photo of my wall (Behr Silverstar paint) vs my sample of Da lite


It's more or less acurate and well grainy (sorry didn't have a tripod, used a high ISO)


----------



## Joseph Clark

That's exactly how I got hooked on the HP. I was like a moth to the flame.


----------



## Chadci

So I watched Borat and we watched Willy Wonka on HD DVD last night and I am very pleased my my screen.. BUT.. I have to find a way to mount it right to the wall. I have it rigged up on shelf mounts and then it hangs down with heavy duty eye bolts. The problem, it sticks out about a foot off of the wall. No big deal but I am noticing some screen door, which I never have before. Its not a constant, just when the scene is light and bright.


Since I don't have anything to compare the screen with I am going to maybe pick up some poster board or black out cloth to hang next to it for pictures.


I have already sold a HP screen to a guy at work and he is trying to get his buddy on board as well.


----------



## Lone Granger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> That should be a bright setup. I estimate 25 foot lamberts in normal bulb mode and 35 in high mode. It will rock.




Hi Tryg - the usual thanks for your great contribution to this site ...


I too am keen to get HD-1 / RS-1 with HP in the Uk as I value an LCD level of vibrancy to a 'Cinematic' CRT / DLP set up.


Unusually for the UK (dont ask me why ....) I too am looking for the largest screen I can install in a room measuring 18' L by 15' wide.


I think 16:9 is the format however I am first to admit I really dont know what config is most suitable. - I will principally view BluRay 1080P new material to get best from set up. - Presumably your latest set up needs addition of Anamorphic (sp?!) lense to RS-1 which no doubt is hugely expensive? - This being so, then 16:9 it is.


Ok, enough rambling --


With 15' wide room a 12' wide screen (6.8' high? in 7' 6" H room) would seem to be maximum.


Seating can be at any distance as can PJ, however I am considering mounting PJ lense around 16' and viewing nr 18'. - Lense would be ideally c 6' 9" whilst viewing at 3' H - ie near 4' off axis at c 17'


Is this too far off axis? - After all, separation between 2 viewers will be 4' horizontally


What is estimated angle for 4' deviation at c. 17' - perhaps somebody would be good enough to remind me of the math required to make such calculations.


I need to do calculations at 16' to 19' for lense to screen (pj can be recessed behind viewers in window recess - wood shuttered betwen pj and glass)


I am very concerned if I simply go for optimum and mount behind our heads that it is not as neat or convenient as a slide away roof mount and that the fan exhaust (which i shall run on Hi) will be right in my ear!!


I am also considering making an exhaust from fan outlet to turn through 180 deg and trunk out of window! - anybody think that will deal with noise (certainly stop draught!)


Basically i am looking for suggestions given room size. - It is wood shuttered and dark except light wall, ceiling and floor coverings - will darken edges around screen on end wall


----------



## video_bit_bucket

The 30 degree viewing angle for the HP. Does this mean that looking from the screen to the viewing area that 30 degrees to the right and 30 degrees to the left of the center line bisecting the viewing area produces acceptable viewing? The graph at the start of this thread seems to show unity gain at 20 degrees off center which does not match 30 and is confusing to me. Which sadly is easy to do.


I want to do a RS-1 based 115 x 49 scope which will run 87 x 49 in 16x9. 12 ft seating, projector would fit the room at 14 to 18 ft throw.




Thanks.


----------



## couchpotato1072




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *davidcrowe* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I after nearly a full year of having my 139" wide model B (purchased from Jason at AVS) I am still thrilled at having purchased it. You have to see one to believe how great it really is. The small samples from dalite do not do the installed screen justice.



I thought that the model b pulldown only went up to 106 inches? Is it possible to get a model b in a size like 110?


----------



## Tryg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lone Granger* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I think 16:9 is the format however I am first to admit I really dont know what config is most suitable. -



I think it depends on your viewing preferences. I will say there are more and more people going to Cinemascope screens. A year ago very few. Over the last 4 months 1 of every 4 I sell.


I would give it try. With HD-DVD the Native aspect ratio on a lot of movies is 2.4 so fill up the screen!


Do you need all the fancy processors and anamorphic lenses? Absolutley not. Zooming out some of the new 1080p projector yield superb results. You can always go to the next level with the other add ons when you want.


I'd shoot for 10' or even 11' wide 2.35 or 2.40 screen. Why not, life is short


----------



## Lone Granger

Q ....With 15' wide room a 12' wide screen (6.8' high? in 7' 6" H room) would seem to be maximum.


Seating can be at any distance as can PJ, however I am considering mounting PJ lense around 16' and viewing nr 18'. - Lense would be ideally c 6' 9" whilst viewing at 3' H - ie near 4' off axis at c 17'


Is this too far off axis? - After all, separation between 2 viewers will be 4' horizontally


Edit: Appears to be c 15 deg vert above viewer - this would appear to be 3 times too much to get good gain using Tryg cone calc - is that right?


I am very concerned if I simply go for optimum and mount behind our heads that it is not as neat or convenient as a slide away roof mount and that the fan exhaust (which i shall run on Hi) will be right in my ear!!


I am also considering making an exhaust from fan outlet to turn through 180 deg and trunk out of window! - anybody think that will deal with noise (certainly stop draught!)


Basically i am looking for suggestions given room size. - It is wood shuttered and dark except light wall, ceiling and floor coverings - will darken edges around screen on end wall[/quote]


----------



## smithfarmer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lone Granger* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Q ....With 15' wide room a 12' wide screen (6.8' high? in 7' 6" H room) would seem to be maximum.



With a screen that tall and a roof that low, where do you plan on putting your center channel speaker? Personally, I think you'll be much better off doing a 12' wide 2.35:1 screen in that room. The vertical height of the screen will be 5' and give you greater flexibility for center channel speaker placement.


Do you have more than 1 row of seating? With a 6.8' tall screen you will definitely have problems with an additional row of seating.


----------



## video_bit_bucket




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *video_bit_bucket* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The 30 degree viewing angle for the HP. Does this mean that looking from the screen to the viewing area that 30 degrees to the right and 30 degrees to the left of the center line bisecting the viewing area produces acceptable viewing? The graph at the start of this thread seems to show unity gain at 20 degrees off center which does not match 30 and is confusing to me. Which sadly is easy to do.
> 
> 
> I want to do a RS-1 based 115 x 49 scope which will run 87 x 49 in 16x9. 12 ft seating, projector would fit the room at 14 to 18 ft throw.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.



Da-Lite answered my question today. Below is the relevant quote.


"The "viewing angle" does mean what you described, that the optimal viewing area will be within 30 degrees to the left and to the right of the screen. Now once you reach that mark it does not mean that you will not be able to view the screen, as that is the point that you can start to notice a decrease in the brightness. "


----------



## Tryg

Yes many call me asking if the High Power will work if they veiw off axis. YES! at 30 degrees or more you will just see a dimmer image (much like that of a standard matte white screen). You get the benefits of the high power by sitting in the sweetspot. theres nothing wrong with not sitting in the sweetspot...you just dont get the higher gain


----------



## Jonathanengr

Okay--I'm having a horrible time deciding on a screen. Da-lite told me matte white would be best for my installation, someone else told me cinemavision, another told me video spectra, someone else recommended a high-contrast screen and then I stumble onto this high power review. Now I'm *thoroughly* confused.


First of all, can someone--ANYONE--tell me what these angles mean? Da-lite says the viewing angle for matte white is 50 degrees, video spectra is 35 degrees and high power is 30 degrees. Okay--so what happens at these angles with these screens? Do they go black? I like Tryg's chart, but it confuses me even more. Let me explain.


Okay--the "ideal" viewing distance from a screen is 1.5 times the screens width. Well, do the math. If you sit dead center of the screen at this distance, you'll be at 0 degrees in the center of the screen, and the gain will be 3.1. However, you'll be at an angle of 18 degrees from the edges of the screen, and according to the chart you'll have a gain of 1.0 there. It seems that would result in horrible, horrible, horrible hotspotting. If this doesn't occur (and I'm assuming it doesn't or no one would buy the screen), why not?


Anyway, I need some help here. I'll post my theater room setup here in a bit so everyone can see dimensions and so-on, and perhaps give me some good advice. FYI, I had sort-of decided on the video spectra (1.5 gain), but someone told me that even the most moderate amount of ambient light would wash out the screen. Plus, if it only has a 5 degree advantage over the high power, why not just buy the high power? My light is 100% controllable, but face fact--sometimes I'll have a light or two on watching ballgames, or someone might be playing an arcade game while the rest of us are watching movies. Ugh... why can't this be any easier?


----------



## Jonathanengr

Okay--here's a link to a pdf that includes 3 pages for my media room:

http://www.theridgeatsouthmountain.c.../mediaroom.pdf 


The first page is simply the most extreme angle from the center of the screen to the seat furthest from the center. This angle is 33 degrees. The second page, however, shows the most extreme angle (right-most seat to the left-most corner of the screen), and the angle is 48 degrees. I assume you plan for the worst angle, correct?


As you can see, the back part of the room isn't being used for any seating--it's going to contain a few arcade and pinball machines, along with a bar. The seating shown is a very rough approximation of a couch and two recliners--nothing too fancy.


Oh! And the third page is speaker placement--I made this for the electrician. Any comments on this are welcome. I wired for a 7.2 surround system (is it bad putting both subs on the same side of the room? This is where they will be most out-of-the-way). Thanks!


----------



## Joseph Clark

It can be confusing. To answer some of your main concerns, though, there will be no hotspotting with the High Power. It's extremely even across its entire surface, no matter where you sit. As to the angles, it depends on how far away you sit from the screen and how far from the lens. The closer your eyes are to the lens, the brighter the screen will be; it's that simple. If you draw a line from the lens to the center of the screen, then draw a line from there to your eyes in the seating position, that's the angle you need to worry about. More than about 15 degrees and you'll lose a lot of gain.


Best thing to do is to send for some samples from Da-Lite. Contact them via their web site. I rigged up a way of placing the sample on the wall so I could see it from the various seating positions. Do that and you'll be able to tell right away which is more appropriate for you. If you don't already have a screen, you'll have to rig up two samples together. That way, side by side, you can tell their relative brightness.


I had to lower my projector considerably to get the lens closer to eye level. When I did, the difference was remarkable - the image lit up like a torch. I sit about 12' back and no more than a couple of feet away from the lens from the various seats. If you can get close to that, the HP is a great screen. If your seats are much outside that narrow viewing cone, you might want to look at other materials.


----------



## Jonathanengr

Yup--samples arrived literally 5 mins ago here at my office. Not what I expected *at all*. I basically expected the HP to look like a reflector on a car, but instead it actually looks dullish (until you let a light right beside your head hit it). It's pretty brilliant! And the high contrast screens are *dark*. I mean really, really dark. Much more so than I thought they would be.


Here's my problem... this is my first projector setup, so I have no projector yet. Our house is supposed to be completed in July, so I've been waiting to see if 1080p prices come down even more, or if a newer version of my current choice (Sanyo PLV-Z5) comes out. Thus, I'm not really sure how to test these things out short of going ahead and buying a projector.


In one of my previous posts I had a link ( http://www.theridgeatsouthmountain.c.../mediaroom.pdf ) that shows my media room setup with the most extreme angles. The vertical placement of the projector isn't a concern to me... I planned to ceiling mount it, but if I have to mount it on a tabletop that'll be fine, too. The horizontal angles I feel are my most limiting--48 degrees to the extreme edge from the right chair to the left corner of the screen.


One thing, too, is ambient lighting. I do have 100% control over lighting, but at the same time (realistically) there will likely be some ambient light in the room when I'm trying to watch a movie. I plan on having several arcade machines in the room, so one of my friends might choose to get sentimental and play a game of Gauntlet instead of watching the movie with the rest of the crowd.


----------



## millerwill

Jonathan: The relevant angle for the HP screen is that from the projector lens, to the screen, and then to your eye. If the pj is not far from your eyes, then this angle is ~ 0 FOR ANY POINT ON THE SCREEN. That's why the brightness that the viewer sees is so uniform over the whole screen. For a viewer sitting near the outer edge of the screen, do the calculation for different points on the screen: you will find that the angle varies very little for different points on the screen; therefore even though the image will not be as bright as for the viewer right near the lens, the level of brightness will be nearly the same over the whole screen.


If the pj is not mounted so close to your eyes, you can do the geometry to see how much the angle (lens-screen-eye) varies for different points on the screen, for different sitting positions.


----------



## Jonathanengr

Ahhhhhhhhh..... so this is why people mount a projector as far back in the room as possible even though it causes a loss in lumens because the projector has to throw the light further, correct? And the "maximum" angle I show (48 degrees) in my drawing is incorrect?


See if this makes more sense. Is this the correct way to calculate the viewing angle? Is 29 degrees the number I would use to determine the "worst" angle for this seating position horizontally? I guess for the "true" angle I'd need to take into account the 3-dimensional space vertically and horizontally. I can do this mathematically, but it's difficult to do graphically. But first, is this the correct way to calculate this number? Or is the angle from the normal to the surface of the screen, which in this case would result in a number 1/2 of 29 degrees, or 14.5 degrees (boy would that be nice).


----------



## Jonathanengr

Sorry--here's the link to the new drawing:

http://www.theridgeatsouthmountain.c...ewingangle.pdf


----------



## Jonathanengr

Okay... in the materials I just received from Da-Lite, they call the viewing angle the angle from the *center of the screen* to the left or right-most seat. They don't even mention the projector location. This is getting almost comical. Based on this criteria, however, my most extreme seat will be 33 degrees give-or-take. The question is, what is the correct, absolute way to determine this number? From projector-screen-person, and is the angle the full angle (as in the 29 degrees above), or the angle from the normal (14.5 degrees), or do you simply measure it from the center of the screen to the seat and determine that angle? I guess owning a projector could make this easier for me, but can you really tell from an 8.5x11 sheet? Can I mount a flashlight pointed at these things and walk around to get some idea?


----------



## Joseph Clark

Actually, a flashlight is very telling. I used a sample of the HP, superimposed on a sample of Vutec Silverstar. I shined a flashlight on both and moved them around. Make sure you orient the screen materials the correct way. On the SS, for example, you have to make sure you have up and down oriented properly. For the HP, its doesn't matter. Anyway, you'll be able to tell relative brightness this way. As you move the flashlight close to your eyes, the HP will achieve its greatest brightness. The SS will be brightest as the flashlight is raised above eye level, shining down on the material. Moving the materials together, I could see the HP and the SS change their relative brightness. It's also a good way to check for uniformity, having the two materials superimposed. That's how I was able to detect the SS sheen, whereas the HP maintained its uniformity across its entire surface.


From your sketches, I'd say the people in the outer seats are going to lose a great deal of brightness. If you can modify the seating to get them into a narrower viewing cone, you have a better chance of everyone seeing a bright image. A lot of this depends on your projector, too. If you have a bright projector, they might still be OK, but if your projector is dim (as most of the new 1080p projectors are), the brightness might not be acceptable for those outer seats.


Consider this, though - how often will you have guests who will sit there? Can you, for those occasions, crank the projector into a brighter mode (or open its iris), but use the projector at its optimal settings for most viewing, with the inner seats being used? If you can manage that, the benefits of the HP will outweigh the disadvantages. On those occasions when you'll have ambient lights on, you're not going to be getting the best image anyway. Why not enjoy the extra brightness for those vast majority of occasions when it'll just be you and a couple/three additional people?


----------



## millerwill

Jonathan: My description of viewing angles above is really specific to the HiPower screen* (a retro-reflective screen, reflexing the light predominantly back to the pj). And so the OPTIMUM location for the pj is actually not far back in the room, but rather just above and behind the viewers' heads, i.e., with the eyes as close to the pj lens as is practical. But far back in the room is better than close if the pj is much higher than eye level.


* E.g., think of a viewer sitting at the edge of the screen: the angle from the lens, to the edge of the screen, and to the eye is the SAME as the angle from the lens, to the center of the screen, and then to the eye. And the angle from the other side of the screen is not much different. So even though this viewer will see a less bright pic than a viewer in the center of the screen, it will be quite uniform.


----------



## KenWH




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jonathanengr* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Okay... in the materials I just received from Da-Lite, they call the viewing angle the angle from the *center of the screen* to the left or right-most seat. They don't even mention the projector location. This is getting almost comical. Based on this criteria, however, my most extreme seat will be 33 degrees give-or-take. The question is, what is the correct, absolute way to determine this number? From projector-screen-person, and is the angle the full angle (as in the 29 degrees above), or the angle from the normal (14.5 degrees), or do you simply measure it from the center of the screen to the seat and determine that angle? I guess owning a projector could make this easier for me, but can you really tell from an 8.5x11 sheet? Can I mount a flashlight pointed at these things and walk around to get some idea?



Probably not going to be much help here but here it goes.


Joe's first paragraph above pretty much says it all but yes your first drawing is correct...33 degrees would be your "worst case" seats...but a few others things can help or hurt those seats. Start by getting the pj as close to the viewers eye level vertically as possible. Also mounting the pj back as far as reasonably possible will also help...I'll try to explain that below(try being the key word)










The key to the whole thing with the High Power is it's retro reflective nature. This means the screen is trying to reflect all the light right back to the source. Say you have a 3" lens on your pj, the screen is trying to shoot all the light right back to that small spot. Mounting the pj further back keeps the viewing cone coming from the screen wider longer as the exteme edges of the screen/image are at a much less severe angle in relation to the projector compared to as they would be with the projector mounted close to the screen. Thereby lessening the amount of gain loss to the outer mosts seats.


I don't believe a flashlight will help much as the light is not focused enough but could be wrong and it never hurts to try.










Good luck,

Ken


----------



## Jonathanengr

Okay--you're killing me. I ordered the Video Spectra for more flexibility, but now you have me thinking high power again  I'm really, really afraid of some dead spots with the high power, but how bad will they be? At 33 degrees, that seems on the fringe of what's allowable, and if you look at Tryg's chart, at 33 degrees there's no light left hardly at all.


Regarding vertical positioning, I can mount the projector right at my forehead  I'm concerned about the horizontal positioning. If you will, look at my proposed seating chart and see what you think. Chances are I'll likely have the seating closer together--especially for a movie--but those are good angles to use for now. Better question--why should I choose the VS over the HP, or the HP over the VS? I've been told the VS will have a VASTLY wider viewing area even though Da-Lite says the difference is 5 degrees. Anyone tinkered with both of these screens?


----------



## Rockokma

 pc 


Love my HP 159" model c.


If your thinking about High Power and wondering how bad the viewing cone is, get one, you will be very surprised.


at 35 degrees It is very hard to notice due to perception. Yes it gets a littttttlllllleeeee darker, but better than most screens at minimil angle.


----------



## Joseph Clark

159" HP. Color me green.


----------



## raneil

Tryg: Could you please comment on the Joe Kane article regarding screens, in the latest issue of W.S.R.


----------



## KenWH

Curious general observation from reading what others on the forum report and with my own screen:


With the HP...BIGGER IS BETTER...it seems that the guys running the larger hp's usually have a better overall experience with the screen.


Basically the larger the screen the more spread out your seats can be before serious gain loss so I guess it makes sense that larger (120"+) hp screens would have higher user satisfaction rates compared to smaller ones.


Maybe with the flourishing 1080p pj market we can start bumping up screen sizes a bit. I say this as the fill rates and tiny pixel sizes with the new 1080p's should allow us to sit closer to larger screens without to much trouble.


----------



## bqmeister




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KenWH* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe with the flourishing 1080p pj market we can start bumping up screen sizes a bit. I say this as the fill rates and tiny pixel sizes with the new 1080p's should allow us to sit closer to larger screens without to much trouble.



But as you sit closer, the closer seats on the edges would be further outside the cone.


I was also about to say, you'd need a bright projector to go much bigger than 120, but then I remembered this is a high power screen thread, and with that screen, you can go bigger with pretty much any projector.


----------



## davidcrowe

I have the really big model C HP (nearly 12 feet across) and I have never had any comments other than the "holy s*&^" variety. The screen is amazing and sooooo much better than the basic white model C that it replaced. The samples are just not a good representation of the screen. Getting the HP was the best decision I made last year and my only regret is that I didn't get it sooner.



Dave



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jonathanengr* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Okay--you're killing me. I ordered the Video Spectra for more flexibility, but now you have me thinking high power again  I'm really, really afraid of some dead spots with the high power, but how bad will they be? At 33 degrees, that seems on the fringe of what's allowable, and if you look at Tryg's chart, at 33 degrees there's no light left hardly at all.
> 
> 
> Regarding vertical positioning, I can mount the projector right at my forehead  I'm concerned about the horizontal positioning. If you will, look at my proposed seating chart and see what you think. Chances are I'll likely have the seating closer together--especially for a movie--but those are good angles to use for now. Better question--why should I choose the VS over the HP, or the HP over the VS? I've been told the VS will have a VASTLY wider viewing area even though Da-Lite says the difference is 5 degrees. Anyone tinkered with both of these screens?


----------



## davidcrowe

My mistake. I have the model C without CSR. I did spend the extra 15 dollars for the black case.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *couchpotato1072* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I thought that the model b pulldown only went up to 106 inches? Is it possible to get a model b in a size like 110?


----------



## Rockokma




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *davidcrowe* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I have the really big model C HP (nearly 12 feet across) and I have never had any comments other than the "holy s*&^" variety. The screen is amazing and sooooo much better than the basic white model C that it replaced. The samples are just not a good representation of the screen. Getting the HP was the best decision I made last year and my only regret is that I didn't get it sooner.
> 
> 
> 
> Dave



I just bolted my Model C w/ the Floating brackets on the wall. Does the middle of yours hange down more than the sides? I'm thinking about putting a custome bracket in the middle to support the wieght for the middle.


----------



## javry




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jonathanengr* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Okay--you're killing me. I ordered the Video Spectra for more flexibility, but now you have me thinking high power again  I'm really, really afraid of some dead spots with the high power, but how bad will they be? At 33 degrees, that seems on the fringe of what's allowable, and if you look at Tryg's chart, at 33 degrees there's no light left hardly at all.
> 
> 
> Regarding vertical positioning, I can mount the projector right at my forehead  I'm concerned about the horizontal positioning. If you will, look at my proposed seating chart and see what you think. Chances are I'll likely have the seating closer together--especially for a movie--but those are good angles to use for now. Better question--why should I choose the VS over the HP, or the HP over the VS? I've been told the VS will have a VASTLY wider viewing area even though Da-Lite says the difference is 5 degrees. Anyone tinkered with both of these screens?



I can't answer your last question but I can tell you about my experience with the HP....which may help with your first question. I too was worried about the viewing angle. But once I got the screen hooked up, I found that the gain variance from left to right is tolerable. The 33 degrees you speak of for instance, is from the center point....which really means you have a 66 degree angle to work with before things start breaking down. In real terms, if you have a chair at zero degrees [right in line with the center point of the screen] you can easily have one chair to the right and another to the left with a small table in between each before the gain starts to decrease to a noticeable level. Just my impression of course.


----------



## davidcrowe

I have not noticed any sagging, and again my experience with the large screen is that you can sit anywhere and have a fantastic experience. Last night my kids all had friends over and we ended up with kids and parents sitting as close as 4 feet from the screen watching everyone's hero. No comments other than the "mom can we get one at our house" variety.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rockokma* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I just bolted my Model C w/ the Floating brackets on the wall. Does the middle of yours hange down more than the sides? I'm thinking about putting a custome bracket in the middle to support the wieght for the middle.


----------



## grinchy

Initial High Power comments.


Mounted Basic Model B 106" in white case, with 24" extras drop.


It hides waves very well - I think this is an outstanding feature, as I don't have the scratch for a tab-tensioned screen.


We table mount and have the main two seats at lens level only 18" or so from the lens. I think the screen within the cone is great, and outside the cone (the other two seats) also great. The only change is it is a bit dimmer outside the cone, but certainly not dimmer than my Behr Silver Screen wall was.


Haven't done any critical viewing (daylight in room, projector recalibrated for the screen, etc)


It also reject ambient light pretty good.


----------



## fyib

Thanks


----------



## zot23

tagged for later...


----------



## CINERAMAX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *QQQ* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Tryg,
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to give you a hard time but you did not answer my question. What caused your switch in opinion on the Hi Power versus when you reviewed it the first time and chose the Silverstar. What changed? Because there is nothing new about the Hi Power - it's always been retro-reflective and I assume you knew all about that in your first review and your room has not changed either.
> 
> 
> If someone reviews the Pearl and the Qualia, even doing a shootout between them and states that they clearly prefer the Qualia and then a year later writes a review that is the opposite and says (I've replaced the word screen with PJ)"...
> 
> 
> ...I would want to know why the change in opinion.
> 
> 
> Again, I'm genuinely asking, not giving you a hard time.




I think a lot of further research from Darin P may have incfluenced Tryg.


----------



## Greg_63

Well I finally read through this whole thread. Thank you for all of the information and comments about the HP screen. I decided to buy one and happened to stumble across a Da-lite dealer that easily had the lowest price. They even beat B&H but without the inflated shipping that B&H charges







This allowed me to basically get the next larger size for close to the same price as the one that I was going to get from one of the sponsors here.


I am excited to see what everyone has been raving about. Mine should be here by the end of next week. My TX100 is almost a foot above my head and the outside seat is at the edge of my 65x116 screen. I know that the screen is a tad too big for my seating distance (about 12') but I went with that size because my future projector will be able to take advantage of that size.


I thought that I was going to have a problem mounting this model C monster seeing as the mounting holes will not line up with the studs in the wall. However, after doing a little research I found out that I'm going to have to mount it right up snug to the ceiling in order to get the bottom of the viewing area where I need it, 23" above the floor. Fortunately it is being mounted on an outside wall which means that the wall has a double top plate. That means that I have 2.5" of wood to secure the screen to the wall.


Is there any problem with leaving the screen down all the time?


----------



## Free

Time for me to order my fixed screen with 58X104 viewing area. What I can't decide on is Da-Snap or Cinema Contour. Are there any substantial differences other than the width of the frame?


----------



## millerwill

They are very similar other than width of border (1.5" vs 3.0 ). The DaSnap frame comes out further in front of the surface; therefore if the pj is above the top of the frame, or below it, there is a possibility of the frame shadowing the screen material. This can't happen with the CC.


I have the DaSnap simply because it thought the 3" border would be too 'looming'. The wider CC, though, will make it easier to have the frame absorb some of the light that leaks over to it. The choice is mainly a personal pref.


----------



## Free

Thanks, do you think one will be easier to put together than the other, or are they both a pain in the ass.


----------



## millerwill

I imagine they will be about the same re assembly, and it's really not bad. One thing I did do differently from the instructions was, after screwing the frame together, I did NOT spread the screen material out on the floor (rug) and lay the frame over it, etc. Rather, I had my wife hold the frame upright, and then I unfurled the material vertically. I snapped the screen first at the top 2 corners, then the 2 bottom corners, and then filled in at the other places. Very easy, but you do need a second person to hold the frame for you.


----------



## noah katz

"Ahhhhhhhhh..... so this is why people mount a projector as far back in the room as possible even though it causes a loss in lumens because the projector has to throw the light further, correct? "


There is no loss of lumens unless your air is dirty


The dimming with distance you're thinking of is because the image expands and brightness (light/area) decreases, but with a pj you adjust the zoom to keep the image the same size/brightness.


----------



## Free




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I imagine they will be about the same re assembly, and it's really not bad. One thing I did do differently from the instructions was, after screwing the frame together, I did NOT spread the screen material out on the floor (rug) and lay the frame over it, etc. Rather, I had my wife hold the frame upright, and then I unfurled the material vertically. I snapped the screen first at the top 2 corners, then the 2 bottom corners, and then filled in at the other places. Very easy, but you do need a second person to hold the frame for you.



Thanks, I ordered the Cinema Contour.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Free* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Thanks, I ordered the Cinema Contour.



I've no doubt you'll be delighted! Good luck, Bill


----------



## davidcrowe

I leave mine down all the time (it is the 139 inch model) with no problems. My first row of seating for the kids is only 8 feet back from the screen and they seem to love the mini imax effect. Actually it is fun to sit so close once in a while. I just have the AE900 and the picture looks great to us.


enjoy!


Dave



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Greg_63* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Well I finally read through this whole thread. Thank you for all of the information and comments about the HP screen. I decided to buy one and happened to stumble across a Da-lite dealer that easily had the lowest price. They even beat B&H but without the inflated shipping that B&H charges
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This allowed me to basically get the next larger size for close to the same price as the one that I was going to get from one of the sponsors here.
> 
> 
> I am excited to see what everyone has been raving about. Mine should be here by the end of next week. My TX100 is almost a foot above my head and the outside seat is at the edge of my 65x116 screen. I know that the screen is a tad too big for my seating distance (about 12') but I went with that size because my future projector will be able to take advantage of that size.
> 
> 
> I thought that I was going to have a problem mounting this model C monster seeing as the mounting holes will not line up with the studs in the wall. However, after doing a little research I found out that I'm going to have to mount it right up snug to the ceiling in order to get the bottom of the viewing area where I need it, 23" above the floor. Fortunately it is being mounted on an outside wall which means that the wall has a double top plate. That means that I have 2.5" of wood to secure the screen to the wall.
> 
> 
> Is there any problem with leaving the screen down all the time?


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I imagine they will be about the same re assembly, and it's really not bad. One thing I did do differently from the instructions was, after screwing the frame together, I did NOT spread the screen material out on the floor (rug) and lay the frame over it, etc. Rather, I had my wife hold the frame upright, and then I unfurled the material vertically. I snapped the screen first at the top 2 corners, then the 2 bottom corners, and then filled in at the other places. Very easy, but you do need a second person to hold the frame for you.



This sounds like a really good approach. Following the directions exactly as I first tried to do, with the screen on the floor, is a recipe for lost weight. I must have dropped 5 pounds in sweat before I raised the frame from the floor and leaned it against the wall to complete the snaps. If someone's by himself, he might start as Da-Lite directs, then lean the screen against the wall after the first corners are in place. But having a helper is the way to go.


----------



## cal87

I know the gain is related to the angle between the projector and the viewer's position. Does the positioning of the screen affect anything? Does positioning the screen high towards the ceiling or low towards the ground make a difference - assuming that the projector and viewing position are the same.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cal87* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I know the gain is related to the angle between the projector and the viewer's position. Does the positioning of the screen affect anything? Does positioning the screen high towards the ceiling or low towards the ground make a difference - assuming that the projector and viewing position are the same.



I think it's better not to have the top of the screen any closer to the ceiling than necessary, to minimize reflected light from it.


In my room, my wife has added some dark drapes at the back of the room, to minimize reflected light from behind the pj. After that, I believe that the ceiling is the greatest 'offender' re reflected light. I'm experimenting with adding a dark cloth, pinned to the ceiling and side picture molding, about 4 ft out from the front wall, to see how much difference this makes (and how it looks re WAF). The effect of this has been discussed extensively in other threads.


----------



## cal87




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I think it's better not to have the top of the screen any closer to the ceiling than necessary, to minimize reflected light from it.



I was thinking more about whether the gain is affected at all. While playing around with the HP screen samples, I noticed a big increase in gain by moving my head up about a foot. I am guessing this is the same effect as dropping the projector a foot. My question is if there is any benefit moving the screen - for gain purposes.


----------



## KenWH




millerwill said:


> I think it's better not to have the top of the screen any closer to the ceiling than necessary, to minimize reflected light from it.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> 
> I totally agree with this. I painted my drop ceiling tiles a flat very very dark blue and the grids/frame is flat black. The top edge of my screen is about 4" down from the ceiling and i get a good bit of reflections even with the flat dark ceiling colors.
> 
> 
> Cal,
> 
> 
> Imo only moving the screen up would not help the gain you see when seated as your increasing the viewing angle vertically in relation to your eyes. In essence you would just be moving the viewing cone away from you.
> 
> 
> The ideal situation for max gain is to have your eyes as close to the center of the lens on the pj as possible. The screen could be way above,below,left or right of the lens but as long as the image hits the screen it will then try to reflect all the light back to the original point source which is the pj's lens. As long as your eyes are in that cone of light coming back to the pj you should see positive gain. Again though the amount of gain varies as you get farther away from the lens.


----------



## millerwill

Cal, Re-enforcing Ken's remarks: if your eyes are reasonably close to the pj, then moving the screen up or down should have minimal effect gain-wise.


----------



## cal87

Thanks guys. That's what I thought.


----------



## AndyN

I'm looking to do a high power with the contour electrosol. I noticed Tryg stated that there is no need for a tensioned screen. After living with your screens does anyone disagree with this? How does one limit waves in a electric/pull down screen from open windows or fans?


Thanks,

Andy


----------



## Splotto




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AndyN* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'm looking to do a high power with the contour electrosol. I noticed Tryg stated that there is no need for a tensioned screen. After living with your screens does anyone disagree with this? How does one limit waves in a electric/pull down screen from open windows or fans?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Andy



Andy:


I just installed my electric Contour Electrosol this weekend. I was concerend about the flatness of the screen as you are.


However, I hate the look of the tensioned screens.


My screen is perfect. I cannot notice any ripples or contours in the screen. The weight of the screen seems to be sufficient to make the screen hang tight.


Splotto


----------



## javry




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Cal, Re-enforcing Ken's remarks: if your eyes are reasonably close to the pj, then moving the screen up or down should have minimal effect gain-wise.



I agree....as long as it's not too much.


----------



## javry

I'm about 13 feet back from the screen and I notice a slight verticle difference bewteen standing up and sitting down. Not enough to worry about though. Strange thing is, it seems to be more prominent with increased ambient light.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *javry* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'm about 13 feet back from the screen and I notice a slight verticle difference bewteen standing up and sitting down. Not enough to worry about though. Strange thing is, it seems to be more prominent with increased ambient light.



How high (or low) is the pj above (or below) your eye level?


----------



## millerwill

Sounds ideal!


----------



## AndyN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Splotto* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Andy:
> 
> 
> I just installed my electric Contour Electrosol this weekend. I was concerend about the flatness of the screen as you are.
> 
> 
> However, I hate the look of the tensioned screens.
> 
> 
> My screen is perfect. I cannot notice any ripples or contours in the screen. The weight of the screen seems to be sufficient to make the screen hang tight.
> 
> 
> Splotto



Thanks Splotto.


----------



## ericc1

what about CSR???????? Does anyone know if its worth the extra jack to have the controlled screen return ? I imagine I will put my screen up and down an few times a week and I was wondering what the benefit of csr is supposed to be..........if it just makes the return more quiet then I think its a waste of money......I don't want to spend an extra 30 percent for my screen just so it can be quiet when I pull it down.


----------



## RooX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ericc1* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> what about CSR???????? Does anyone know if its worth the extra jack to have the controlled screen return ? I imagine I will put my screen up and down an few times a week and I was wondering what the benefit of csr is supposed to be..........if it just makes the return more quiet then I think its a waste of money......I don't want to spend an extra 30 percent for my screen just so it can be quiet when I pull it down.




the big thing csr does is slow the rate of return of the screen. If you are careful about letting it up, you should never need it. (minus an accidental slip-up of course)


----------



## johnorloff

Tryg-- Great review and series of posts!!!


I noticed that your projector is 8' from the ground, and presumably the HP screen is NOT. Therefore your lens is not centered on the screen, or close to eye level as Da Lite recommends for optimal gain with the HP....


Hopefully I am getting all that right, because I have a simliar-- if a slightly smaller scaled-- version of your set up. My Pearl is about 7' off ground, and level with the top of my 92" Da Lite screen (currently Hi Contrast Cin Vision). I'm not entirely satisfied with the brightness (I'm at the far end of the throw range at 15'), and was hoping I might get a little extra juice out of the HP screen.


Any thoughts?


The nice guy at Da Lite wasn't sure, due to the placement of my projector about 4' above eye level... He is sending me a sample, but at 6"x6" the sample might be hard to really answer the Q...


Any thoughts from ANYONE would be GREATLY appreciated. Anyone have their HP paired with a ceiling mounted projector?? Is it worth it if the "sweetspot" is when I'm standing??? Think I would have a gain worthy of the extra cost??


Thanks


John


----------



## Joseph Clark

Doesn't sound like a good fit to me. I had a similar arrangement and had to drop the projector down over two feet to get good gain. With your eyes four feet down from the lens, you may not see much gain. If at all possible, try to figure a way to get the projector down at least a couple of feet. It that just isn't possible, you may want to look elsewhere. I had to rethink my much-loved high shelf mount, but once I saw the HP screen sample, I worked hard to figure a way to make it work.


----------



## bqmeister

Top of my screen (where the white screen ends/black border begins) is roughly 6 feet high (maybe 6 1/2 feet). bottom of projector is 6 feet from the ground.

Projector mounted back around 15 or 16 feet. Seating is around 19 feet back.


almost unnoticable diff when seated or standing. Pic is unbelievable great no matter what.


----------



## Tryg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *johnorloff* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Tryg-- Great review and series of posts!!!
> 
> 
> I noticed that your projector is 8' from the ground, and presumably the HP screen is NOT. Therefore your lens is not centered on the screen, or close to eye level as Da Lite recommends for optimal gain with the HP....
> 
> 
> Hopefully I am getting all that right, because I have a simliar-- if a slightly smaller scaled-- version of your set up.



John,


You are absolutely correct! My setup is not optimal. It's hard to be optimal and many are not yet enjoy the benefits of the High Power. I probably get 2 gain from the screen but get amazing benefits in other areas like uniformity etc. I love this screen.


The guys at Da-Lite kid me. They love what I write but I'll be honest it's an amazing product. no one else makes such a screen!


----------



## Oiler




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *johnorloff* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Tryg-- Great review and series of posts!!!
> 
> 
> I noticed that your projector is 8' from the ground, and presumably the HP screen is NOT. Therefore your lens is not centered on the screen, or close to eye level as Da Lite recommends for optimal gain with the HP....
> 
> 
> Hopefully I am getting all that right, because I have a simliar-- if a slightly smaller scaled-- version of your set up. My Pearl is about 7' off ground, and level with the top of my 92" Da Lite screen (currently Hi Contrast Cin Vision). I'm not entirely satisfied with the brightness (I'm at the far end of the throw range at 15'), and was hoping I might get a little extra juice out of the HP screen.
> 
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> 
> The nice guy at Da Lite wasn't sure, due to the placement of my projector about 4' above eye level... He is sending me a sample, but at 6"x6" the sample might be hard to really answer the Q...
> 
> 
> Any thoughts from ANYONE would be GREATLY appreciated. Anyone have their HP paired with a ceiling mounted projector?? Is it worth it if the "sweetspot" is when I'm standing??? Think I would have a gain worthy of the extra cost??
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> John



Hi John,


If your pj is 4' above eyelevel then the angle of incidence is easy to determine

from how far back you sit. (Angle=arctan(4/d)).


Here are some examples:


d=10 Angle=21.8 Approximate gain=.87


d=11 Angle=20 Approximate gain=.9


d=12 Angle=18.4 Approximate gain=1.15


d=13 Angle=17.1 Approximate gain=1.25


d=14 Angle=15.9 Approximate gain=1.35


d=15 Angle=14.9 Approximate gain=1.45


d=16 Angle=14.0 Approximate gain=1.55




For comparison here are the same estimates if you drop the

pj to 2.5' above your eyeball.

d=10 Angle=14 Approximate gain=1.55


d=11 Angle=12.8 Approximate gain=1.7


d=12 Angle=11.7 Approximate gain=1.82


d=13 Angle=10.8 Approximate gain=1.95


d=14 Angle=10.1 Approximate gain=2.1


d=15 Angle=9.46 Approximate gain=2.2


d=16 Angle=8.8 Approximate gain=2.27



In the situation the bqmeister describes above the angle off axis is about 5 degrees. This gives a gain of 2.6 which is very close to the max of 2.8.


Note: These calculations are based on DaLite's chart for Gain vs Degrees off axis.

They are also assuming that the only offset is vertical. Add in a horizontal offset

and the gain drops further.


----------



## Oiler

Even with both horizontal and vertical offset

there is actually a fairly simple formula to calculate the off-axis angle. It is



angle = arccos( d / (d^2 +v^2+h^2)^(1/2) )


where d is the distance from the screen, v is the distance off axis in the vertical

and h is the distance off axis in the horizontal.




If there is interest, I could try to put together a spread sheet

that would show estimated gains with respect to various

vertical and horizontal offsets as a function of

seating distance.


----------



## RickVette

If I understand all of this correctly, I am going to install a HP screen on a 7'6" ceiling and install a pj on the opposite wall. If the center of the screen is about 33" down from the ceiling, then the pj should be mounted on the opposite wall at 33" down from the ceiling. Is that correct?


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RickVette* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> If I understand all of this correctly, I am going to install a HP screen on a 7'6" ceiling and install a pj on the opposite wall. If the center of the screen is about 33" down from the ceiling, then the pj should be mounted on the opposite wall at 33" down from the ceiling. Is that correct?



Yep. Have fun!


----------



## Imageek2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RickVette* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> If I understand all of this correctly, I am going to install a HP screen on a 7'6" ceiling and install a pj on the opposite wall. If the center of the screen is about 33" down from the ceiling, then the pj should be mounted on the opposite wall at 33" down from the ceiling. Is that correct?



It depends on the projector. Most projectors have an offset. Mine when sitting on a table throws the image upwards onto the screen. For best picture it actually sits about 6 inches above the bottom of the screen. For ceiling mounting it hangs about 6 inches below the TOP of the screen. Some projectors are higher, some lower. Most projectors don't line up with the center of the screen. If you are looking at a certain projector try and find the manual online to see what the offset will be, might help you make a decision based on the layout of your room.


----------



## RickVette

I'm looking at a Sanyo Z5. Thanks for the responses.


----------



## AlienArchbishop

Hi All,

Great post Tryg!

I finally read throug the whole thread and have ordered some samples for the high power, and they should be in the mail now









I am interested in a screen that can handle some ambien light and retro-reflective screen like the high-power sounds perfect for my set up. I have an LG-AN110 about 12" about my viewing position.

I would also like to know if any of you compared this screen to the DNP supernova?

thanks,

Alex


----------



## videohot

Hi


I currently have a 104" wide electric tensioned stewart grayhawk, with a roller of masking, and recently got a RS 1 to replace my G15. I currently have it mounted about 7' high but can move it down if need be. I have the system in my living room and have a lot of ambiant light when not watching movies at night. I would like to be able to watch something when the place is not in bat cave mode and have a bigger screen.


The sheen on the grayhawk always bothered me but I assumed it was the price I paid for having a quality screen. I also have a Z4 in my vacation place projecting on a white painted wall with black masking material on three sides which looks quite good with no sheen to it. I LIKE.


I find to reload the stewart box with studiotek 130 is going to cost me a little over 3k while a new high power electric with masking, 116" wide, but not tensioned is going to run $4500. The studiotek still has a sheen to it as I hear it. The high power has no sheen according to posters here.


I was advised by one vendor against the HP at that size in a Horizon Electrol since, supposedly, I may have issues with the screen not being flat. I have no AC vents or the like to deal with though.


Any comments on any of my assumptions and things I have heard?


Thanks for any replies.


Larry


----------



## CINERAMAX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *videohot* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The high power has no sheen according to posters here.
> 
> 
> I was advised by one vendor against the HP at that size in a Horizon Electrol since, supposedly, I may have issues with the screen not being flat. I have no AC vents or the like to deal with though.
> 
> 
> Larry




Nothing to comment except a big thanks as I was considering ordering a


73.5"H X 174"W VA

.75" BORDERS

CASE LENGTH: 185" HP Cosmo in front of a



PRO IMAGER,78X139(104) HD

74"H X 131.5"W VA, 16:9 FORMAT

MASKING TO:

74"H X 98.75"W VA, 4:3 FORMAT


In front of a


DA−SNAP,DM 78X139NPA 159DIAG

HIGH POWER

74"H X 131.5"W VA


To achieve three aspect ratios.


Is the size of the big roll down going to likely cause a waviness problem?


----------



## dwhisent

This is a "what fact am I missing?" kind of question...


Da-lite sells a Model B hi power, 106", 16:9 AR (54"x96"). They also sell a Model B hi power 120", 4:3 AR (72"x96"), apparently for lower cost (over $50 difference). Since most DVDs I watch are widescreen format, and therefore don't take the full vertical height of a 16:9 screen anyway, what would be the reason for choosing the smaller, more expensive 16:9 screen? Or, better, what would be the reason for not choosing the less expensive 4:3?


Thanks.


----------



## IndianaGeorge




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dwhisent* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> This is a "what fact am I missing?" kind of question...
> 
> 
> Da-lite sells a Model B hi power, 106", 16:9 AR (54"x96"). They also sell a Model B hi power 120", 4:3 AR (72"x96"), apparently for lower cost (over $50 difference). Since most DVDs I watch are widescreen format, and therefore don't take the full vertical height of a 16:9 screen anyway, what would be the reason for choosing the smaller, more expensive 16:9 screen? Or, better, what would be the reason for not choosing the less expensive 4:3?
> 
> 
> Thanks.



Usually the 16:9 screens will have a black border. The 106" viewable (white) area is actually 92"x52". The other screen might not have the black border and black drop, i.e., it would be like pulling down a big white sheet. The HDTV format screen will look like a defined white rectangle and the black border is supposed to help make the image look better.


----------



## javry




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Oiler* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Even with both horizontal and vertical offset
> 
> there is actually a fairly simple formula to calculate the off-axis angle. It is
> 
> 
> 
> angle = arccos( d / (d^2 +v^2+h^2)^(1/2) )
> 
> 
> where d is the distance from the screen, v is the distance off axis in the vertical
> 
> and h is the distance off axis in the horizontal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there is interest, I could try to put together a spread sheet
> 
> that would show estimated gains with respect to various
> 
> vertical and horizontal offsets as a function of
> 
> seating distance.



if you do the speadsheet, it might be good to include the gain in it. I for one, think it would be useful.


----------



## Tryg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *videohot* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> I was advised by one vendor against the HP at that size in a Horizon Electrol since, supposedly, I may have issues with the screen not being flat. I have no AC vents or the like to deal with though.
> 
> 
> Any comments on any of my assumptions and things I have heard?
> 
> 
> Thanks for any replies.
> 
> 
> Larry



There is no sheen to the High Power. The surface completely dissappears. You cant see waves on this screen so no tensioning is generally required.


The Studiotec 130 and High Power are completely different materials that do completely different things


----------



## JHouse

I had three High Powers. That's all I have used for 6 years. I love them. But I just learned something new:


The brighter your projector is, the better the High Power seems to work off axis. I guess it just makes sense, but moving up or down and side to side didn't have a huge impact of the viewability of my High Power when I had 2200 real lumens blasting onto it. I have a side sofa that is only used when I have too many people in the room. My kid was watching the newer, lower lumen pj from there tonight and complained, for the first time. It was there where he first noticed in a major way the difference in brightness between the two pjs. I told him to come over to the other sofa, and he agreed the picture as better than with the old pj from there, but still unwatchably too dim for him off to the side. He used to watch from there quite a bit. So, if you have a truly bright projector (rather than one which is just rated as if it were bright) you will find the off axis performance better than others will.


Of course the reason for this is the eye has a huge ability to stop down and adjust to bright light, so the bright pj/HP combination will suit everyone in the room. Just FYI.


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *IndianaGeorge* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Usually the 16:9 screens will have a black border. The 106" viewable (white) area is actually 92"x52". The other screen might not have the black border and black drop, i.e., it would be like pulling down a big white sheet. The HDTV format screen will look like a defined white rectangle and the black border is supposed to help make the image look better.




With some black fabric and black tape you could have a real easy masking system if you just hung it down from the case to the same level that the black border was on the 4:3 screen when it is fully down. Hopefully the stops in the roller would allow you to make a masked 16:9 in this fashion by just pulling it down part of the way. And if you weren't going to use it both ways, you could place the masking exactly where it needed to be. Even on the screen if you wanted.


----------



## CINERAMAX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The surface completely dissappears. You cant see waves on this screen so no tensioning is generally required.



Ok then I'll try it out here:











With this projector (should be plenty bright)



















This projector is the first DLP cinema unit with servo lens memories for zoom, focus and tilt, (with 6 memories).











174" wide cosmopolitan elecrtrol











131.5 wide da snap ( pro imager masking to 98.75 wide not shown)


----------



## JHouse

I don't get it.


----------



## javry

not sure I do either.


----------



## Splotto




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *javry* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> not sure I do either.



I get it but I am not telling anyone.


Splotto


----------



## JHouse

Oh, SURE.


----------



## Splotto




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JHouse* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Oh, SURE.



It is perfectly on point and quite hysterical in an ironic way.


It might be the best post of the year on AVS.


Splotto


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Splotto* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> It is perfectly on point and quite hysterical in an ironic way.
> 
> 
> It might be the best post of the year on AVS.
> 
> 
> Splotto



Oh please have mercy on us dummies who don't get the joke and 'splain it to us. I'm firmly in the "don't get it" crowd.


----------



## Rayboy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Splotto* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I get it but I am not telling anyone.
> 
> 
> Splotto



Um, I'm just guessing here, but

to quote Timbuk3,

"the future's so bright, I gotta wear shades"....?



Or maybe the joke has to do with the nice cheeks, dunno.

I give up.


----------



## CINERAMAX












The projector is Irised down at 2 points by 2/3'ds (light thrown away), to achieve the highest on /off cr in any digital cinema PJ.


----------



## ericc1

not really a joke, post of the year a bit exagerrated as the post itself


----------



## JHouse

Ok, a bright projector on a big High Power. I'm pretty used to that concept. That was a lot of pictures (and data) for that.


----------



## alehatz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dizzyboy* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Tryg, your review is very exciting to read. I just purchased a Sanyo Z5 and am about to get a screen, Until reading this thread, I was planning for a Carada BW, but the Da-Lite sounds like something I should really be looking at. My question is, if I get a 120 inch HP and the seating are is around 12 feet from the screen (with the projector shelf-mounted behind us), is there a chanace that the HP will be *too* bright in that situation (as in, either uncomfrotable or distorting)?




I just purchased a Sanyo Z5 too, and i need to buy a screen with 1.1 gain white matte, 100 inch with light controled room. and the seating are is around 16 feet from the screen (Z5 is celling mounted).

Is this screen fine for me? (100 inch *1.1 gain*)

some expert or with the sufficient knowledge could respond to these similar questions. that answer Could help us very much.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## JHouse

There is NO chance that it will be too bright.


----------



## Chadci

I have had my 119 ' HP for going on 5 months now. Ironically I have had less time in the past 5 months to watch movies than normal. I have a Z3 projector and an A2 Hd player. I have the Z3 mounted just high enough that If I am sitting straight up I can see a hair or two on the screen, but I am usually down with my feet up.


I have gotten used to the set up and often think the image should be brighter, but then I remember a. my projector aint that bright and then. I take a paper plate and hold it in front of the screen for a minute or two and say, oh.. yeah!!!







If I really need confirmation, I just turn it on during the day. While the sun light still washes it out some, I could easily sit and watch something but with my diy efforts you could forget about that!


----------



## ericc1

I finally hung mine up last night with my pjtx-100.........this screen is pretty much everything as advertised.....I can't imagine a projector being too bright for this screen though...it seems that if it was that you could just dial down the brightness a bit.......this screen is phenominal though in terms of using with ambient light. Sure, other seats might suffer a bit but if I am sitting in the prime seating area I can have every single light and lamp on in the room and still get a good picture.


I just need to retweak all my gamma settings now. anyone else have any advice in terms of how you had to reclaibrate your projector once you switched to this screen ??


----------



## Oiler

The following pdf contains a series of charts giving the off-axis angle

as a function of vertical off-axis distance, horizontal off-axis distance and

seating distance from the screen as well as the corresponding estimated gain for the HP.


Disclaimer: My angle calculations are based on my understanding of how

the high power works (retro-reflective) and the gain estimates

are then obtained from the graph on the Da-lite sight. I do not

warranty any of these.


Also, I am sorry for the formatting but I did not know that we could not post

excel files.


Note: The original pdf file (HPCal.pdf) contained errors that happened

when I manipulated the excel file to convert to pdf. Sorry for any

confusion this might have caused.

 

HPCal3.pdf 55.3017578125k . file


----------



## RickVette

I am now thinking of buying a AE1000U with this screen. My question is about the mounting of the projector. My understanding is, if I mount the screen on the ceiling (106" diagonal), the the center of the screen will be about 34 inches down from the ceiling. To get the best picture I should then mount the projector on the opposite wall (16'), at 34 inches down from the ceiling. The ceilings are 90". My question is - if I move the projector up towards the ceiling, say 18" from ceiling, and move the projector closer to the screen, will I lose a lot of the gain I would be getting if I had put it on the back wall? Would I be better off with a high gain angular reflective screen, or would this still give a bright picture?

The room is 16' wide by 17' long by 7'6" high.


----------



## Oiler

Rickvette,


Your eye-level when sitting is about 3-3.5 ft above the ground. If you drop the pj 18"

your vertical off set is about 2.5-3 ft . In sweetspot you should get a gian of about 2

if you sit back about 14ft from the screen.


----------



## RickVette

Thanks, that sounds like it should still be fine. I guess that's what I will do.


----------



## Rudy81

I am seriously considering buying the HP for my HT room. I happen to have two samples and although it is clearly obvious that the color and brightness are superb. My question, for those of you with HP already installed, is this. How are the blacks? I notice on the 6x6 pieces, that on a dark scene, the HP sample is much lighter than the black I am gettion on my 1.0 gain screen.


----------



## bqmeister




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rudy81* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I am seriously considering buying the HP for my HT room. I happen to have two samples and although it is clearly obvious that the color and brightness are superb. My question, for those of you with HP already installed, is this. How are the blacks? I notice on the 6x6 pieces, that on a dark scene, the HP sample is much lighter than the black I am gettion on my 1.0 gain screen.



I posted this in another thread.

I've had the sharp zv12000K MkII since last wednesday. I have a 119" hipower.


Blacks are superb.


Blacks are so good in fact, I mentioned I see absolutely no need for masking for any non 16x9 formats. When watching material in an aspect ratio other than 16x9, I do a double take because it looks like my screen shrinks.
*Blacks will obviously be dependent on your projector* and blacks with my panny ax100 obviously weren't as good, but with my sharp projector, blacks on my hipower screen are inky black.


----------



## Rudy81

Well that is great news. I have the same projector! I currently use a diy masking solution, so the borders on wide aspect ratio films will not be a problem. I may just have to take the plunge and see just how good this is....of course, this will all depend on cost.


----------



## bqmeister




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rudy81* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Well that is great news. I have the same projector! I currently use a diy masking solution, so the borders on wide aspect ratio films will not be a problem. I may just have to take the plunge and see just how good this is....of course, this will all depend on cost.



Best price I found was from AVScience. (ordered mine from Jason)

Make sure you get the black case. It's a $15 upgrade and well worth it.


----------



## javry




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rudy81* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Well that is great news. I have the same projector! I currently use a diy masking solution, so the borders on wide aspect ratio films will not be a problem. I may just have to take the plunge and see just how good this is....of course, this will all depend on cost.



It's great that you have the same PJ as bqmeister. That should allow you somewhat of a benchmark for setting things up. I would also add though, that the black level you see on your screen may still be different than what he sees because of other components in your system. Don't want to discourage you but I did want to add in that one thought. BTW, I agree with bqmeister about AV Science having the best price. It's a great screen. I think you'll be pleased with it.


----------



## millerwill

I also got my HP from Jason; highly recommend the deal and the dealer!


----------



## Greg_63

I was able to find a better price than AVS. I've got the info posted in the deals section.


----------



## Rudy81

Thanks guys....waiting for pricing from Richard or Jason.


----------



## Rudy81




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Greg_63* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I was able to find a better price than AVS. I've got the info posted in the deals section.



I guess my avs club membership expired, I can't see any threads there.


----------



## bqmeister




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *javry* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> It's great that you have the same PJ as bqmeister. That should allow you somewhat of a benchmark for setting things up. I would also add though, that the black level you see on your screen may still be different than what he sees because of other components in your system. Don't want to discourage you but I did want to add in that one thought. BTW, I agree with bqmeister about AV Science having the best price. It's a great screen. I think you'll be pleased with it.



I do also have very dark brown walls/ceiling and my front wall is black. My carpet is dark burgundy and when the lights are off in my room, it is pitch black.


I'm sure that all helps my blacks a bit.


----------



## Keepitsimple

Hi,


Is the thick line the 0 angle?
http://www.dd.chalmers.se/~tveit/filer/proj.JPG


----------



## Orwellflash

Does anyone know if there are any quality differences between electric models and the C pull down? For example, better tension, borders, longer lasting, etc. Or is it just a convenience feature?


----------



## Orwellflash




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Keepitsimple* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
> Is the thick line the 0 angle?
> http://www.dd.chalmers.se/~tveit/filer/proj.JPG




Not sure what you mean by 0 angle. Looks like angle from eyes to screen to projector, which you need to measure to get your gain from the HP. Smaller angle means greater gain.


Hope this helps.


----------



## Keepitsimple

I will try to explain better. Will the thickest line have the highest gain? Or will the highest gain be a line parallell with the ceiling? Or will they perhaps both have the same gain..


----------



## Orwellflash

I'm no expert on this stuff, but my understanding is that the picture you posted shows the thin lines just to outline the whole cone of light being put out by the projector. The thick line shows the angle from your eyes to the center of the screen, then to the lens of the projector, which is the angle you need to measure in your particular setup, or anticipated setup. The maximum gain from the HP screen is obtained by minimizing that angle. It is a function of how low your eyes are from the projector lens and how far back the projector is from you. Oiler posted useful charts (post 621 on page 21) in this thread for estimating gain and angle based on distance (in feet) your eyes are from projector lens in vertical and horizontal directions, and distance from screen to projector.


----------



## Bryan Curtis

Just got my Model C high power today and I've already took a utility knife to it and tacked it on a frame I made. I'm loving the pic but I still don't understand why they can sell a model c cheaper than fabric alone


----------



## CINERAMAX

Sounds like a Cost Accounting peculiarity to me.


----------



## Tryg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bryan Curtis* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Just got my Model C high power today and I've already took a utility knife to it and tacked it on a frame I made. I'm loving the pic but I still don't understand why they can sell a model c cheaper than fabric alone



Think about the warranty. If they sell just fabric the person is bound to screw it up then claim it came that way. If you cut it off the roller...its yours.


----------



## Rudy81




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bryan Curtis* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Just got my Model C high power today and I've already took a utility knife to it and tacked it on a frame I made. I'm loving the pic but I still don't understand why they can sell a model c cheaper than fabric alone



What projector are you using, and how do you like the blacks on the new screen?


----------



## Orwellflash




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Greg_63* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I was able to find a better price than AVS. I've got the info posted in the deals section.




I couldn't get Richard at AVS to respond to a request for a quote. I gave up after 10 days--ordered from this source. Great price and service!


Edit: Went back and checked. Actually waited for over 2 weeks before I bailed, and still counting...


----------



## Rudy81

That source has everyone's prices beat, including shipping and their response time is very quick. I may end up ordering one sometime. I am still trying to decide if it will work for my application. I wish I could get a large piece instead of the 1'x1' samples da-lite sends.


----------



## neiname

I received a quote from this source and it was a fantastic price for the Model C's that had EVERYONE beat plus they were very responsive. I was able to find a HP Model B 72"x96" for around $200 shipped that will serve as the screen for the time being (I will hang it from the ceiling as I continually work on my HT room). Once I finish the room (currently a concrete basement) and get the screen wall framed and put up I will cut the screen and make a proper 16:9 black velvet fixed frame (110" diag). It's going to take a while to get my home theater completed and I wanted to at least enjoy my new projector even though the floor, ceiling, walls aren't completely finished/treated (which I'm still formulating the plan).


Although I haven't posted before I've been soaking up all the knowledge from this forum and it has been helpful on selecting the projector (Sharp XV-Z12000), screen (Da-Lite High Power), 3 years ago the receiver (Pioneer VSX-1014TX) and Toshiba HD-A20.


----------



## AMurillo

Test


----------



## stumlad

Wondering if any of you could help answer this..


Is a high power screen recommended if you are zooming? Here's the deal. The Vutec Silversomething sounds like a good screen, except I really hate when I see sheen or shiny whites, and it sounds like that's what I would get if I went with that. I like the idea of High Power, but I am wondering, ... let's say I'm using the zoom feature of my projector... will it still work properly? I have my projector mounted at 5.5' on a shelf. Ceiling is about 8'. For zooming, if we consider a projector with 1x-2x zoom, I would probably be zooming closer to 1.75... Will this cause distortion/loss of sharpness/etc with the high power screen?


I can deal with the viewing angle, but I don't want to take a chance on a screen that won't work because I'm zooming. There will be about 10.5'-11' of throw distance total.


----------



## Kampf kobold

Hi,


i like the idea of the highgain Screen, espcecially for the capability for an ambient light filled projection.


my Sharp-XVZ3300 is wall mounted overhead with an offset of 24%. So i need an angular reflective Screen, right? The Da Lite High power isnt one, right?



Thanks.


----------



## Orwellflash

Stumlad: I only have 1.3 zoom-=-don't see any distortion in min to max zoom. I think any distortion would be from lens, not screen.


Kampf kobold: You are right, HP is retroreflective, but it might still give you a decent gain. I'm not sure how to interpret 24% offset. Search for post from oiler (I think it was back around post 620). He provides link to spreadsheet that shows brightness gain from various combos of offset. If you have trouble interpreting spreadsheet, post a question. As I recall, V is vertical shift from lens, H is horizontal shift, and then distance from screen to projector lens. Numbers are in feet, ie. 1.5 = 18". You will have to do the conversion to metric (we are still in the dark ages around here).


Just got my HP up last night. I just have to say Wow!!!. It is like night and day. Using Sharp 12K, lens about 10-18" over our eyes (depending on whether we are reclining or not), and about 3 feet back. The picture improvement (compared to a white bedsheet, I admit) is nothing short of jaw dropping and stunning. My wife, not given to hyperbole, said it is 10X better picture (well, she is not usually given to it). The improvement seems to be not just in brightness, but in contrast, black level, and color.


----------



## millerwill

Orwellflash: I concur with your enthusiasm for the HP!


Stumlad: I have my RS1 mounted at the closest possible position to my 126" diag HP, i.e., at max zoom. No hint of sparkies, or any screen structure, just a bright, contrasty pic, sharp as a tack.


----------



## neiname




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Orwellflash* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Stumlad: I only have 1.3 zoom-=-don't see any distortion in min to max zoom. I think any distortion would be from lens, not screen.
> 
> 
> Kampf kobold: You are right, HP is retroreflective, but it might still give you a decent gain. I'm not sure how to interpret 24% offset. Search for post from oiler (I think it was back around post 620). He provides link to spreadsheet that shows brightness gain from various combos of offset. If you have trouble interpreting spreadsheet, post a question. As I recall, V is vertical shift from lens, H is horizontal shift, and then distance from screen to projector lens. Numbers are in feet, ie. 1.5 = 18". You will have to do the conversion to metric (we are still in the dark ages around here).
> 
> 
> Just got my HP up last night. I just have to say Wow!!!. It is like night and day. Using Sharp 12K, lens about 10-18" over our eyes (depending on whether we are reclining or not), and about 3 feet back. The picture improvement (compared to a white bedsheet, I admit) is nothing short of jaw dropping and stunning. My wife, not given to hyperbole, said it is 10X better picture (well, she is not usually given to it). The improvement seems to be not just in brightness, but in contrast, black level, and color.



This sounds very much how my room will be setup, glad to know I'm working towards a "Wow!!!".


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Orwellflash: I concur with your enthusiasm for the HP!
> 
> 
> Stumlad: I have my RS1 mounted at the closest possible position to my 126" diag HP, i.e., at max zoom. No hint of sparkies, or any screen structure, just a bright, contrasty pic, sharp as a tack.



Thanks... this is the info I've been looking for!!!


----------



## SteveMo

Still enjoying my Dalite High Power. No complaints whatsoever. My PG is a NEC 6PG+


I do some very slight adjustments on my DVD player and video proccessor. I have allot less problems with halos or vertical lines caused by dark on light then before. It does not really bother me anymore.


----------



## Orwellflash

I got my first HP Model C, 4:3 aspect ratio, 69X92 screen about a week ago. The screen was in good condition but the case had a large dent in it and it wouldn't retract. My dealer promptly contacted Da-lite and they very promptly sent me a replacement (at their cost, one day air!). Got the new screen a couple of days ago. As I opened the box, I saw that it had foot prints on the top of the case and quite a bit of dust on it. It has a minor dent on the case, and a significant wave in lower right hand corner and smaller wave generally on middle right side. I haven't been able to see these waves in my bat cave room when a picture is being projected, unless I open the curtains and side light comes in. There is also wrinkled material on bottom rod (screws holding plate for pull-down ring were put in sloppily, bunching the material around it. The screen retracts, but repeated tries are necessary, and it is difficult to get it precisely located vertically.


Summary:


Good: I love the HP screen material, Da-lite's replacement response and customer service was first rate (as was the dealer's).


Bad: Da-lite's quality control seems pretty bad, based on my experience (of course, my experience could be anomalous), and/or shipping packaging is inadequate (though the shipping box was not damaged, as far as I could see, for either screen, and they were double boxed and looked adequately cushioned. I am inclining to think that they are coming from the factory this way.


Ugly: Wavey screen material on second screen, bunched material on bottom rod, dent in case.


I haven't decided what I will do. I really don't want to go through the hassle of getting it replaced again. It is annoying to buy a product at considerable cost and still have to accept that it is damaged and flawed after two tries. If I had it to do over, I think I would get a Model B (cheaper), take the material out of it and staple it to my wall and put a frame around it. I have a dedicated theater room, with wall board on walls (making holes easy to repair), so stapling a screen to the wall doesn't seem like a bad option. Of couse, I would have to give up the ability to adjust the vertical height of screen for different aspect ratios. Can I live with the screen I have? Yes, probably. Would I accept it if I saw it at a store? No.


----------



## Orwellflash

Got this response from Da-lite after sending them the essence of the message above:


>

>"I am sorry the replacement screen we sent was not satisfactory. Your

>description of the screen indicates that we did ship a bad screen.

>

>I don't want you to have to "live with it" and I will try to make the

>replacement as hassle free as possible. I will call Point of Power today

>to get the replacement going."


As I said, customer service is excellent!


I will report on the outcome.

>


----------



## Jacko05

Having read this excellent thread through from beginning to end I have just ordered a DA-LITE HP Manual B 16:9 screen through a UK dealer. He wasn't sure whether this screen came with a black drop at the top of the screen as standard. Could someone who has one of these please tell me if it does or not?


----------



## neiname




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Orwellflash* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Got this response from Da-lite after sending them the essence of the message above:
> 
> 
> >
> 
> >"I am sorry the replacement screen we sent was not satisfactory. Your
> 
> >description of the screen indicates that we did ship a bad screen.
> 
> >
> 
> >I don't want you to have to "live with it" and I will try to make the
> 
> >replacement as hassle free as possible. I will call Point of Power today
> 
> >to get the replacement going."
> 
> 
> As I said, customer service is excellent!
> 
> 
> I will report on the outcome.
> 
> >



I thought Point of Power was on vacation for like two weeks so you may be waiting a while for them to get in touch. I'm glad I went with the Model B as I plan on cutting it anyway and making a fixed frame. Although I still had a fun time hanging the screen by myself.


The material and screen are top-notch, it feels like I'm watching a 110" Plasma when all the lights are off and this is in a not-yet painted room. I bought the primer and DARK, DARK blue paint for the room this weekend and will hopefully get around to that this week.


----------



## Orwellflash

I'm prepared to be patient on screen replacement.


I bet it was fun (and a little dangerous) hanging it by yourself, though I imagine it is lighter than the Model C. I agree on material--when you can optimize the projector location (low, close to viewers), it really produces a very bright, beautiful picture. In addition to dark paint, I stapled cheap velvet curtains to the walls and ceiling--makes a big difference.


----------



## dwhisent




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *neiname* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I was able to find a HP Model B 72"x96" for around $200 shipped ...



Based on seeing this, I shopped around a bit more and found what I assume is the same deal, same price. I had also tried getting a quote (twice) from AVS, never got any response (even a "no" would have been better than getting ignored).










I received this one last Friday, to go with my coffee table mount projector, and I love it. As long as I don't turn on the overhead chandalier light that hangs 5' directly in front of it, the ambient light rejection when viewed from the seating area is excellent! I can have the pool table light on the other side of the room on with no problems. Bright, vivid image. I'm very satisfied, as is my wife. I've seen no problems with the case or the screen (other than it being finicky about retracting, like others have said).


----------



## Orwellflash

Glad to hear you had no problems with your screen. I share everyone's enthusiasm for the screen material. I would say that my experience with the rest of the screen is a statistical outlier, but after receiving 3 bad ones, I think Da-lite has some serious quality control problems with the Model C.


On topic of AVS: at least we have the consolation that everyone seems to have been treated the same way.


----------



## javry

Well, my worst fears about matching the HP with an RS-1 are gone. Finally got the RS-1 in and all is very well, thank you very much. I'm running it in cinema mode low lamp modes along with every other setting that came from the factory. It works very well on a HP. No high gain glare or anything. Looks just right. BTW, for a test movie of the RS-1/HP setup, "Riddick" has my vote.


----------



## Digital2004

hello

question:

does the high power material comes in microperforation also ? does it "reveal" it's a high gain screen, i mean can you see beyond 10ft that's there something with the screen, like a pearlescent effect such as from paint (which i HATE on a screen: a screen must be invisible, you should ONLY see the image).


thanks !


----------



## javry

well..... speaking for my experience, when I say it works very well with an RS-1, I mean that it is virtually invisible. It is an entirely different screen with my Sim2 300e and not as invisible but still very good.


----------



## Digital2004

hi

can you precise ?


----------



## Orwellflash




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Digital2004* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> hello
> 
> question:
> 
> does the high power material comes in microperforation also ? does it "reveal" it's a high gain screen, i mean can you see beyond 10ft that's there something with the screen, like a pearlescent effect such as from paint (which i HATE on a screen: a screen must be invisible, you should ONLY see the image).
> 
> 
> thanks !




I would describe my HP as "invisible" with my Sharp 12K when an image is being projected. I don't see any screen texture at all.


----------



## steinfoot

I cant decide between a manual pull down or Cinema Contour fixed frame 110" screen.


will one or the other last longer? In other words, will the pull down screen develop more waves several years down the road?


anyone know about how far out the screen hangs from the wall on the model B and C?


any other drawbacks to the manual pull downs that I may not be aware of? They seem to be a much cheaper solution than the Cinema Contour- which I had originally planned on getting.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *steinfoot* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> will the pull down screen develop more waves several years down the road?



As I understand it the angle that the HP is effective at is so narrow that waves are not apparent. But this is strictly what I've heard, not seen.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *steinfoot* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> anyone know about how far out the screen hangs from the wall on the model B and C?



I have a model B. It hangs 1/2 inch from the wall if the casing is pressed tight against the wall.


----------



## Orwellflash




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *steinfoot* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I cant decide between a manual pull down or Cinema Contour fixed frame 110" screen.
> 
> 
> will one or the other last longer? In other words, will the pull down screen develop more waves several years down the road?
> 
> 
> anyone know about how far out the screen hangs from the wall on the model B and C?
> 
> 
> any other drawbacks to the manual pull downs that I may not be aware of? They seem to be a much cheaper solution than the Cinema Contour- which I had originally planned on getting.




I have received three Model C's from Da-Lite--two replacements and an original--all of them have had significant problems--including bent housings, not retracting, waves on screen, etc. It has been a tremendous hassle. Da-lite's customer service is good--but what does it matter if they can't get you a decent screen? They have a serious quality control problem (with the Model C at least). I don't know about the Model B or the fixed frame screens. I haven't heard of any problems with the fixed frame models, except that they can be difficult to snap to the frame. The Model B is considerably cheaper than the C, so I would try that rather than a C if you want a manual. My first Model C didn't have waves, but the last 2 did. Unfortunately the first one wouldn't retract and had a large dent in the housing. I haven't tried it, but I have heard that you can cut out the material of a Model B, staple it to a wall and put a frame around it for a cheap fixed screen. The High Power material is excellent if you can configure your projector for it properly (close to eye level and seating within screen width).


Model C screen hangs 2" from the wall.


If you are worried about waves, I would recommend a fixed frame screen. I can't see the waves on the Model C in my bat cave, dedicated HT when an image is being projected on it, but when side light hits the screen, they are very visible. Mine is a 106", 4:3.


----------



## steinfoot

Thanks erkq!


are you happy with your model B?


model C has some better components? or the other way around..


----------



## steinfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Orwellflash* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I have received three Model C's from Da-Lite--two replacements and an original--all of them have had significant problems--including bent housings, not retracting, waves on screen, etc. It has been a tremendous hassle. Da-lite's customer service is good--but what does it matter if they can't get you a decent screen? They have a serious quality control problem (with the Model C at least). I don't know about the Model B or the fixed frame screens. I haven't heard of any problems with the fixed frame models, except that they can be difficult to snap to the frame. The Model B is considerably cheaper than the C, so I would try that rather than a C if you want a manual. My first Model C didn't have waves, but the last 2 did. Unfortunately the first one wouldn't retract and had a large dent in the housing. I haven't tried it, but I have heard that you can cut out the material of a Model B, staple it to a wall and put a frame around it for a cheap fixed screen. The High Power material is excellent if you can configure your projector for it properly (close to eye level and seating within screen width).
> 
> 
> Model C screen hangs 2" from the wall.
> 
> 
> If you are worried about waves, I would recommend a fixed frame screen. I can't see the waves on the Model C in my bat cave, dedicated HT when an image is being projected on it, but when side light hits the screen, they are very visible. Mine is a 106", 4:3.




Hmm thats definitely good to know. That might be enough to convince me to just spend the extra for the fixed frame. I like the look of it better over the manual pull down.


thanks!


----------



## bqmeister




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *steinfoot* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Hmm thats definitely good to know. That might be enough to convince me to just spend the extra for the fixed frame. I like the look of it better over the manual pull down.
> 
> 
> thanks!




If you're at all handy, I know at least one or two people here bought the model B pulldown and used the material to make their own fixed frame screen.

DaLite will sell the material without the case, but it's much more expensive. But buying the cheapest case with the material you want and cutting the material out and making your own frame would be significantly less than buying a fixed frame screen.


That's probably the route I'd have taken had I gone fixed screen.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *steinfoot* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Hmm thats definitely good to know. That might be enough to convince me to just spend the extra for the fixed frame. I like the look of it better over the manual pull down.
> 
> 
> thanks!



I have a Cinema Contour 110" and except for the initial difficulty of getting the snaps in place it's been a great screen. If you can get help to do the snaps, do. Once you have a few key snaps in place (i.e. three corners, get it off the floor (NEVER put the viewing side down) and do the rest against the wall. Much easier.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *steinfoot* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Thanks erkq!
> 
> 
> are you happy with your model B?



Not really. It has waves on the lower right corner. It has slight horizontal creases. No one notices any of that but me though.


I see the waves because my pj is mounted fairly high.


I'm building a 10' SMX for the new house.


----------



## steinfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I have a Cinema Contour 110" and except for the initial difficulty of getting the snaps in place it's been a great screen. If you can get help to do the snaps, do. Once you have a few key snaps in place (i.e. three corners, get it off the floor (NEVER put the viewing side down) and do the rest against the wall. Much easier.



heheh, yea I read your post about putting it together! doesn't sound too fun, but I can't imagine it being much more difficult or painful than stretching and stapling blackout cloth! (my current screen is DIY BO cloth).


Sounds like you have been pretty happy with the da-lite HP?


I still have my sample taped up and its totally distracting when I watch movies because my eyes keep drifting up to that brilliant 6x6 square!


----------



## Orwellflash




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Not really. It has waves on the lower right corner. It has slight horizontal creases. No one notices any of that but me though.
> 
> 
> I see the waves because my pj is mounted fairly high.
> 
> 
> I'm building a 10' SMX for the new house.



I should amend my suggestion about getting a Model B to use it as a fixed screen. Some of the waves in my Model C screen probably could not be tensioned out. Probably best bet to avoid waves is get a fixed screen.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *steinfoot* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> heheh, yea I read your post about putting it together! doesn't sound too fun, but I can't imagine it being much more difficult or painful than stretching and stapling blackout cloth! (my current screen is DIY BO cloth).
> 
> 
> Sounds like you have been pretty happy with the da-lite HP?
> 
> 
> I still have my sample taped up and its totally distracting when I watch movies because my eyes keep drifting up to that brilliant 6x6 square!



I LOVE this screen. I have a Sharp 20k 1080p projector, which I also love, but it's pretty dim. Not with the HP, though. After close to 1450 hours on the lamp, it's still very watchable even in low lamp and High Contrast (iris closed down to its smallest setting). If I'd known what I know now about the HP's snaps, it wouldn't have been a problem. After I got the screen off the floor, it was easy to get the other snaps in place. I had a Stewart Firehawk before, and I liked the look of the fixed frame. The HP is just as attractive. A fixed frame is very classy looking, IMO.


----------



## Tutmos

I agree that fixed frames look nicer. I wish I had the option. Sadly I've got a chair rail molding running around the room.


I'm getting a little concerned about the model C problems Orwell mentioned, they aren't made in China are they?


----------



## Orwellflash




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tutmos* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I agree that fixed frames look nicer. I wish I had the option. Sadly I've got a chair rail molding running around the room.
> 
> 
> I'm getting a little concerned about the model C problems Orwell mentioned, they aren't made in China are they?



As far as I know, they are made in Indiana, good old US of A.


----------



## SeanCJ

Hello All,

I have read through this thread completely and have learned a great deal.

I've changed my projector plans from the Sony Pearl to the JVC RS1 based on reviews.

My biggest concern now is getting the right screen for this projector.

My room is 24' wide and 26' deep with 12' ceilings. The screen will be placed in the middle of a 24' wide wall. All HT seating is directly in front of the screen and consists of a large sectional.

It is a finished walk out basement, so there are some windows on the North wall and a door that can be covered with blinds and heavy drapes. However, there is an open stairway leading to the main floor that allows some uncontrolled ambient light, enough that the light reaches the far wall but not enough to read by at mid room. Walls are dark green, carpet is tan, ceiling white. So, obviously not an ideal dedicated home theater. However, we have decided to keep our 65" rear projection and use that for casual viewing and reserve the PJ for movies and gaming which usually happens when light is not an issue.

From what I have read, the Da lite High Power Cinema Contour with a 2.8 gain is an ideal choice of screen for my application.

Here's where I need the help.

If I sit 12 to 13 feet back from the screen, how large of a screen can I get and still have 'comfortable' viewing? Initially I thought 106", now considering 110", but have been told 120", even 126", would be okay too?

Here are my projector mounting option. Please help me choose which is best to get maximum benefit from this screen. Again, seating is at 12' to 13', all centered within screen width. 'My' seating is direct dead center







.

1. PJ at 24 feet, 7 feet high on shelf, at back of room, dead center of screen.

2. PJ at 13 feet, 4 to 5 feet high on table top/cabinet, just behind seating area, dead center.

3. PJ at 10 feet, 3 feet high on table top, in front of seating area, dead center.

Screen can be placed at just about any height due to high ceiling.

Each option has its advantages and drawbacks in terms of cable length, PJ noise, ease of set up, etc.

Please help me figure this out.

Thank you all.

Sean


----------



## Greg_63

I am using a 133" HP from about 11 or 12 feet. My projector is the Hitachi tx100 so I sometimes see some screen door but it is an acceptable trade off for the experience of a nice large screen







HD movies and OTA HD looks fantastic!


I would get the biggest screen that will fit because projectors will get better over time which will allow you to take advantage of the larger screen. That was my reasoning for getting the largest screen that would fit and I'm glad I did.


----------



## millerwill

Sean, I have a 126" diag HP in a 17.5 x 13.5 ft room and find it excellent. Sit about 12.5 ft away. RS1 is located similar to your option 2., and it workds very well; it is right at min throw. I don't think you will be disappointed!


----------



## Rgb

I am expecting a Model B 72" x96" HP tomorrow...


Plan to use an Epson Cinema 400 on this bad boy, ceiling mounted.


I hope I don't need to put the lens centerline more than a foot or so into the image...


----------



## Oiler




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SeanCJ* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Hello All,
> 
> I have read through this thread completely and have learned a great deal.
> 
> I've changed my projector plans from the Sony Pearl to the JVC RS1 based on reviews.
> 
> My biggest concern now is getting the right screen for this projector.
> 
> My room is 24' wide and 26' deep with 12' ceilings. The screen will be placed in the middle of a 24' wide wall. All HT seating is directly in front of the screen and consists of a large sectional.
> 
> It is a finished walk out basement, so there are some windows on the North wall and a door that can be covered with blinds and heavy drapes. However, there is an open stairway leading to the main floor that allows some uncontrolled ambient light, enough that the light reaches the far wall but not enough to read by at mid room. Walls are dark green, carpet is tan, ceiling white. So, obviously not an ideal dedicated home theater. However, we have decided to keep our 65" rear projection and use that for casual viewing and reserve the PJ for movies and gaming which usually happens when light is not an issue.
> 
> From what I have read, the Da lite High Power Cinema Contour with a 2.8 gain is an ideal choice of screen for my application.
> 
> Here's where I need the help.
> 
> If I sit 12 to 13 feet back from the screen, how large of a screen can I get and still have 'comfortable' viewing? Initially I thought 106", now considering 110", but have been told 120", even 126", would be okay too?
> 
> Here are my projector mounting option. Please help me choose which is best to get maximum benefit from this screen. Again, seating is at 12' to 13', all centered within screen width. 'My' seating is direct dead center
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 1. PJ at 24 feet, 7 feet high on shelf, at back of room, dead center of screen.
> 
> 2. PJ at 13 feet, 4 to 5 feet high on table top/cabinet, just behind seating area, dead center.
> 
> 3. PJ at 10 feet, 3 feet high on table top, in front of seating area, dead center.
> 
> Screen can be placed at just about any height due to high ceiling.
> 
> Each option has its advantages and drawbacks in terms of cable length, PJ noise, ease of set up, etc.
> 
> Please help me figure this out.
> 
> Thank you all.
> 
> Sean



Sean,

Try looking at the charts I posted in post 621 of this thread. They may help.


Regards

Brian


----------



## SeanCJ

Thank you all very much for the input so far. I really do appreciate it.

I was worried about too large a screen and possibly 'motion sickness' or something along those lines with too large a screen and sitting too close.

Anyone experience any thing like that with really big screens?

In terms of PJ placement:

I think I will shoot for option 2 above which will cut back on length of cable needed and allow for somewhat easier install, but the projector noise may be an issue that close. I think I can get the ideal gain from the screen with this placement.

Still open for other advice and suggestions though.

Thanks again everyone.

I'm hoping to make the commitment to purchase very soon. Just need to make sure I've got everything taken into consideration before the plunge. Don't want any buyer's remorse with this kind of investment.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SeanCJ* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Thank you all very much for the input so far. I really do appreciate it.
> 
> I was worried about too large a screen and possibly 'motion sickness' or something along those lines with too large a screen and sitting too close.
> 
> Anyone experience any thing like that with really big screens?
> 
> In terms of PJ placement:
> 
> I think I will shoot for option 2 above which will cut back on length of cable needed and allow for somewhat easier install, but the projector noise may be an issue that close. I think I can get the ideal gain from the screen with this placement.
> 
> Still open for other advice and suggestions though.
> 
> Thanks again everyone.
> 
> I'm hoping to make the commitment to purchase very soon. Just need to make sure I've got everything taken into consideration before the plunge. Don't want any buyer's remorse with this kind of investment.



Re screen size, I agree with the above posters to go for as large as you can accommodate. Most people with 1080p pj's sit at


----------



## Joseph Clark

I am completely remorseless about the HP and 1080p. Bigger is better. I'm only sorry my home theater room isn't bigger.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SeanCJ* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> In terms of PJ placement:
> 
> I think I will shoot for option 2 above which will cut back on length of cable needed and allow for somewhat easier install, but the projector noise may be an issue that close. I think I can get the ideal gain from the screen with this placement.



I am using a 100-inch HP screen with my Epson Home Cinema 1080. My viewing area is 12 feet from the screen, and the PJ is mounted on a 36-inch-high pedestal five feet behind the viewing area. Screen gain is terrific, and I hear no PJ noise with the lamp on low power, which provides more than enough brightness. I could move my seating closer to the screen, but I feel it is about right where is is now.


----------



## Rgb

Is there a Part 2 thread yet?


----------



## rx-8

I don't think there will be one.


----------



## SeanCJ

I've just read a few posts on the JVC owner's thread about blacks becomming more dark gray when using the High Power screen, saying that the screen may actually be too bright.

Can those here running the JVC provide some input as to what they are seeing in terms of black coloration with the high power?

To me, the reason for spending an extra $1700 for the JVC over the Pearl is for the better blacks and overall contrast.

I'd hate to buy the High Power and lose the great blacks from this projector. I still want a very bright image, but blacks really need to be 'black', not 'dark gray'.

Thanks for the input.

Sean


----------



## Joseph Clark

Worst case scenario, you buy a filter for use with the lamp while it's still new. When the lamp ages, take the filter off. I don't think that's a reason to rule out the HP for an RS1. I have a Sharp 20k, which I thought was almost a little too bright when the lamp was brand new, but not enough to filter it. After nearly 1500 hours, it's still bright enough that I haven't switched the iris from High Contrast to medium. This is a great screen.


----------



## Kampf kobold

I´m searching for an Mid Cost High Gain Angular reflektiv screen for my Sharp XV-Z3300, avaible in Europe...


----------



## Tryg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SeanCJ* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> To me, the reason for spending an extra $1700 for the JVC over the Pearl is for the better blacks and overall contrast.
> 
> I'd hate to buy the High Power and lose the great blacks from this projector. I still want a very bright image, but blacks really need to be 'black', not 'dark gray'.
> 
> Thanks for the input.
> 
> Sean



High Gain screens will give you more perceived contrast


----------



## Ximori




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> High Gain screens will give you more perceived contrast



In mostly dark scenes, doesn't the image look as if the RS1 is running in higher gamma? This is the one thing I'm concerned about.


Had to edit to make it clearer.


----------



## Semisentient




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SeanCJ* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'd hate to buy the High Power and lose the great blacks from this projector. I still want a very bright image, *but blacks really need to be 'black', not 'dark gray'*.
> 
> Thanks for the input.
> 
> Sean



If thats the case then get a CRT projector.










I'm soon switching from CRT to digital and will probably go with an RS1\\HP combo (78" x 139" - I wanted a bit bigger, but the custom sizes are way more expensive...). Anyways, I know black level won't be close, but I'll be gaining in other areas.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Semisentient* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> If thats the case then get a CRT projector.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm soon switching from CRT to digital and will probably go with an RS1\\HP combo (78" x 139" - I wanted a bit bigger, but the custom sizes are way more expensive...). Anyways, I know black level won't be close, but I'll be gaining in other areas.



That depends. A CRT without gamma mods when properly calibrated for _good_ shadow detail will give you around 10,000:1 on/off contrast. You won't achieve total fade to black of course. Setting up the same CRT for higher contrast and total black out will mean crushed blacks and a loss of shadow detail.


So if your preference is good shadow detail, you will be getting more on/off form the JVC than your CRT.


Gary


----------



## Semisentient




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> That depends. A CRT without gamma mods when properly calibrated for _good_ shadow detail will give you around 10,000:1 on/off contrast. You won't achieve total fade to black of course. Setting up the same CRT for higher contrast and total black out will mean crushed blacks and a loss of shadow detail.
> 
> 
> So if your preference is good shadow detail, you will be getting more on/off form the JVC than your CRT.
> 
> 
> Gary




Except for the fact that I have a custom made (by AVSForum member, and CRT engineer tse) gamma correction circuit...


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

In which case you can have your cake and eat it!


Gary


----------



## Semisentient




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> In which case you can have your cake and eat it!
> 
> 
> Gary



And it's the darkest chocolate you have ever seen...


----------



## Herve

My wife and I would ideally like to sit about 8 feet, or less, from a 119" screen. We enjoy the immersive effect of being close to the screen, and it is a rare occasion when more than the two of us are viewing.


If the projector is located 12 feet from the screen (and dead center to it, 50 inches off the floor) and our heads are each four feet in front of the projector, and 1.5 feet to the right and left (the pj's light path to the bottom edge of the screen would still be above our heads) of the projector's perpendicular ray to the center of the screen, will we notice any ill effects (brightness uniformity, sparklies, etc.) as a result of sitting so close to the HP screen?


The following drawing is our proposed layout in two views. Each square represents one square foot. The two numbers are the number of degrees in the angles. From Tryg's chart on his first post, it seems to me that eight degrees and under is the sweet spot for maximizing gain. At 14 degrees the gain is around 1.5.










It seems that the upper edge of the screen will appear adequately illuminated to us, so the only question I have is: are the furthest side edges from either of the two viewers going to look much dimmer than the rest of the screen?


----------



## Joseph Clark

Screen uniformity will be the same, no matter where you sit. Overall brightness will decrease as you move your eyes further from the lens, but the whole screen will be uniformly lit. No hotspotting!! That's one of the HP's major features.


----------



## FLBoy

Herve- Nice drawings. They indicate that for each viewing position the lower edge of your screen will have higher gain than the upper edge, and that the closer side of the screen will have higher gain than that of the more distant side. Your question is will the resultant uniformity differences be apparent. I think the answer is probably not--at least for normal program material.


I have a HP screen and a viewing arrangement similar to yours. The differences are: a 100-inch 16x9 screen, two viewing positions 12 feet from screen, and PJ lens centered 17 feet from screen and 39 inches above the floor. I can see no apparent brightness uniformity issues on normal program material from either viewing position.


This does not mean the brightness differences are not present, it may just mean that the human eye is good at compensating for them when viewing a continuous image. The human eye is far less forgiving of a color nonuniformity, such as a change from a reddish tint on one side of the screen to a greenish tint on the other, but the HP screen does not cause any color nonuniformity as far as I can see.


I have not put up a 100% white image to see if I can see any brightness nonuniformity in that. Perhaps others can provide that info. If not, I may experiment with that when I have time.


----------



## Joseph Clark

According to measurements others have made, the HP is one of the most uniform screens around, for both brightness and color.


----------



## Imageek2

I notice no difference in uniformity even sitting at the edges of the screen.


----------



## Herve

That's encouraging to hear, folks!


We've lived with a CRT fp for about 4 years, so we'd like to be able to sit as close as possible to a 1080 image from a future RS-1, while at the same time have a bright, punchy image that we will at least PERCEIVE to be uniform across the entire screen. Considering the tight "directionality" of this screen, reflected ambient light - particularly from the ceiling close to the screen - should be pretty much a non-issue.


This morning I actually measured the distance between our outside eyes as we sit in our typical viewing positions on the sofa. They are about 24" apart, not 36", so we're a bit better off than I had estimated in the drawing.


For HDTV nature and travel shows in particular, this proposed HT configuration should provide us with one very inexpensive "vacation" after the other. (WIHOUT EVER STEPPING FOOT IN AN AIRPORT!)


To anyone interested (particularly RS-1 owners),

Just for the heck of it, the next time you fire up your pj, would you be kind enough to briefly view your image from within one screen diagonal, and even closer, (and slightly to one side or the other of the center of the screen) and post at what viewing distance you begin to notice brightness uniformity, color uniformity, or "sparklie" issues, if any? Thanks.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Herve* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> That's encouraging to hear, folks!
> 
> 
> We've lived with a CRT fp for about 4 years, so we'd like to be able to sit as close as possible to a 1080 image from a future RS-1, while at the same time have a bright, punchy image that we will at least PERCEIVE to be uniform across the entire screen. Considering the tight "directionality" of this screen, reflected ambient light - particularly from the ceiling close to the screen - should be pretty much a non-issue.
> 
> 
> This morning I actually measured the distance between our outside eyes as we sit in our typical viewing positions on the sofa. They are about 24" apart, not 36", so we're a bit better off than I had estimated in the drawing.
> 
> 
> For HDTV nature and travel shows in particular, this proposed HT configuration should provide us with one very inexpensive "vacation" after the other. (WIHOUT EVER STEPPING FOOT IN AN AIRPORT!)
> 
> 
> To anyone interested (particularly RS-1 owners),
> 
> Just for the heck of it, the next time you fire up your pj, would you be kind enough to briefly view your image from within one screen diagonal, and even closer, (and slightly to one side or the other of the center of the screen) and post at what viewing distance you begin to notice brightness uniformity, color uniformity, or "sparklie" issues, if any? Thanks.



I would be shocked if anyone reported brightness or color uniformity issues. Sparklies are certainly not an issue. I had a Firehawk before this screen, and it definitely had a sheen, as well as some fairly serious color and brightness uniformity issues. (It was the 1st gen Firehawk material, so I don't know how the next gen Firehawk fabrics perform.) No such problems with the HP. This screen provides an exceptional viewing experience, and, when you're in the "cone," a very bright image, without compromising resolution on a 1080p projector.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Herve* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> To anyone interested (particularly RS-1 owners),
> 
> Just for the heck of it, the next time you fire up your pj, would you be kind enough to briefly view your image from within one screen diagonal, and even closer, (and slightly to one side or the other of the center of the screen) and post at what viewing distance you begin to notice brightness uniformity, color uniformity, or "sparklie" issues, if any? Thanks.



Have an RS1 and 126" diag HP, sitting ~ 12.5 ft away (~ 1.36 screen widths, 1.2 x diagonal), and with pj on a stand between my and wife's recliners, very similar to your room; except that the lens of the pj is less than a ft behind our eyes, and ~ 1ft above them, i.e., even closer to our eyes than in your sketch, and very close to the dead center of the screen. It is within a half ft of being at the closest possible distance to the screen.


The picture is just unbelievably outstanding, in brightness, color, sharpness, and uniformity from any position inside the edges of the screen. Since our room is relatively small (17.5 ft deep, 13.5 ft wide, 8.3 ft H), no one can sit much outside the screen, so the HP performs optimally.


----------



## SeanCJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Have an RS1 and 126" diag HP, sitting ~ 12.5 ft away (~ 1.36 screen widths, 1.2 x diagonal), and with pj on a stand between my and wife's recliners, very similar to your room; except that the lens of the pj is less than a ft behind our eyes, and ~ 1ft above them, i.e., even closer to our eyes than in your sketch, and very close to the dead center of the screen. It is within a half ft of being at the closest possible distance to the screen.
> 
> 
> The picture is just unbelievably outstanding, in brightness, color, sharpness, and uniformity from any position inside the edges of the screen. Since our room is relatively small (17.5 ft deep, 13.5 ft wide, 8.3 ft H), no one can sit much outside the screen, so the HP performs optimally.



Very good to hear this. Your settings are very very close to what I'll be setting up (when I can talk the wife into the purchase that is







)


----------



## FLBoy

Millerwill- You have described what I believe to be the ideal optical arrangement for a HP screen/PJ installation. The goal is quite simply to keep the viewers' eyes as close as possible to the PJ lens. I slightly compromised my own installation optically by placing the PJ at eye level about five feet behind the primary viewing positions. I did this to reduce the possibility of audible fan noise at the listening positions. Even so, I would agree with you that I perceive my picture to be unbelievably outstanding, in brightness, color, sharpness, and uniformity from my viewing positions when viewing normal program material.


However, (and Joseph Clark, you should be prepared to be shocked) a test image with an all white screen from the Avia DVD last night revealed more brightness nonuniformity than I was expecting. With the test image, from my primary viewing positions, which are 12 degrees to the right and left of the PJ-to-center-screen axis, I could not see any top-to-bottom screen brightness uniformity issues. Side-to-side screen brightness nonuniformity was not large, but was readily visible from my primary viewing positions. In each viewing position the brighter side of the screen was the one corresponding to the side of the viewing position. When I moved to a position in line with one side of the screen, the nonuniformity was what I would consider large (>2 to 1?) in favor of the side I was on. I next put my head just under and centered in front the PJ lens. From that position I could not detect any visible screen brightness nonuniformity top-to-bottom or side-to-side.


To any HP owners who are skeptical of my results, I invite you to run your own white screen experiments. It's easy enough to do, and you may be surprised at the amount of brightness nonuniformity you have but are not perceiving. Hey, it's still a great screen, and I wouldn't trade mine for any other screen I know of.


----------



## millerwill

FLBoy: You observations are very consistent with mine. Yes, I did try to set up the HP as ideally as possible--after reading AVSForum for a couple of years in planning it all out! (And fortunately, this setup worked well for my room, and also fortunately, the RS1's noise level in minimal.) When I view from the edge of the screen, I can indeed tell that the pic is not quite as bright--though still plenty bright once your eyes adjust--but the brightness over the screenis quite uniform to the eye. (I did calculations of the angle between the lens-to screen-to eye for various points on the screen, and the angle varies very little for any point on the screen.)


The HP really is a marvelous product. Thanks to Tryg for 'shouting this from the rooftops' so that we all listened!


----------



## bqmeister




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> The HP really is a marvelous product. Thanks to Tryg for 'shouting this from the rooftops' so that we all listened!



Ditto that!


Thanks Tryg!!!


----------



## jhe

I measured my Sony Pearl and High Power. My set up is not ideal as I sit forward of the projector.

I measured about a 10% +/- variation from the projector. Projector and screen I measure a +/- 20% variation. This variation was pretty consistent anywhere I could sit in the room.


Screen is cinemascope format.


----------



## Joseph Clark

millerwill,


I'm not sure if you and FLBoy are seeing the same think. I think what he's saying (correct me if I'm wrong) is not just that the screen is dimmer from the side (something I think we all can agree on), but that while seated at the side, that side of the screen is up to twice as bright as the other side of the screen. That's very different. I've done informal full white screen "tests," too, and I don't perceive anything close to that. With the naked eye, I can't tell any difference.


Color me skeptical of that perception, but I haven't done objective measurements, either, so I have no hard data to back up what I see. Guess we'll have to let someone who has done the measurements chime in here. I remember reading such a post, but I can't recall which thread it was in. IIRC, the metered side to side difference was about 3%, certainly not anywhere close to 100%.


----------



## millerwill

Joe, Perhaps I did missread Flyboy's post. In any event, I see quite a uniform pic (to my eye, no precise measurements) from any reasonable location. One can see why this should be the case by considerting the angle from lens to screen to eye; e.g., if one is sitting opposite the right or left edge of the screen, this angle is the SAME if the point on the screen is opposite the lens (i.e., at the center of the screen) or at the edge of the screen opposite your eye (make a simple sketch to see this); so you get the same (somewhat reduced from a head-on viewing position) brightness from the HP from both points of the screen. And one can continue the process to see that the angle varies very little for any point on the screen. [If the viewer sits right near the lens, then this angle is of course ~ 0 for any point on the screen.]


----------



## jhe

Keep in mind that the angular error from side to side on the screen occurs when you sit forward of the lens. The closer you are to the screen the worse it gets.


Also the further back the projector is the more area is included in the bright cone, so the people with variations that are large like me are suffering from both issues: a projector too close and seating forward of the projector by say 1/3 proj to screen distance or worse. It is still visible mostly only on white fields and I am not sorry I went to a High Power. I've seen angular screens with setups similar to mine that vary by over 3 to 1 in brightness across the screen and that is visible in movies as well as tests.


----------



## FLBoy

Guys, Let me try to clear up a few points for you. When I saw a 2:1 (estimated) change in brightness from one side of the screen to the other (as Joe correctly noted), I was about 5 feet from the screen and standing at the edge. Jhe is also correct in stating that the angular error from side to side gets worse the closer you get to the screen, so I would not have seen as large a brightness difference at my normal viewing distance of 12 feet. Even so, at 12 feet and in my normal seated position 12 degrees off the lens-screen center axis, I could still see some side-to-side on-screen brightness variation with the all-white test image.


Joe, the human eye does a great job of hiding gradual brightness variations in a continuous image, so you might try blocking your view of the center of the screen with your hands if you try this test again; it will make the side-to-side difference much easier to see.


From a practical viewpoint, I don't think this brightness nonuniformity is much of an issue. It is nowhere near as bad as, for example, the RPTV I had before I graduated to this front PJ system. Still, I believe it is not quite correct to say that the HP screen is completely without any observable on-screen brightness variation.


----------



## Herve

Fantastic!


When the time comes, a High Power it will be.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Guys, Let me try to clear up a few points for you. When I saw a 2:1 (estimated) change in brightness from one side of the screen to the other (as Joe correctly noted), I was about 5 feet from the screen and standing at the edge. Jhe is also correct in stating that the angular error from side to side gets worse the closer you get to the screen, so I would not have seen as large a brightness difference at my normal viewing distance of 12 feet. Even so, at 12 feet and in my normal seated position 12 degrees off the lens-screen center axis, I could still see some side-to-side on-screen brightness variation with the all-white test image.
> 
> 
> Joe, the human eye does a great job of hiding gradual brightness variations in a continuous image, so you might try blocking your view of the center of the screen with your hands if you try this test again; it will make the side-to-side difference much easier to see.
> 
> 
> From a practical viewpoint, I don't think this brightness nonuniformity is much of an issue. It is nowhere near as bad as, for example, the RPTV I had before I graduated to this front PJ system. Still, I believe it is not quite correct to say that the HP screen is completely without any observable on-screen brightness variation.



I know the human eye does a wonderful job of compensating for a lot of color/brightness non-uniformities. I'll take a closer look and see if I can pick up on what you're saying.


----------



## Tutmos

Got my 159" 16:9 HP in last night and all I can say is WOW using an RS1. I watched the Island and a couple others and I'm absolutely floored watching from 15'. More later.


Kevin W.


----------



## millerwill

You are at a slightly closer viewing distance ratio than I (~1.3--I'm at ~ 1.35, 126" screen viewed from 12.5 ft), and I agree that it is indeed 'WOW'. I've had my RS1/HP now for almost 5 months, and the WOW has worn off yet.


----------



## G-Rex

I currently have an RS1 (with low lamp hours) with an 18'7" throw distance to a 92" wide ST 130. I upgrading to 108" to 110" wide 2.37:1 soon and have tested the HP samples in front of the ST 130 screen. I zoomed in to enlarge the the image to simulate the future 110" wide image. Rs1 in low lamp mode. Using a Samsung BPP-1200 BlueRay player. Table mounted Rs1. An external scaler is not being used. The RS1 is at factory default settings. Room is light controlled and watching movies with lights off. Test dvd was blueray Casino Royale. The two HP samples were vibrant and filled with life. While the ST130 (and many other samples were dim and lifeless. The image on the HP samples were very sharp with no sheen. Contrast takes a bit of a hit, but not too bad.

The ONLY concern I am having , which has prevented me from ordering the HP so far is that I see an excessive amount of video noise/film grain on bright scenes ie. a blue sky...(while the ST130 shows no trace of video noise). The construction scene on CR is one example of excessive grain. Lowering brightness on the RS1 does not reduce film grain/noise. Is my image too bright where an ND2 filter would help reduce this video noise? Most on the board see all the good points I'm seeing with the HP, but I can't understand why few are complaining about the video noise? When the entire screen is a HP does this noise become less of an issue? The HP's noise seems to be quite a bit worse than my old Sharp 9000 1 chip DLP dithering issues. Any thoughts on this?


----------



## Kevin McCarthy

I have an RS-1, along with a 100" HiPower and a Toshiba HD-A2. On good HD-DVDs, I don't see any trace of "video noise". To the extent that you do see some, I don't think the HP fabric ic culpable. If the signal train has noise, though, the RS-1 / HP combo will certainly show it.


Kevin


----------



## Joseph Clark

I agree. I don't think your noise problem is the HP's fault.


----------



## G-Rex

You both could be right, however I have 8 different screen samples including the Silver Star, and only the HP shows the noise. I am going from the BlueRay player to a Radiient switcher (passing 1080p 24), which has a signal extender/enhancer built in to a 50 foot better cable Silver Serpent HDMI cable. The RS1's power is connected to a reference grade PurePower battery backup/power regenerator that creates a perfect sign wave, so it's not a dirty power issue. So if its not the HP then where else could this video noise be comming from? I will try the RS1 with my XA2 player to make sure it's not the Samsung player. I doubt the player is the problem though. I could also try eliminating the switcher from the signal path to see if that is the culprit. I thought in prior threads I read about some people complaining about such video noise, but I could be wrong.


----------



## FLBoy

I have a 100-inch 16x9 HP screen and have never seen any noise on either HD DVD or Blu-ray sources. I did see some noise recently on a poorly recorded SD DVD.


One thing you might try is temporarily eliminating the 50-foot HDMI cable by moving one of your players close to the PJ and coupling directly with a short HDMI cable to see if that eliminates the noise. From what I read, 50 feet may be a bit of a push for HDMI. I have also read that the line-powered HDMI extenders may be inferior to those with their own external power supply. YMMV.


----------



## G-Rex

FLBoy, I may try that. The Radiient switcher with the built-in extender does have its own power supply though.


----------



## mikemav

I've had a DaLite Highpower Model B for a few months now; got it when I re-purposed my old NEC HT1100 projector to a spare bedroom to make it a game room. Anyway, I wanted to get some extra punch out of my aging projector and lamp and thus went w/ the HP screen. However, in my room setup, a tabletop mount would not have worked, so the projector is mounted in the 8'6" ceiling. Got the screen w/ the 18" black drop, mounted it to the wall and have it pulled down so it comes just to rest above the bottom of a window sill and the image is about 8" above the sill (Yes, the window behind the screen is light blocked w/ shades prior to screen install.) Anyway, I'm pleased w/ the lack of hot-spotting but there is a noticeable drop off the lower you sit. Standing (or up on the ladder to tweak the projector) it looks awesome. Sitting low to the ground in my Xbox 360 racing seat (Forza 2 rocks, BTW!), it has much less pop. I understand the screen diffusion pattern is ideally made for a non-ceiling projector mount, so I get why this is happening. Since I can't (or won't) move the projector now, here is my thought: what if I take the pull-down case off the wall, invert it and rest it at what is now the bottom of the image, which is perfect since it will be supported by the window sill. Then I can put a hook center in the wall above the window, and pull the screen UP so it is lined up with the current image and hold the pull handle up there with the wall hook. With the projector in the ceiling and the screen inverted to make it a pull-up screen, will that give me the same ideal configuration as if my projector were mounted on a low table? Easy enough to try- but I wanted to check to see if anyone has tried this or if you think it would work first.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mikemav* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I've had a DaLite Highpower Model B for a few months now; got it when I re-purposed my old NEC HT1100 projector to a spare bedroom to make it a game room. Anyway, I wanted to get some extra punch out of my aging projector and lamp and thus went w/ the HP screen. However, in my room setup, a tabletop mount would not have worked, so the projector is mounted in the 8'6" ceiling. Got the screen w/ the 18" black drop, mounted it to the wall and have it pulled down so it comes just to rest above the bottom of a window sill and the image is about 8" above the sill (Yes, the window behind the screen is light blocked w/ shades prior to screen install.) Anyway, I'm pleased w/ the lack of hot-spotting but there is a noticeable drop off the lower you sit. Standing (or up on the ladder to tweak the projector) it looks awesome. Sitting low to the ground in my Xbox 360 racing seat (Forza 2 rocks, BTW!), it has much less pop. I understand the screen diffusion pattern is ideally made for a non-ceiling projector mount, so I get why this is happening. Since I can't (or won't) move the projector now, here is my thought: what if I take the pull-down case off the wall, invert it and rest it at what is now the bottom of the image, which is perfect since it will be supported by the window sill. Then I can put a hook center in the wall above the window, and pull the screen UP so it is lined up with the current image and hold the pull handle up there with the wall hook. With the projector in the ceiling and the screen inverted to make it a pull-up screen, will that give me the same ideal configuration as if my projector were mounted on a low table? Easy enough to try- but I wanted to check to see if anyone has tried this or if you think it would work first.



This won't work because it's a retro-reflective screen whether it's upside down or right side up. It's got glass beads that reflect the light back to the source. That's how it gets its gain. The angle between the projector any your eyes should be as small as possible


----------



## FLBoy

I agree with erkq. The HP screen has no optical top or bottom. You can even turn it sideways, and it will still work the same. One thing you could do to improve the gain would be to lower the PJ using an extender rod--if your PJ has the lens offset range to handle a lower position. The goal is to get your eyeballs as close to the PJ lens as possible. The HP screen tries to send most of the light right back where it came from.


----------



## Chadci

I have a 119" HP pulldown. I have only had it for a few months but now when I go to pull it down, there seems to be a little resistance at first. Once I get past this is is smooth. I have to keep it up when not in use or it would become a giant coloring book. Any idea's why this is.... the resistance that is. Basically, it wants to hold in place so I have to give it an extra tug.


----------



## Chadci

Sorry double post. Feel free to delete.


----------



## schm66

Does anyone have any good advice on how to put together a Da-lite Cinema Contour High power screen together?


I got all but 5 snaps on in the last corner. Can not seem to pull it enough to get the last of the snaps on. It is a 119" screen. Thanks for any help.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *schm66* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Does anyone have any good advice on how to put together a Da-lite Cinema Contour High power screen together?
> 
> 
> I got all but 5 snaps on in the last corner. Can not seem to pull it enough to get the last of the snaps on. It is a 119" screen. Thanks for any help.



I actually used vise grip pliers on mine to pull the screen material over to align the snaps. I also had a helper, and we stood the screen up against the wall to avoid having to work on the floor. Others have suggested using a hair dryer to heat the screen material to make it more pliable. As they say, it ain't easy! Just be careful that you don't damage the viewing area of the screen. Good luck!


----------



## schm66

Thanks for the help FLBoy. I phoned DA-Lite and they told me to snap the corners first. So I unsnapped all but the corners and pulled and got the last corner to snap. Then I snapped the middles. That worked great.


----------



## dsm

I have a question for you Hi-Power experts. A few years back I bought a 4:3 Hi-Power pull down for use with an InFocus X1. I subsequently switched to a 16:9 InFocus, and was able to jury rig a masking solution in my room. I'm now going to be giving the projector and screen to my brother, and unforunately WAF will not allow the use of usual masking options. My question - can the Hi-Power be painted black on the the top of the screen to convert it to a 16:9 aspect? If so, will any paint suffice? Would flat black spray paint do the job? (I don't have a sprayer ... ) Any ideas would be appreciated.


----------



## romberth

Hello Tryg.


I own a 2.95 meters wide HP that is about 10 feet... and I need bigger.


In the first post you wrote


# If fixed frame screens are your thing, the High Power material comes seamless up to 6 feet. So if you're thinking about going big, you may be interested in a 6 foot tall 14 foot wide Cinemascope screen. Simply awesome.#


I dont find these sizes on the Dalite site. Please would you indicate where i can find a bigger High power 16 9 fixed frame screen than mine?

And if someone knows a Dalite salesman that can ship to Europe that would be fantastic.


Thx a lot

Best regards


----------



## SeanCJ

Hello All,

I've told that a pull down or electric High Power screen would not show 'waves' or wrinkles due to the nature of the fabric. Is this true? If so, does that mean that paying the $1K extra for tensioning would not be necessary?

I would really like to get the high power electric, but the 'tensioning' cost puts it a bit out of my price range.


----------



## hrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SeanCJ* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Hello All,
> 
> I've told that a pull down or electric High Power screen would not show 'waves' or wrinkles due to the nature of the fabric. Is this true? If so, does that mean that paying the $1K extra for tensioning would not be necessary?
> 
> I would really like to get the high power electric, but the 'tensioning' cost puts it a bit out of my price range.



I viewed a large High Power that had waves in it. The waves were visible with the lights on and the projector off, but did not show on the screen when we watched movies and broadcast TV. Some here have said if you watch from an angle and there is ambient light reflecting on the waves, then they could show.


The High Power is a heavy fabric, and that alone helps with wave issues. Still, a fixed frame screen will be the best at giving the flattest surface and eliminating waves. This is what Da-Lite told me when I was on the phone with a customer service rep.


Forget about the tensioned screens. If you look at all the different tensioned screens Da-Lite offers, you will notice the High Power is not available in any shape or form as a tensioned screen.


----------



## hrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *romberth* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Please would you indicate where i can find a bigger High power 16 9 fixed frame screen than mine?
> 
> And if someone knows a Dalite salesman that can ship to Europe that would be fantastic.
> 
> 
> Thx a lot
> 
> Best regards



You can contact Da-Lite at:

http://www.da-lite.com/ 


This page lists the large 16X9 fixed frame screens in the Cinema Contour line:

http://www.da-lite.com/products/product_pdfs/234.pdf 


It lists the 133-inch diagonal as the largest High Power size available, but that is not accurate.


Tryg was talking about a _seamless_ High Power screen. If you want your screen to be seamless, the largest size you could get would be, as Tryg said, 6 feet high, which is 128 inches wide (3.25 meters) and about 147 inches diagonal. With an electric or pull-down screen, you could watch all of that 147 inches, but the fixed frame screens involve a snap-on process that results in some of the screen material being obscured by the frame, such that you would get less than 147 inches of viewable space. It looks like you have the 133-inch High Power. If so, you could get an extra 12 inches in width by switching to an electric or pull-down screen and getting the custom sized 147-inch, but not as much of an increase if you get a fixed frame screen.


If you don't mind a seam, you can go much larger than that.


----------



## RobZ

Will this setup produce decent results? I just ordered a 119" HP Electrol.


My Pearl will be mounted 14' throw on a 10' ceiling with a 3' extension pole (Chief mount). this will place the projector's lens approxiamtely 6 1/2' above the floor. My viewing distance will be directly in front of the screen only and at a 12' viewing distance.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RobZ* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Will this setup produce decent results? I just ordered a 119" HP Electrol.



You can best answer this question for yourself. Stretch a string from you PJ's lens to a point on your screen wall. Stretch a second string from that point to your viewing position at seated eye level. Measure the angle between the two strings. Look up the screen gain at that angle on the graph in the first post of this thread. That is the screen gain you will have at that point on your HP screen. Repeat for other viewing positions and/or other points on the screen.


----------



## Orwellflash




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SeanCJ* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Hello All,
> 
> I've told that a pull down or electric High Power screen would not show 'waves' or wrinkles due to the nature of the fabric. Is this true? If so, does that mean that paying the $1K extra for tensioning would not be necessary?
> 
> I would really like to get the high power electric, but the 'tensioning' cost puts it a bit out of my price range.



I will second what hrd has written. I have seen 3 HP Model C pulldowns. 2 of the 3 had significant waves from the beginning. I have heard from others that many pulldown screens develop waves over time, as well. You can see the waves while a picture is projected on the screen if there is side light hitting the screen. I have a light controlled room, with very little reflected light, and I cannot see the waves when a picture is being projected.


----------



## RobZ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> You can best answer this question for yourself. Stretch a string from you PJ's lens to a point on your screen wall. Stretch a second string from that point to your viewing position at seated eye level. Measure the angle between the two strings. Look up the screen gain at that angle on the graph in the first post of this thread. That is the screen gain you will have at that point on your HP screen. Repeat for other viewing positions and/or other points on the screen.




Sounds easy enough. Thanks for the tip.


----------



## steinfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *schm66* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Thanks for the help FLBoy. I phoned DA-Lite and they told me to snap the corners first. So I unsnapped all but the corners and pulled and got the last corner to snap. Then I snapped the middles. That worked great.




thanks for the tip!


I finally took the plunge. ordered 110" cinema contour with pro-trim! Hope I like it! I know it will make me want a new projector with dark blacks even more now. oh well, one thing at a time.


----------



## Joseph Clark

You're gonna love it. That's what I have and it has never disappointed.


----------



## ctviggen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hrd* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Forget about the tensioned screens. If you look at all the different tensioned screens Da-Lite offers, you will notice the High Power is not available in any shape or form as a tensioned screen.



Elite now has a screen with a gain of 1.5 in a tensioned system. I'm not sure whether gains of 1.5 qualify as "high power" though.


----------



## Pip

I own a pull down High Power. When I ordered it many years ago, I needed extra drop (masking) on the top and bottom. The dealer, in order to save me money, had them add the drop with different (cheaper) material than the high power fabric, so my screen has horizontal seams above and below the viewing area. This causes very large wrinkles which are very obvious when looking at just the screen (no image) with full room light.


However, even with my exceptionally wrinlked specimen, I never see wrinkles when viewing a movie except for one condition - long horizontal pans of static images. I sit out of the viewing cone often.


When my screen arrived in such a disconcerting state, I spent a lot of time trying to see wrinkles. As I could not, I can't imaginge any normally manufactured high power showing visible wrinkles with an image. I've seen several tab-tensioned screens that have more visible wrinkles than mine.


Pip


----------



## Nedtsc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chriscmore* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 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




Would you guys agree with Chris assessment on HP ?


----------



## Tutmos

No, I wouldn't. I've been using a 159" diag HP for almost a month now and I couldn't be happier. Keep in mind that's after 7 years with a 1.0ish screen. There's very little downside to a HP screen that I can find. You'd think the tight viewing cone is the problem but even that is pretty minimal.


----------



## Joseph Clark

I wouldn't agree, either. I had a Stewart Firehawk (which is definitely a "home theater" screen, not business) before the HP and there is no comparison. I much prefer the HP image to the FH in just about every way.


----------



## Orwellflash




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nedtsc* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Would you guys agree with Chris assessment on HP ?



I haven't seen any reports of problems with sparklies. Here is some objective data from Glen C on the HP versus Studio Tek, Firehawk, and Carada BW. I can't find original post, but this is what I saved from it:


"You also mentioned your tight budget. In a fixed frame, the Carada BW is one of the few screens that comes close to fitting in your budget. It is rated at 1.4 gain. I have measured this screen with my spectroradiometer. With a ceiling mounted PJ, I measure it at 1.1 gain. It has exceptional color accuracy, and brightness and color uniformity. It's velvet lined frame is equal in size and beauty to my Stewart screen. It is simple to install. One caveat: its high uniformity is a disadvantage in a room with white ceiling and walls. (In this case, I would recommend the Stewart Firehawk, which is triple the price.)


Another screen that is near your budget is the Da-Lite High Power, rated at 2.8 gain with a shelf mounted PJ. When coupled with a ceiling mounted PJ (mounted 16% the screen's height above the screen surface) I measure it at 1.17 gain, but this is going to vary depending on how high/low you mount it. It is available in fixed screen or pull-down. It is acceptably color accurate. It is almost perfect in terms of color and brightness uniformity. It has a wide viewing cone. The folks that have posted contradictory statements regarding its uniformity in the configuration that I have listed, are just flat out ignorant about this screen. I challenge them to back up their statements with facts by listing the measurements they have taken of this screen with a ceiling mounted PJ. (Don't forget to measure the PJ's uniformity first, so that you can subtract it from your screen measurements.)


Some folks have reported an occasional sparkly on the HP. I don't know. Typically a sparkly will disappear from view if you shift your seating (or your head) to the side by an inch or less. The Firehawk is known to have this problem occasionally, and I have seen iton my own screen. I have read recommendations to color them over with a soft lead pencil on the Firehawk, but have never had cause to do this personally. As far as eliminating them on the HP, Da-Lite may have some recommendations. I don't know.


SCREEN_____GAIN AT________REDUCTION AT___SCREEN CENTER FROM

___________SCREEN CENTER__SCREEN EDGE___SEAT AT 45% ANGLE


ST 130______1.3___________-25%___________-40%

BW_________1.11__________-7%____________-29%

HP__________1.17__________0%____________-36%

VUTEC PW____1.84_________-33%___________-65%

FH__________1.14_________-48%___________-71%


Measured color shift in x/y imparted by the screen measured at the same positions listed above for uniformity.


SCREEN___COLOR SHIFT AT___COLOR SHIFT AT__COLOR SHIFT FROM

_________SCREEN CENTER___SCREEN EDGE_____SEAT AT 45% ANGLE


ST 130____-.0007/+.0013____+.0043/+.0049____-.0007/-.0033

BW_______-.0017/+.0003____+.0003/+.0019____-.0027/+.0003

HP_______+.0023/+.0043____+.0013/+.0049____+.0013/+.0033

VUTEC PW_+.0003/+.0003____+.0003/+.0023____+.0003/+.0013

FH________-.0027/-.0007_____-.0057/-.0041_____-.0091/-.0077


Studio Tek 130, Carada Brilliant White, Da-lite High Power, Vutec , Firehawk.


In a white room the Firehawk will stomp the Carada and any other screen like it. The Firehawks defects work to give it a higher on-screen CR, because it dampens cross-light reflections. The difference is quite visible and vastly outwiegh its dissadvantages.


In a theater with dark or non-reflective surfaces, I would use a screen with better uniformity. However, I see quite a few black-hole theaters that use the Firehawk and it still looks great. I just think that there are better choices. Not everyone agrees with me about this. I have friends who think their Firehawks are better than white screens even in their black-hole theaters. IMO, in such a theater there are minimal cross-light reflections to wash out the screen image. So you don't need a Firehawk. No screen can change the CR of an image on its own. It is only by dampening the effect of cross-light reflections that the on-screen CR can be affected. Other than that, grey screens have no affect on CR, despite what some may post. A lower gain screen lowers the level of White to the same degree as it lowers the level of Black and CR remains the same, just at a lower level of brightness.



There is a ton of BS about screens on the forum and in print. A screen is mearly a reflective surface. What it does to any image reflected from it can be measured in terms of color shift and brightness shifts. Plus the affect of the surface texture on sharpness, sparklies, and the like.


Though the Firehawk has slightly higher gain at the very center of the screen, it measures lower and lower gain as you move out from the center towards the sides. The Carada remains much more constant. The Carada would probably appear brighter over all than the Firehawk because of this. I usually figure the Firehawk at 1.0 gain when planning how bright a PJ to mate with it.


White vs Grey in itself has absolutely nothing to do with "POP" or color purity or anything like that. This is a lack of understanding as to what is really going on in the reflected image. In video, grey is the same color as white. It is just less intense (less bright). In video, White and every shade of Grey is the color described by the x/y color coordinates .3127/.3290. When an ISF calibrates a display's greyscale, he sets the display so that White and every shade of Grey down to Black is as close to .3127/.3290 as possible. If a screen is color accurate, meaning that it does not impart a color of its own to the images it reflects then it doen't matter what that screen looks like when the PJ is shut down and the room lights are on. The screen can look white, grey, and even a little salmon color and still be shown to impart no significant color shift. You can't judge a screen with the room lights on.


Where this POP thing comes from is that people have compared higher gain white screens like an ST130 to lower gain grey screens like the Firehawk in the same room and at the same time. In this kind of comparison the dimmer screen looks greyer. However, from reading the above, you probably realize that looking "greyer" only means "dimmer" in this context. If you bring in say a 1.8 gain white screen and put it next to the ST130, now all of the sudden, the ST130's image looks greyer and lacking in POP. Remove the 1.8 gain screen and the ST130's POP returns. Now remove the ST130 and the Firehawks vividness returns. And so on and so on and so on.


This is just the way human vision works and this is well known. For example, if you project a white square that is 10 fL against a Black background, you will see the square as being White. Now add a second square next to it that is 12 fL. The 10 fL square suddenly is perceived as being light grey.


The Carada has advantages over the Firehawk in terms of superior uniformity, both in brightness and in color. However. any differences in "perceived" color vividness can only be due to differences in brightness. Make it so that the image coming from the Firehawk is brighter, and then it will appear to be the more vivid in a side by side comparison. On their own, without direct comparison, both screens will be equally "vivid". Anyone who thinks otherwise is mearly fooling themselves.


Let me put it another way, as long as two screens do not color shift the image, the colors they reflect will be identical escept for how bright they are. Neither one will be more "vivid" than the other. In an HT we are selecting a PJ and screen to achieve a certain desired brightness level, which is commonly 12 fL at White. The size and gain of the screen will determine how bright it is. Choose a screen whose gain gets you your desired brightness level.


Yes, a grey screen will look identical to a white screen that has the same gain and uniformity charectoristics. You could not tell the difference, nor could measuring equipment. Anyone who tells me they see something that can be demonstrate is not there, is merely mistaken.



With the caveat that there will be some differences if the two screens differ in brightness uniformity. The measurements that I posted for intensity at the edge of the screen when measured from the prime seat describe how uniform the reflected image will be to the prime seat. Keep in mind that that for the human eye/brain to sense that brightness has been halved, it must actually be reduced to 18% of the original intensity. The human eye/brain senses that the change in intensity is much smaller than what the meter does. This coupled with the fact that most video images are not uniform themselves makes people surprisingly tolerant of brightness uniformity issues like those induced by the Firehawk, for example. So I say, "Yes". If you want a big screen, and that requires using a gain screen. Go for it. You can also choose to go the lower gain and smaller screen route and move the seating closer as an alternative. The measurements for intensity when measured from a seat set at a 45 degree angle from the center of the screen describe how much dimmer the image will appear to someone sitting off to the side at a 45 degree angle. If you don't have seating off to the side, then this isn't of concern. Most HTs don't. If you do, then that non-uniform screen might not work well enough for you. It all depends on how often those seats get used and how important that is to you. I actually have seats in my HT at that angle, and guests choose to use them instead of sitting in front of the screen frequently, and to my consternation, because I never would. They find the brightness level from those seats OK.


Another example. I put in a theater that also had seating off to the sides and where the intended audience would be critical viewers. I wanted to use the Carada BW because of its uniformity and because of its low cost. The screen needed to be large. I could not use the 122"D screen that I wanted. It would not be bright enough. I settled for a 110"D screen and moved the seating closer to the screen to maintain the same field of view for the prime seat. The walls were dark and non-reflective, but the ceiling was white. I can see visible image washout from the cross-light reflections off the ceiling. It still looks very good, but it will look even better if the ceiling is darkened. In this room a Firehawk would look better to a viewer in the prime seat than the Carada does, but the viewers on the sides would see a considerably dimmer image and they would probably disagree, at least I think I would."


----------



## SeanCJ

Is the 2.8 gain of the HP too much when viewing in total darkness? Is the image too bright in total light controlled rooms? I'll be viewing maybe 40% of the time with some ambient light, but the remaining 60% will be at night with total light control. I just don't want it to be too washed out during the night time viewing.

Also, anyone that has had a pull down HP for over several months noted any issues with waves that can be seen when PH is on and while the movie is playing?

I really want to get this screen, but the lack of 'tensioning' has me reconsidering the purchase of the Elite Cinetension 1.5 gain electric.

I appreciate PIPs responses to this and would like to hear more experiences.

Thanks

Sean


----------



## Joseph Clark

If your projector is new or bright enough, you may find the HP a little too bright. I almost considered a filter for my Sharp 20k, but then thought better of it. If you find it to be a problem, you can always filter the lens, then remove the filter as the lamp ages. That's a pretty good way of maintaining move even brightness over the life of the lamp.


I told a friend about the HP and he got one for his Sony Pearl. Mine is the fixed frame Cinema Contour and his is a pull down. There has never been a problem with seeing waves.


----------



## Imageek2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SeanCJ* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Is the 2.8 gain of the HP too much when viewing in total darkness? Is the image too bright in total light controlled rooms? I'll be viewing maybe 40% of the time with some ambient light, but the remaining 60% will be at night with total light control. I just don't want it to be too washed out during the night time viewing.
> 
> Also, anyone that has had a pull down HP for over several months noted any issues with waves that can be seen when PH is on and while the movie is playing?
> 
> I really want to get this screen, but the lack of 'tensioning' has me reconsidering the purchase of the Elite Cinetension 1.5 gain electric.
> 
> I appreciate PIPs responses to this and would like to hear more experiences.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Sean



Very few of us are getting the full gain from the HP, because most of us have ceiling mounted projectors. If you are able to get the full gain I would say it is going to be VERY bright, and you may need a filter. Remember when considering the HP that in order to get the full gain your projector will need to be right next to your head. Even a foot higher or lower and the gain begins to visibly drop off.


I have had the HP for over a year and no visible waves when watching.


----------



## Orta

Is there any way to buy a Da-Lite HP without doing it through these middle-man, no-name web retailers of questionable reputation. Does Da-Lite sell directly, or do any major web retailers carry them?


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Orta* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Is there any way to buy a Da-Lite HP without doing it through these middle-man, no-name web retailers of questionable reputation. Does Da-Lite sell directly, or do any major web retailers carry them?



I think AVS carries them... definitely NOT a middle-man, no-name web retailers of questionable reputation!


----------



## Joseph Clark

I got mine through AVS - a great company to do business with!


----------



## HeyNow^




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I got mine through AVS - a great company to do business with!



What Joe said, that's where I got mine. Jason was a big help.


----------



## Marc Rumsey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Orta* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Is there any way to buy a Da-Lite HP without doing it through these middle-man, no-name web retailers of questionable reputation. Does Da-Lite sell directly, or do any major web retailers carry them?




I understand your feelings on the majority of Da-Lite dealers.










Many of them don't know what they're talking about and/or overcharge you. Da-Lite doesn't sell direct and if they did, it would be at full retail (yuk).


There are some reputable dealers (including us







), but they can sometimes be hard to find.


If there is anything I can help you with, feel free to let me know.


----------



## Nedtsc

Which electric version for a 127 inch would you guys recomend?


----------



## steinfoot

my HP cinema contour screen arrives tomorrow.. yay!


quick question though.. I have a couple of those relatively flat light switches that the screen will be covering up... Does the screen fabric hang far enough from the wall that it wont touch the switches? at most, they stick out 1/2"


otherwise i will have to think of something creative to set the screen out slightly from the wall.


thanks


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *steinfoot* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> my HP cinema contour screen arrives tomorrow.. yay!
> 
> 
> quick question though.. I have a couple of those relatively flat light switches that the screen will be covering up... Does the screen fabric hang far enough from the wall that it wont touch the switches? at most, they stick out 1/2"
> 
> 
> otherwise i will have to think of something creative to set the screen out slightly from the wall.
> 
> 
> thanks



Yay! Mine's on the wall, so I can't measure it exactly, but it feels like about 1/8" clearance. You may have to stand it out a bit from the wall to clear the switches. This should be easy to do with some simple spacers, as the screen is pretty light.


----------



## steinfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Yay! Mine's on the wall, so I can't measure it exactly, but it feels like about 1/8" clearance. You may have to stand it out a bit from the wall to clear the switches. This should be easy to do with some simple spacers, as the screen is pretty light.




hmm OK, I will think of something. have to go to home depot tomorrow for some dry wall screws anyways. Thanks for the info!


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *steinfoot* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> hmm OK, I will think of something. have to go to home depot tomorrow for some dry wall screws anyways. Thanks for the info!



I was cleaning mine the other day and I could feel the bumps on the wall just below the surface. The light switch would definitely show.


BTW, I used Diamond Glaze Lens Cleaner, the kind you can get from the Optometrist, to clean the screen (some sweat spots I had never bothered to clean off from my install). It worked great.


----------



## Marc Rumsey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nedtsc* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Which electric version for a 127 inch would you guys recomend?



For Da-Lite, I think the Contour Electrol looks the best. It's got the nice rounded case instead of the half-octagon (which looks a little office-y/industrial-ish in my opinion). You can get this in a tensioned or non-tensioned version.


Also, the standard screen sizes closest to 127" diagonal for a 16:9 aspect ratio would be a 58" x 104" (119" diagonal) or a 65" x 116" (133" diagonal). They'll make custom sizes if you need them to (more dough though).


----------



## hrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Marc Rumsey* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> For Da-Lite, I think the Contour Electrol looks the best. It's got the nice rounded case instead of the half-octagon (which looks a little office-y/industrial-ish in my opinion). You can get this in a tensioned or non-tensioned version.



The High Power is not avaiable in tensioned form.


----------



## Marc Rumsey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hrd* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The High Power is not avaiable in tensioned form.




That is correct.


----------



## RobZ




> Quote:
> For Da-Lite, I think the Contour Electrol looks the best. It's got the nice rounded case instead of the half-octagon (which looks a little office-y/industrial-ish in my opinion).




I agree. I ordered this from AVS and received it last week. It's a much larger and heavier case than I'd expected but looks better than the Model C when mounted.


----------



## Nedtsc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Marc Rumsey* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> For Da-Lite, I think the Contour Electrol looks the best. It's got the nice rounded case instead of the half-octagon (which looks a little office-y/industrial-ish in my opinion). You can get this in a tensioned or non-tensioned version.
> 
> 
> Also, the standard screen sizes closest to 127" diagonal for a 16:9 aspect ratio would be a 58" x 104" (119" diagonal) or a 65" x 116" (133" diagonal). They'll make custom sizes if you need them to (more dough though).



I need it in 2.35/2.37 format. BTW, what happened to Dave Harper?


----------



## Marc Rumsey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nedtsc* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I need it in 2.35/2.37 format. BTW, what happened to Dave Harper?



Da-Lite can custom make a 2.35:1 for you. There is acustom cut fee, but they can do it no problem. If you are interested, shoot me a quick email and I'll look into it for you.


As far as Dave Harper, he was before my time, but my understanding is that he moved on to another opportunity.


----------



## steinfoot

Well, Im happy to say I am finally part of the HP club!!

after several hours of work I got my 110" cinema contour screen installed last night. tested it out with some casino royale (BR). Gorgeous! Im very happy with my purchase, this screen rocks!! THANKS AVS! (I ordered from them)


My hands are in bad shape today though.. Getting those last buttons snapped in is a real pain.


Also, I highly recommend the Pro-trim, nice touch and does a great job at absorbing any light from overscan.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *steinfoot* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Well, Im happy to say I am finally part of the HP club!!
> 
> after several hours of work I got my 110" cinema contour screen installed last night. tested it out with some casino royale (BR). Gorgeous! Im very happy with my purchase, this screen rocks!! THANKS AVS! (I ordered from them)
> 
> 
> My hands are in bad shape today though.. Getting those last buttons snapped in is a real pain.
> 
> 
> Also, I highly recommend the Pro-trim, nice touch and does a great job at absorbing any light from overscan.



You have the same screen I ordered from AVS. If your experience is like mine, you will only become more impressed with this screen as time goes on. With my Firehawk, I loved it at first, then started to notice the glistening highlights, the color shift, the brightness non-uniformity. The HP does not disappoint over time.


----------



## bqmeister




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> You have the same screen I ordered from AVS. If your experience is like mine, you will only become more impressed with this screen as time goes on. With my Firehawk, I loved it at first, then started to notice the glistening highlights, the color shift, the brightness non-uniformity. The HP does not disappoint over time.



Ditto that. While I never had a firehawk, I did really love my first graywolf screen. Took a bit of time to realize its flaws. The HP is as close to flawless as I can get.


----------



## ctviggen

I'm going to be sitting at about three feet less than the projector and basically almost undeath the projector. In terms of the viewing angle graph on the first page of this thread, how do I figure out my gain? I assume that I need to determine an angle between the light from the projector and my sitting area. I assume that's the "viewing angle". Is this correct?


How many people are using ceiling mounted projectors with the high power?


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ctviggen* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> In terms of the viewing angle graph on the first page of this thread, how do I figure out my gain?



Please see post #742 in this thread. (If your room does not exist yet, you can make some scale drawings and then measure/estimate the angles.)


----------



## RobZ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *steinfoot* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> after several hours of work I got my 110" cinema contour screen installed last night. tested it out with some casino royale (BR).




I actually had my 119" HP installed last night and tested it with the same BR. Kinda funny.


I have my projector ceiling mounted and noticed a pretty significant drop off in gain when sitting down (as compared to standing). I have an additional pole with 24" of additional drop. Unfortunately there is virtually no WAF or asthetic appeal when hanging a projector 4' down from a ceiling in the middle of a family room.


----------



## ctviggen

Well, I calculated it out and it's about 11 degrees from the centerline of the image projected by the projector to my eyes in my normal position. That's not too bad. I'll likely order a pulldown soon.


----------



## Nedtsc

How is the electrical installation? DIY? Anyone has the IR kit option installed?


----------



## neekos




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Imageek2* /forum/post/11253058
> 
> 
> Very few of us are getting the full gain from the HP, because most of us have ceiling mounted projectors. If you are able to get the full gain I would say it is going to be VERY bright, and you may need a filter. Remember when considering the HP that in order to get the full gain your projector will need to be right next to your head. Even a foot higher or lower and the gain begins to visibly drop off.
> 
> 
> I have had the HP for over a year and no visible waves when watching.




So if I have my Mits HD1000 ceiling mounted, why would I not get the benefits of the HP ? There's hardlyh anything I can do with the huge offset of the Mits ? Maybe I am not understanding why the projector would need to be next to my head ? for a PJ like the Mits, it is impossible because of the offset. So, would this mean that the HP is only beneficial for projectors with no offset that you can table mount of shelf mount to hit the screen in the middle?


----------



## ctviggen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *neekos* /forum/post/11342118
> 
> 
> So if I have my Mits HD1000 ceiling mounted, why would I not get the benefits of the HP ? There's hardlyh anything I can do with the huge offset of the Mits ? Maybe I am not understanding why the projector would need to be next to my head ? for a PJ like the Mits, it is impossible because of the offset. So, would this mean that the HP is only beneficial for projectors with no offset that you can table mount of shelf mount to hit the screen in the middle?



It's not only beneficial for those installations, but that's the best installation. The HP is retroreflective, which means that it reflects most of the light whence it came. The farther you are from the path between the projector and the screen, the worse the performance. See the graph on page 1, the first post.


----------



## neekos

Yes but Bob, if my PJ is celing mounted and the screen is set accordingly to its offset, shouldn't I theoretically be getting the same results with the HP ?


----------



## agent68

Draw two imaginary lines, one from the lens to the screen center, and the other from there to your eyeball. The closer the enclosed angle is to zero degrees, the more gain. Ceiling installations are suboptimal because this angle can be fairly large. The location of maximum gain is directly in front of the lens. Of course, that's impractical - you'd be blocking the light. So the next best thing is to be slightly above, below, or on either side of the lens.


That said, this usually isn't terribly practical either. Luckily you can be 10-15 degrees off and still have quite a stunning image with lots of "pop". Don't go much more than 20 or you'll lose any gain benefit (but still have a nice image). I actually find that with my RS1/HP combo, if I am really close to the lens I get TOO much gain - i.e. hard on the eyes. Screen height doesn't really matter, except to the extent that affects the aforementioned angle calculations.


Astute readers will be thinking "hmm, won't I get a different gain at each point on the screen?" In theory, I suppose you should. However the really amazing thing about this screen is that it appears uniform in brightness no matter where one views it from. Perhaps this due to some correction the brain makes. Perhaps the screen is just magical in this regard. I don't know, I only know this screen is awesome!


I used to have a Stewart Grayhawk. Might as well have used a 50 gallon lawn bag, it was so drab and lifeless looking. Even my wife was blown away the first time she experienced the HP. My proj. will be shelf mounted in the middle of my elevated rear row of seats, just high enough for the light to clear the head tops in the front row. Should be awesome.


----------



## neekos

I assume your projector will have little to no offset to get the optimal effects ? This was my point with my current PJ the Mits 1000. I'd love to get the HP but no matter what PJ I get in the future, it has to be celing mounted, thus I would be negating some or most of the benefits of the screen.


----------



## agent68

You are correct that the HP may not be the best choice for a ceiling-mounted PJ.


When you say "offset", are you referring to lens shift? If so, my installation actually requires some horizontal and vertical lens shift, but it matters not. All that matters is that the viewers be seated as close as feasible to the projector. In other words, my seats are "offset" by similar amounts to the PJ, so life is good.


----------



## Nedtsc

Not necessarily, I'm seated 3 feet below my PJ and comparing wit a 1+ gain angular reflective screen side by side and HP is still significantly brighter.

The only screen brighter than HP in my settup is Vutec SS, but the sheen is quite bothersome, HP seems to disappear when image is projected.


Try some samples or better yet get to to see it in action.


----------



## ctviggen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *neekos* /forum/post/11342721
> 
> 
> Yes but Bob, if my PJ is celing mounted and the screen is set accordingly to its offset, shouldn't I theoretically be getting the same results with the HP ?



All that matters on the angles, however the angles are created. If you draw a line (or run a string) as discussed above (from the center of the projector's lens to a point on the screen -- typically the dead center -- and then to your eyes in your normal sitting position), the angle determined using this method is what's important. It doesn't matter whether or not you're using horizontal or vertical offset.


In my case, I have a projector but do not have it mounted, nor do I have the screen. So I'm estimating the angle. I'm also picking up a high power because I'm buying a manual pulldown, and supposedly the HP eliminates viewing of the waves in such a screen (the waves are there but you don't see them while watching movies). I'd rather have a different screen/surface, but this house isn't conducive to that.


----------



## neekos

Thanks Bob. I appreciate the feedback.


Agent68, by offset, I mean the projector's offset. For example, if the projector was table mounted, the image would be a certain distance higher on the wall when projecting an image and would not be a straight line from the center of the lens to the screen.


----------



## agent68

Neekos, we're on the same page then. If the angles aren't too severe, you may have good luck with an HP after all, based on comments above.


----------



## Imageek2

Here is a way to determine your possible viewing angle with the HP.

http://www.csgnetwork.com/righttricalc.html 


Side "b" is the distance from the projector lens to the screen. It doesn't have to be the center of the screen. Side "a" is the distance from the projector lens to your eyes. If your seating is in front of or behind the projector, for the purposes of this calculation pretend it is directly over your head.


Angle "A" is your answer. If the angle is less than 15 degrees you will most likely see increased gain from the HP. At around 10 degrees or less the screen gets pretty bright.


----------



## neekos

If I go by those calculations, I would be over 21%. Please help me if these figures are correct:


From Lens to screen is 14.5 ft

From lens to eyes is 6 ft (behind me, ceiling mounted)


does that sound right ?


----------



## Tutmos

Don't measure from the actual lens if it's mounted behind you. Draw a line from the lens to the screen and hypotheticaly move the lens forward on that line until it is the same distance from the screen as the observer, not the same distance from a single point on the screen but instead making a line between your head and the lens parallel to the screen surface. Now measure the angle.


----------



## neekos

ok


thanks. That is more reasonable in terms of angle for me.


----------



## kdavis220

I'd just like to thank all the posters for sharing their knowledge, experiences and information about High Power screens. Following the thread has pushed my curiosity to get the HP screen and I can not say enough about how much better and such a big difference/improvement it has made. I didn't think I'd be able to tell the perceived contrast difference as much as I was able to. This screen makes it seem as though I have a new, better performing projector. In all honesty, it is amazing how much life this has brought back to my projector. I currently have around 2800hrs on my Sanyo Z4 bulb and with my old High Contrast Grey screen it looked very dim...now it's an absolute pleasure.


Thanks again all and I'm off to enjoy it.


[edit]


Also, if you are/were like me and worried about black levels, the higher gain screen does nothing to take away from this. I had a sample of an HP screen from Da-lite to test and ofcourse comparing the small sample to a full screen of high contrast grey the blacks seemed a bit brighter(more grey) but you also have to take into consideration that your eyes will be seeing much brighter whites and by comparison (contrast) your black levels will look just fine if not a little better because of the brighter whites. Now I'm no optometrist but I know what looks pleasing to me and this screen has exceeded my expectations.


----------



## Digital2004

we could say the black level in ftl rises by the same % gain correct ?

say 2.0 and if blevel is 0.005 ftl then resulting blevel is 0.01 ?


----------



## kdavis220

Digital2004, I would think so. Because, ofcourse, the screen doesn't change what the projector is throwing at it, it's just how it reflects it back (wether if that is reflecting the image back with a lower gain and everything will be darker/dimmer or at a higher gain where everything will be brighter). I maybe mistakened but logically that sounds right.


----------



## Digital2004

hi

i think so too. therefore high gain works better with pj who have already a very low blevel or very high onoff contrast.

also probably all gain screens work better if the lens is close to the center (height) of the screen which makes high ceiling installed pj a waste of money in terms of gain.


----------



## Imageek2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Digital2004* /forum/post/11418954
> 
> 
> also probably all gain screens work better if the lens is close to the center (height) of the screen which makes high ceiling installed pj a waste of money in terms of gain.



There are literally hundreds of us here on this forum with High Power screens and ceiling mounted projectors who would disagree with this statement. The High Power's gain has nothing to do with the projector being mounted close to the center of the screen, but the projector being mounted close to the center of your eyes. If the distance from your eyes to the projector and the distance from the projector to the screen is within the parameters that have been discussed here and on other threads, you will see increased gain from the HP, and your money will not be wasted.


----------



## Digital2004

hi

i understand what you mean but let's say this:

1. some projectors like optoma, pdesign have an offset. contrary to the sony and jvc (VW50 RS1) which are conceived centered to the screen (shifts at zero)

2. in that context the height at which the screen is illuminated by the projector and the importance of the shift used (vertical) play a role too in the maximization of the gain sent back to the viewers.


but i said i do understand yr point and that indeed the eyes at similar height of the projector beam probably perceive higher brigthness. i noticed that in theaters we we sit on the back rows of the movie theater.


interesting topic and paramount to our seek for maximum FTL with low brigthness home theater projectors.... unfortunately. it's very much time SONY JVC SIM2 OPTOMA provide machines in the 5-10K range with 1500ansi lumens at D65 (!) or 2000ansi.


----------



## Imageek2

My projector has an offset as well. It sits about 6 inches below the top of my screen. In actuality the top of the screen is probably brighter than the bottom of the screen simply because of the shorter distance the light has to travel. The reality is though that I don't perceive a difference in brightness. The image appears to be uniform across the entire screen. If my projector was centered with no offset and I was getting the full 2.8 gain of the HP, the entire screen would appear to me to be 2.8. If because of the ceiling mount my gain at the top of the screen to my eyes is 1.5, I perceive the entire screen to be 1.5. Might someone else see a difference from top to bottom? Probably, but I don't.


----------



## bass addict




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Imageek2* /forum/post/11346641
> 
> 
> Here is a way to determine your possible viewing angle with the HP.
> 
> http://www.csgnetwork.com/righttricalc.html
> 
> 
> Side "b" is the distance from the projector lens to the screen. It doesn't have to be the center of the screen. Side "a" is the distance from the projector lens to your eyes. If your seating is in front of or behind the projector, for the purposes of this calculation pretend it is directly over your head.
> 
> 
> Angle "A" is your answer. If the angle is less than 15 degrees you will most likely see increased gain from the HP. At around 10 degrees or less the screen gets pretty bright.



Define pretty bright. Is that a good thing or a bad thing. I am seriously contemplating replacing my doable homemade screen for a DIY hi power screen. Plugging in the calculator numbers I get 9.91 deg for the front row and 7.46 for the back. Would this be overkill with my Epson TW700? It is run in Theater Black mode with 0 ambient light.


----------



## Joseph Clark

It's not going to be overkill. Bright is good. If it's too bright, filter it until the lamp dims enough to take the filter off. My Sharp 20k was almost to bright when I first added the HP, but that changed after about 600 hours, when it was just right. Now, at almost 1700 hours, the image is still very watchable, although the lamp is significantly dimmer than it was before. You will be very happy with an HP.


----------



## bass addict

Thanks Joe, highpower here I come.


----------



## bass addict

I went to order the highpower today and was really surprised at the pricing on it. Is it that much better? I can get a complete Carada Criterion series, brilliant white with frame, shipped to my door for about the same price as the highpower screen only.


----------



## Kevin McCarthy

Who did you have quote it? AVS has great prices on HP.


Kevin


----------



## kjohn

Has anyone tried the Draper M2500 material I think its a 2.5 gain.


----------



## bass addict




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kevin McCarthy* /forum/post/11477565
> 
> 
> Who did you have quote it? AVS has great prices on HP.
> 
> 
> Kevin



The closest company I could find which was 4 hrs away. I don't think it will make that much of a difference. Da-lite themselves quoted a retail of 30.00 per square foot. For a 96" screen that's roughly 28 square feet. At retail that is a cost of 840.00 bucks.







I don't know why but I had around 350-400.00 in my head seeing as it is just the screen and it's not really designed for HT use anyway. That's what I get for thinking.


----------



## Tutmos

It's nowhere near $900 for a 96" pulldown hp. It's not even $900 for a 159" hp pulldown.


----------



## bass addict




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tutmos* /forum/post/11480078
> 
> 
> It's nowhere near $900 for a 96" pulldown hp. It's not even $900 for a 159" hp pulldown.



That's what I thought. Guess it's time to bug Jason.


----------



## RobZ

Are waves more prominent (during viewing) when the gain is decreased such as when mounting the projector high? I notice waves at the lower corners during pans. Due to WAF, kids, as well as aesthetic reasons (in family room), my Pearl is mounted about 16" down from a 10' ceiling while my electric screen (119") sits pretty low. As expected, I can see a gain difference (a bit too bright in low lamp) when I stand up underneath the projector.


----------



## javry




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/11467006
> 
> 
> It's not going to be overkill. Bright is good. If it's too bright, filter it until the lamp dims enough to take the filter off. My Sharp 20k was almost to bright when I first added the HP, but that changed after about 600 hours, when it was just right. Now, at almost 1700 hours, the image is still very watchable, although the lamp is significantly dimmer than it was before. You will be very happy with an HP.



I'm betting if he'll do this, he'll be fine. I couldn't believe how much Tthe PQ improved the first time I watched flashed up the HP.


----------



## bretep

Which budgetprojector is the best combination to get get a good picture in an ambient light not controlled enviroement with an 92 inch HP. Panasonic ax100, HD70, Epson TW700 and so on? (sorry for my english i am from the artic circle in Sweden and doing my very best)


----------



## MarkV

I have a designer electrol contour coming. Is the screen centered or offset in the housing?


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bretep* /forum/post/11561253
> 
> 
> Which budgetprojector is the best combination to get get a good picture in an ambient light not controlled enviroement with an 92 inch HP. Panasonic ax100, HD70, Epson TW700 and so on? (sorry for my english i am from the artic circle in Sweden and doing my very best)



Any projector that will allow near-eye-level (center-screen) mounting. This typically means an LCD projector with lens shift. Avoid projectors that require a high ceiling mount (typically DLP).


----------



## bretep

Thanks for the answer FLBoy! Do you think PanasonicAX100 is to bright for the HP?


----------



## Joseph Clark

Nothing's too bright for the HP. If you need to, filter it and remove the filter when the lamp dims.


----------



## bradesp

Guys,


Folks over at the Projector Forum sent me here... I'm struggling to find a bright 720p or 1080p with good contrast that will work with HP and offer me flexibility for both daytime and evening viewing in my family room.


I've got 7 projectors on my short list for use in my family room as a night time cinema setup and possibly even a day time (with modest light control) for use as a potential regular TV viewing setup. ( Here's my short list: Epson ProCinema 1080, Mits HC6000, Mits HC1500, JVS RS1, Sharp Z3000, Sanyo Z5 & Optoma HD80).


I was told that the setup below wont work with HP and the Mits HC1500 because of the lack of Offset on the Mitsubishi...


I need some guidance on what you knowledgeable fine folks would recommend regarding screen / projector combo given my constraints - (see below).


Thanks!!! bradesp


----------



## FLBoy

1- For HP screen, near eye level; for other screens, depends on the PJ offset adjustment limits.


2- 1/3 below seated eye level and 2/3 above.


3- HP works best for eye-level PJ mounting and narrow (+/- 15 degree) seating arrangements.


4- Not for those seats. Your screen gain would be less than 1. (See graph in the first post of this thread.)


5- Ambient light is not a friend of front projection--less so with large screens. Install some blackout shades.


In your shoes, I would probably consider a ceiling mounted RS1 and a 123" 16x9 Vutec Silverstar screen.


----------



## Tutmos

3. Hp is fine at 30 degrees, especially at only 133" diag with an RS1. Mine is fine at 30 degrees on a 159" with moderate ambient light. The ideal spot is of course the center seat, it will be brighter there but it's still good on the edges. The only thing I'd suggest for your setup to improve things is to lower the projector down with an extension bar or lower shelf if that's how you're mounting it and raise the screen up a bit.


The tight angle requirement often stated for HP's is pretty overblown. By the time you're sitting on the edges it's like watching a standard gain screen.


HP screens are the most friendly of projection screens for ambient light. Unless the light is coming from behind near the projector it won't bother things too much, at least much less so than standard screens.


As I mentioned the only thing I'd change is to lower the projector closer to head level and raise the screen a bit.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/11571394
> 
> 
> 1- For HP screen, near eye level; for other screens, depends on the PJ offset adjustment limits.
> 
> 
> 2- 1/3 below seated eye level and 2/3 above.
> 
> 
> 3- HP works best for eye-level PJ mounting and narrow (+/- 15 degree) seating arrangements.
> 
> 
> 4- Not for those seats. Your screen gain would be less than 1. (See graph in the first post of this thread.)
> 
> 
> 5- Ambient light is not a friend of front projection--less so with large screens. Install some blackout shades.
> 
> 
> In your shoes, I would probably consider a ceiling mounted RS1 and a 123" 16x9 Vutec Silverstar screen.


----------



## FLBoy

Since there seems to be some dispute over what I have written above, let me describe what I see with my 100" HP screen from my primary seating position at 12 degrees error angle as opposed to what I see from a seat at 30 degrees. Then you can decide. At 12 degrees I see a bright picture with lots of "pop". At 30 degrees I see the same picture, just a lot dimmer. There is nothing else wrong with the picture (no sheen, no abnormal color or side-to-side brightness variation, nothing weird). It's just dim.


How dim? Well, if you believe the graph in the first post of this thread, at 12 degrees the screen gain is about 1.65. At 30 degrees the gain is about 0.65. This is a ratio of 2.5, so the brightness at my primary viewing position is 2.5 times the brightness at a 30 degree position. Some may consider this brightness variation "fine." Personally, if my primary viewing position were as dim as what I see at 30 degrees, I would be ready to spring for a new bulb. (PJ is Epson Home 1080 in Theater Black I mode.) YMMV.


----------



## Joseph Clark

I agree. From the diagram, your setup looks very similar to mine with my Firehawk screen. The HP was just too dim for my taste in that configuration. I lowered the projector well over 2 feet and it rocks.


----------



## bradesp

Joe,


I think I follow, but I'm not sure... Are you saying you are using an HP screen or a FireHawk screen? It sounds like you lowered your projector to hit the HP more "head on", but then you mention the FireHawk... BTW, which projector? And are you now using the HP with the lowered projector or the Firehawk?


Thanks!


bradesp


----------



## Joseph Clark

Sorry. I couldn't have made that much fuzzier if I'd tried.


I have a Sharp XV-Z20000 (1080p DLP single chip) projector shining on an HP 110" Cinema Contour screen. It's mounted at a level just above my head from the main viewing position. I've never formally measured the gain, but it has to be well over 2+. When I had the same projector shining on a Stewart Firehawk 109" screen, but mounted near the ceiling, it was far too dim to be satisfying, even when the lamp was new. The HP screen, when mounted in that same high position, was also too dim to get good gain, even when the lamp was new. When I dropped the Sharp down to just above eye level, with the HP, the screen lit up like a torch in the night sky. OK, a little hyperbole, but it was amazing. I have over 1800 hours on the Sharp's original lamp now (on its best settings) and it's still very watchable. The Sharp is not a very bright projector, even when the lamp is new (I keep saying that). I know one owner who changed out the lamp after about 700 hours because it had dimmed to under half its brightness and wasn't providing a bright enough image. I expect to get from 2500-3000 hours on that lamp before I'll have to replace it.


Better?


----------



## Splotto




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MarkV* /forum/post/11568053
> 
> 
> I have a designer electrol contour coming. Is the screen centered or offset in the housing?



Hello:


I believe that is the same model I have. It is centered. Power enters from the left.


Splotto


----------



## bradesp

Joe,


Thanks, MUCH clearer. OK, so here's a question. How do you and others navigate into your room without disrupting the displayed image since the projector is so low because of the angles necessary to use an HP screen? If I'm using this kind of setup in a family room (as opposed to a dedicated home theater) isn't this a bit impractical? At home my wife and kids routinely go to grab snacks or make potty breaks during a movie without pausing the DVD. Just curious.


Thanks,


bradsep


----------



## Joseph Clark

Any time you have a projector that isn't ceiling mounted, you're going to have the occasional blockage. In my room, the "exit aisle" is along one wall, making it relatively easy to come and go with minimal disruption. Of course, there are only 2 of us in the house most of the time, so that eases those concerns. When I saw the HP image on a sample Da-Lite sent me, I knew I had to have it. I found a way to lower the projector and I have enjoyed it ever since. I realize, though, that my arrangement isn't going to work for everyone. I'd prefer a ceiling mount. That's what I had for several years. I have never regretted going with the HP, though - not for a minute. It's a much better screen than the Firehawk. No sparklies/shimmers, no hotspotting, no color shifting. I think a lot of people could make the HP work in their theaters, but if you have wide spaced seating (too severe off-angle viewing), you should look elsewhere.


----------



## Splotto




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bradesp* /forum/post/11583265
> 
> 
> Joe,
> 
> 
> Thanks, MUCH clearer. OK, so here's a question. How do you and others navigate into your room without disrupting the displayed image since the projector is so low because of the angles necessary to use an HP screen? If I'm using this kind of setup in a family room (as opposed to a dedicated home theater) isn't this a bit impractical? At home my wife and kids routinely go to grab snacks or make potty breaks during a movie without pausing the DVD. Just curious.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> bradsep



Hello:


My PJ is on a cabinet resulting in a hight of about 5 to 5.5 feet. I am very happy since I can access the PJ without using a ladder. It also allows for easy movement of the unit for cleaning or tweaking.


Blocking some of the picture is going to happen but generally whenever someone is getting up or moving, the show is paused (food break/bio break, etc.).


I have had mine set up for about 6 months and the issue never crossed my mind.


Splotto


----------



## FLBoy

Our PJ is on a three-foot pedestal at the rear of the room. The picture is interrupted briefly whenever someone walks in front of it. The interruption is so quick that it is hardly noticeable--certainly nothing we are concerned about. There are usually only the two of us. I suppose if we were in the habit of inviting large numbers of friends over for a game or movie, it could become more problematic.


----------



## hmcewin

Forget about the Hp if you are ceiling mounting or even shelf mounting if high on the back wall. I went this route and was very disappointed. Saw the light and sold the Hp and replaced it with a Vutec Silverstar. The SS along with the Mits 1000 looks better than several high end installs I saw at the salon type HT stores.


Do not buy off on how great the Hp is at 30 degrees offcenter. I would classify it as unwatchable. The image is dim and has no pop as indicated by some of those who are being honest with their observations. The viewers in the "cheap seats" will feel like second class viewers.


----------



## rabident

I bought a new HP based on this thread and Darrin's recommendations. I really like it, but I fall under the ideal conditions so that's to be expected, I guess. I had a SilverStar previously and a GreyHawk before that. My main reason for upgrading was to get a Scope screen and the HP is cheaper and easier to work with than the SilverStar. I was only hoping it would look as good. I'm pleasantly surprised it looks better than my old SS did in _my_ room.


----------



## bradesp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hmcewin* /forum/post/11591370
> 
> 
> Forget about the Hp if you are ceiling mounting ... I went this route and was very disappointed. Saw the light and sold the Hp and replaced it with a Vutec Silverstar. The SS along with the Mits 1000 looks better than several high end installs I saw at the salon type HT stores.



hmcewin, just curious, did you look at other screens in addition to the HP? I'm struggling with the cost of the SilverStar, but more importantly I failed to mention that my setup REQUIRES a roll-down screen :-( Is there another roll-down that might approach the results you're getting with the SilverStar?


Thanks!


-brad


----------



## milacqua




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hmcewin* /forum/post/11591370
> 
> 
> Forget about the Hp if you are ceiling mounting or even shelf mounting if high on the back wall. I went this route and was very disappointed. Saw the light and sold the Hp and replaced it with a Vutec Silverstar. The SS along with the Mits 1000 looks better than several high end installs I saw at the salon type HT stores.
> 
> 
> Do not buy off on how great the Hp is at 30 degrees offcenter. I would classify it as unwatchable. The image is dim and has no pop as indicated by some of those who are being honest with their observations. The viewers in the "cheap seats" will feel like second class viewers.



I have the Mits 1000 and was thinking of putting it at a throw of 16' to a Hp 110" screen. I thought I could mount it about seven feet from floor level on a shelf but from what you are saying, that will not work. Why where you disappointed with your initial install? Is there another application I can use the Hp and Mits together (coffee table type is not possible)?


----------



## Imageek2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hmcewin* /forum/post/11591370
> 
> 
> Forget about the Hp if you are ceiling mounting or even shelf mounting if high on the back wall. I went this route and was very disappointed. Saw the light and sold the Hp and replaced it with a Vutec Silverstar. The SS along with the Mits 1000 looks better than several high end installs I saw at the salon type HT stores.
> 
> 
> Do not buy off on how great the Hp is at 30 degrees offcenter. I would classify it as unwatchable. The image is dim and has no pop as indicated by some of those who are being honest with their observations. The viewers in the "cheap seats" will feel like second class viewers.



The HP will work quite well with a ceiling mount or a shelf mount on a back wall as countless of us here will attest. In fact it has nothing to do with the mounting and everything to do with the angle that a particular viewer will have to the projector. If your seating falls within a certain known range then the HP will be a great screen with any projector. If it falls outside that range it will work no better than Blackout Cloth. For those interested in determining whether the HP would work in their situation there have been a number of posts in this thread with a link to a right angle calculator and instructions on its use for finding your angle of view, and how that angle might work with the HP, no matter how you choose to mount your projector.


----------



## RobZ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hmcewin* /forum/post/11591370
> 
> 
> Forget about the Hp if you are ceiling mounting or even shelf mounting if high on the back wall. I went this route and was very disappointed. Saw the light and sold the Hp and replaced it with a Vutec Silverstar. The SS along with the Mits 1000 looks better than several high end installs I saw at the salon type HT stores.
> 
> 
> Do not buy off on how great the Hp is at 30 degrees offcenter. I would classify it as unwatchable. The image is dim and has no pop as indicated by some of those who are being honest with their observations. The viewers in the "cheap seats" will feel like second class viewers.




You sound angry. I agree that ceiling mounting "may" defeat much of the purpose. However, I would have more concern about waves being a bit more visible with the lower gain achieved. I can see waves during pans unless I am at a closer angle to the projector. Of course I am looking for them though. Overall, I'm pretty happpy with the perfomance. Oh, and it is more "watchable" than my previous Carada 1.3 gain (which I loved by the way). My VW50 is mounted on a 10' ceiling! (well with a foot of drop).


----------



## Grayson73

How would the Focupix BriteG series (2.0 gain) compare to the Dalite Hi Power 2.8 gain?

http://www.htdepot.com/Focupix_Brite...creen_s/35.htm


----------



## hmcewin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RobZ* /forum/post/11605690
> 
> 
> You sound angry. I agree that ceiling mounting "may" defeat much of the purpose. However, I would have more concern about waves being a bit more visible with the lower gain achieved. I can see waves during pans unless I am at a closer angle to the projector. Of course I am looking for them though. Overall, I'm pretty happpy with the perfomance. Oh, and it is more "watchable" than my previous Carada 1.3 gain (which I loved by the way). My VW50 is mounted on a 10' ceiling! (well with a foot of drop).



Not angry. Just sharing my first hand experience and opinion with those that asked.


----------



## hmcewin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bradesp* /forum/post/11592393
> 
> 
> hmcewin, just curious, did you look at other screens in addition to the HP? I'm struggling with the cost of the SilverStar, but more importantly I failed to mention that my setup REQUIRES a roll-down screen :-( Is there another roll-down that might approach the results you're getting with the SilverStar?
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> -brad



Yes, in addition to owning the HP, I had a 1.5 gain Vutec Bright White. I also got samples from Da Lite of their many screen materials and a couple from Carada. I was only interested in a fixed frame screen so can not comment on the pull down ones.


Henry


----------



## Chadci

Would velvet or felt directly on the HP surface cause any damage? I have a 119" 16:9 pull down but really need to mask the top and bottom for wider stuff. Since it is a pull down my options are limited so I thought of wrapping some felt or velvet on a strip of vinyl siding and then using magnets to hold it in place during the movie. I could also use office "spring" paper clips, but I fear indent. Either way, the clip or magnet would be around the existing border.


----------



## hmcewin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *milacqua* /forum/post/11592512
> 
> 
> I have the Mits 1000 and was thinking of putting it at a throw of 16' to a Hp 110" screen. I thought I could mount it about seven feet from floor level on a shelf but from what you are saying, that will not work. Why where you disappointed with your initial install? Is there another application I can use the Hp and Mits together (coffee table type is not possible)?



I had my Mits mounted at 7' and about 15 feet from the screen. That put the projector at about 40" above my head. Sitting just below the projector and about a 2' to the right or left I thought the picture was ok with about 1.5 to 1.8 gain. As I moved farther away from the center of the room towards either of the side walls there was a pretty dramatic dropoff in brightness. My room is 15' wide and I have sofas on both the side walls. When I would lie down to watch a show from one of the sofas, the gain would drop to below 1.0 gain which was not acceptable to me. This situation might work for you but I could not handle the various brightness levels from each of the different seats in my HT. The Silver Star solved all these issues. It is a fantastic screen if somewhat expensive. I figured I would only be buying one screen over the next few years and just went for it! And glad I did.


As a post script, I think the HP is a fantastic screen if the projector is mounted on a table in the middle of the room and shining directly at the screen. As a matter of fact, under these circumstances, it is the equal of the SS.


Good luck


Henry


----------



## Grayson73

What is the 'extra drop' that can be added?


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hmcewin* /forum/post/11615229
> 
> 
> I had my Mits mounted at 7' and about 15 feet from the screen. That put the projector at about 40" above my head. Sitting just below the projector and about a 2' to the right or left I thought the picture was ok with about 1.5 to 1.8 gain. As I moved farther away from the center of the room towards either of the side walls there was a pretty dramatic dropoff in brightness. My room is 15' wide and I have sofas on both the side walls. When I would lie down to watch a show from one of the sofas, the gain would drop to below 1.0 gain which was not acceptable to me. This situation might work for you but I could not handle the various brightness levels from each of the different seats in my HT. The Silver Star solved all these issues. It is a fantastic screen if somewhat expensive. I figured I would only be buying one screen over the next few years and just went for it! And glad I did.
> 
> 
> As a post script, I think the HP is a fantastic screen if the projector is mounted on a table in the middle of the room and shining directly at the screen. As a matter of fact, under these circumstances, it is the equal of the SS.
> 
> 
> Good luck
> 
> 
> Henry



I have narrow seating and my projector is set very low, just above eye level. If I had wide seating and a ceiling or high shelf mount, I wouldn't be using the HP in that room - trust me. I also know that the SS is a good solution for that sort of problem, but the sheen is quite noticeable to me. For others, it's not a problem. Fortunately, I was able to get samples from both Da-Lite and Vutec. That's what convinced me to go with the HP. I loved the HP gain in its narrow cone, and I didn't like the SS sheen, so HP it was.


----------



## Imageek2

For those of you who are interested in the HP screen and whether you will see any gain in a given configuration I have set up diagrammed instructions on measuring your current or proposed angle of view.

http://www.caromsoft.com/HPscreen.html


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Imageek2* /forum/post/11619151
> 
> 
> For those of you who are interested in the HP screen and whether you will see any gain in a given configuration I have set up diagrammed instructions on measuring your current or proposed angle of view.
> 
> http://www.caromsoft.com/HPscreen.html



Thanks. That is useful for determining the screen gain for a seat directly below a line from the PJ to the screen. It does not help one to find the gain for seats on either side of said line. I wonder if anyone has put together a program or spreadsheet for calculating that more comprehensive 3-D trig problem?


----------



## Chadci

Would velvet or felt directly on the HP surface cause any damage? I have a 119" 16:9 pull down but really need to mask the top and bottom for wider stuff. Since it is a pull down my options are limited so I thought of wrapping some felt or velvet on a strip of vinyl siding and then using magnets to hold it in place during the movie. I could also use office "spring" paper clips, but I fear indent. Either way, the clip or magnet would be around the existing border.


----------



## Tutmos

What's so complicated about all this that people would need a program?


You need two people, some string and a calculator to figure out the three dimensional angle anywhere in the room.


Kevin W.


edit: Sorry also a tape measure, or you could use the tape measure instead of the string : )




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/11620573
> 
> 
> Thanks. That is useful for determining the screen gain for a seat directly below a line from the PJ to the screen. It does not help one to find the gain for seats on either side of said line. I wonder if anyone has put together a program or spreadsheet for calculating that more comprehensive 3-D trig problem?


----------



## Imageek2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/11620573
> 
> 
> Thanks. That is useful for determining the screen gain for a seat directly below a line from the PJ to the screen. It does not help one to find the gain for seats on either side of said line. I wonder if anyone has put together a program or spreadsheet for calculating that more comprehensive 3-D trig problem?



From my own experience with my screen, if I sit anywhere inside the width of the screen I see gain, If I sit outside the screen edges the gain is gone.


Edited to add:


The same calculations will help you determine the gain from any seat. Just measure from your eyes in any seating position to the projector, always pretending the projector and your eyes are the same distance from the screen, and the projector is centered with the screen. Then calculate the result.


----------



## Grayson73

For a 106" manual screen, is it worth $132 extra to get a Model C or $47 extra to get a Deluxe Model B?


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tutmos* /forum/post/11621795
> 
> 
> What's so complicated about all this that people would need a program?
> 
> 
> You need two people, some string and a calculator to figure out the three dimensional angle anywhere in the room.



I know. I'm the one who suggested the string, but what's the calculator for? You only need string and a protractor. (See post 742 in this thread.)


On the other hand, some (such as I) might like to see a more analytical approach to the problem. I'll see what I can come up with. Forgive me. I'm an engineer.










P.S.- You don't need a tape measure either.


----------



## Tutmos

By trying to use a protractor that means you need to simultaneously hold two strings in position at the same time, either you have to tape one somewhere or have really long arms or a third person. It's also not likely to be as accurate.


By using a tape measure and just measuring the side lengths there's no taping anything or futzing around. You'll end up with a very accurate angle. The calculator is for inverse sine, tangent cosine functions after you have your lengths. Seeing as how you wanted to be analytical I figured you'd want a better angle calculation to begin with. Garbage in - garbage out!




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/11628690
> 
> 
> I know. I'm the one who suggested the string, but what's the calculator for? You only need string and a protractor. (See post 742 in this thread.)
> 
> 
> On the other hand, some (such as I) might like to see a more analytical approach to the problem. I'll see what I can come up with. Forgive me. I'm an engineer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P.S.- You don't need a tape measure either.


----------



## Splotto




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tutmos* /forum/post/11621795
> 
> 
> What's so complicated about all this that people would need a program?
> 
> 
> You need two people, some string and a calculator to figure out the three dimensional angle anywhere in the room.
> 
> 
> Kevin W.
> 
> 
> edit: Sorry also a tape measure, or you could use the tape measure instead of the string : )



Hello:


I didn't like the Mitsu program from their page.


I went for the fool-proof method: I ordered my PJ. Then I set it up where I wanted it and checked the dimensions of the image on the wall (will most possible variations) and got a screen of appropriate size.


Splotto


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tutmos* /forum/post/11629331
> 
> 
> By trying to use a protractor that means you need to simultaneously hold two strings in position at the same time, either you have to tape one somewhere or have really long arms or a third person. It's also not likely to be as accurate.
> 
> 
> By using a tape measure and just measuring the side lengths there's no taping anything or futzing around. You'll end up with a very accurate angle. The calculator is for inverse sine, tangent cosine functions after you have your lengths. ...



Oh. OK--sorry. I see what you're doing. Yep, that'll work too.


But ... I still would like to see a spreadsheet in which one could enter the 3-D coordinates of: (1) the projector lens, (2) a position of interest on the screen, and (3) a viewer's position. The spreadsheet would then provide the error angle (or better yet the screen gain) as a result. If someone has not already done this, I may give it a shot. I could be wrong, but I don't think it should be that difficult.


----------



## Grayson73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Grayson73* /forum/post/11622942
> 
> 
> For a 106" manual screen, is it worth $132 extra to get a Model C or $47 extra to get a Deluxe Model B?



I ordered the 106" HP Model B Manual from B&H Photo. Can't wait to get it! I hope installation isn't too difficult.


----------



## Sifford

I'm building my first home theater and am trying to determine the best screen to purchase based on my home theater confirguration. Here's what I'm dealing with:
I'm planning to get an RS1 and pair it with a 100" 16X9 Fixed screen.
The room is only 11.5 feet wide so I won't have an issue with wide viewing angles.
I'm probably going to watch 60% sports and sitcom with 40% going to movies. Consequently, 60% of the time I'll have some ambient lighting

I have 3 options regarding mounting location of the RS1 and the type of screen to get:

*OPTION #1* - _Pair the RS1 with a HP_ - I can place the RS1 within 10 degrees of the center of the cone *IF* I place the projector at the back of my room. If placed at the back of the room, the distance from the lens to the screen would be about 19 feet which is at or close to the maximum recommended throw for the RS1. Given the RS1 is at max throw would it make sense to pair the RS1 with the HP? Am I sacrificing brightness too much by having the RS1 at the maximum screen to lens distance? I'm also concerned that the brightness would be fine at the beginning of the RS1's bulb life, but I'll be sacrificing much later when the bulb starts dimming.

*OPTION #2* - _Pair the RS1 with a SS_ - I can ceiling mount the RS1 at 14 feet from the screen, but would be outside of the cone for an HP screen.

*OPTION #3* - _Pair the RS1 with a Firehawk G3_ - Same configuration as OPTION #2, but will the Firehawk G3 do better than SS with ambient lighting?


Which option does everyone recommend I go with? Why?


Thanks in advance...I can't tell you how much I've learned on this forum thus far!


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sifford* /forum/post/11642261
> 
> 
> Which option does everyone recommend I go with? Why?



Option 1. Why? Perfect for narrow room. No sheen. No color shift. Lower cost. Just mount the PJ as low as possible to get max gain. You won't be sorry.


----------



## Joseph Clark

My room is the same width as yours and one of the main reasons the HP works so well for me. My Sharp 20k is 15' back, mounted at about mid-screen height.


----------



## BAB

For those of you with HP roll up screens such as Model B, C, or Cosmopolitan Electrols, have your screens developed any ladder marks?


Ladder marks are horizontal lines that repeat every 8-12" (one circumfrence of the roller) due to the seam at the top of the viewing area where the HP fabric is "seamed" to the drop fabric. At this seam, there is a ridge. When the screen is rolled up, the seam ridge will "indent" onto each layer of fabric that rolls over it. If screen is left rolled up for a period of time (overnight for example) and then rolled down, these indentations can be visible, usually only during very bright "white" scenes. These marks are very distracting as it takes away the "invisible-ness" of the screen.


----------



## bqmeister




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BAB* /forum/post/11645876
> 
> 
> For those of you with HP roll up screens such as Model B, C, or Cosmopolitan Electrols, have your screens developed any ladder marks?
> 
> 
> Ladder marks are horizontal lines that repeat every 8-12" (one circumfrence of the roller) due to the seam at the top of the viewing area where the HP fabric is "seamed" to the drop fabric. At this seam, there is a ridge. When the screen is rolled up, the seam ridge will "indent" onto each layer of fabric that rolls over it. If screen is left rolled up for a period of time (overnight for example) and then rolled down, these indentations can be visible, usually only during very bright "white" scenes. These marks are very distracting as it takes away the "invisible-ness" of the screen.



My screen is down 99.3% of the time. My room is dedicated theater and I do have one window in the room, behind the screen, covered by a honeycomb blackout shade.


If I need a lot of sunlight in the room (rewiring my av components might be an example), i'd need to roll the screen up and roll the shade up to get sunlight in there. (I only have 2 overhead can lights in the room and they don't really provide a lot of light, especially with dark walls, ceilings and carpet.)


I'd say I probably roll my screen up 2 times a year, maybe less.


But I needed a pulldown screen simply because of the wall I was attaching the screen to and because of the window behind it.


----------



## BAB

bqmeister,


Obviously, if you leave it rolled down, it will not develop marks. Looking for someone who DOES leave their screen rolled up a lot to reply. Thanks anyway.


----------



## m_tyson

I got a HP model C just about a year ago (plus or minus a few days). I pull it down 3 or 4 days a week for a few hours at a time, and roll it back up when done. It is alway kept rolled up over night and when not in use, since my 2 year old boy would love to get his hands on it.


The screen has not developed any ladder marks or horizontal lines at all.


Also, IMHO, the viewing cone limitation is very overrated. We frequently have 20+ people in the livingroom to watch football, and the image pops and is quite enjoyable from even the most extreme side angles (60+ degrees off center). The couch seats are brighter, but your eyes and brain adjust very quickly and the gain is so high that the cheap seats are still great too.


----------



## Tutmos




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *m_tyson* /forum/post/11654924
> 
> 
> Also, IMHO, the viewing cone limitation is very overrated. We frequently have 20+ people in the livingroom to watch football, and the image pops and is quite enjoyable from even the most extreme side angles (60+ degrees off center). The couch seats are brighter, but your eyes and brain adjust very quickly and the gain is so high that the cheap seats are still great too.



My first time using this expression...... +1


Kevin W


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *m_tyson* /forum/post/11654924
> 
> 
> Also, IMHO, the viewing cone limitation is very overrated. We frequently have 20+ people in the livingroom to watch football, and the image pops and is quite enjoyable from even the most extreme side angles (60+ degrees off center). The couch seats are brighter, but your eyes and brain adjust very quickly and the gain is so high that the cheap seats are still great too.



While all other aspects of the image remain great (uniformity, lack of hotspotting, etc.), the image at the sides in such a situation will be considerably dimmer, less than a gain of 1. That may be acceptable for certain types of viewing, but it doesn't work very well for movie viewing. Projectors without high light output (like my Sharp 20k) will be too dim to be enjoyable for people sitting far to the left or right of the lens.


----------



## Oiler




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/11620573
> 
> 
> Thanks. That is useful for determining the screen gain for a seat directly below a line from the PJ to the screen. It does not help one to find the gain for seats on either side of said line. I wonder if anyone has put together a program or spreadsheet for calculating that more comprehensive 3-D trig problem?



Try looking at post 621 in this thread.


----------



## FLBoy

Oiler- Thanks. Dang! I actually missed that post. Things get buried in a thread this long. It might be interesting to compare a few points with values in the spreadsheet I created last week. (See "High Power Screen Gain Calculator" in the Screens forum.) I wonder if we did our calculations the same way?


ETA- We did not do our calculations the same way, according to some of your earlier posts that I found, and we do not appear to get the same results either. If you want to compare notes, feel free to PM me. If you are too busy to bother with this now (or just not interested), that's OK too.


----------



## Xyst

Tyrg had mentioned that he can leave enough light on in the room to move around comfortably and still get a watchable picture. I'm trying to decide if I can use a HP and get away with having a little bit of light on in my room as well, though I think the angles may be wrong for me.


Ultimately I want to be able to leave one of the lamps at the back of the room on low (maybe 60W?). I will be ceiling mounting my projector 15' back from the screen, the viewing distance will be approximately 17'. I am looking to have a 92" retractable screen installed directly in front of the bar in the picture.


I am ultimately wondering if I can use the HP instead of having to invest in one of the more expensive "black screen" models from S.I. or dnp. I haven't pulled the trigger on the projector yet until I have all of the details somewhat ironed out. I am looking at the InFocus IN82 and the Epson TW2000 b/c they appear to both be some of the brighter projectors coming to market lately, though suggestions are always welcome.


Last thing, are the retractable screens opague or do I have to be concerned with light leak from behind as well?


Thanks y'all!


Back of Room

__
https://flic.kr/p/1426886070
​

Front of Room

__
https://flic.kr/p/1426006221
​

Room Layout

__
https://flic.kr/p/1426924042
​


----------



## FLBoy

If you want to use the HP screen to its full advantage, you will have to mount the PJ near eye level, say on the ottoman in front of the sofa. Alternatively, you could use an extension on your ceiling mount to place the PJ lower over your ottoman. If your PC has Excel installed, feel free to use my High Power Screen Gain Calculator elsewhere in this forum to play with different PJ and seating positions.


The HP screen is opaque. As to other screen materials, opacity varies. Either check with the manufacturer or someone who owns a type you are considering.


Even if you can't take advantage of the HP screen, those two light cannons you are considering should give you a bright picture on a 92" screen with most any reasonable screen material.


----------



## ericeash

i have been thinking about the high power, here is my projector and room info. using a sony HS-50 (same as HS51), Panamorph U85 VC anamorphic lens, 14' throw distance, 92" 2.35:1 screen, seating distance about 10.5' back, 3 seats wide, screen about 3ft. from floor and going to mount the projector about 6-7' high. should i abandon the HP or go for it?


eric


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ericeash* /forum/post/11705660
> 
> 
> i have been thinking about the high power, here is my projector and room info. using a sony HS-50 (same as HS51), Panamorph U85 VC anamorphic lens, 14' throw distance, 92" 2.35:1 screen, seating distance about 10.5' back, 3 seats wide, screen about 3ft. from floor and going to mount the projector about 6-7' high. should i abandon the HP or go for it?
> 
> 
> eric



Get a sample from Da-Lite and try it out, if you can. At 6' down, the projector would be in a pretty good position for the HP, but if you could drop it another 6" - 1' it would work even better. With your smallish screen size, you should be in pretty good shape, although I'm not familiar with the brightness of the Sony.


----------



## ericeash

not sure if i could drop it down anymore than that as the projector will be mounted in the adjacent guest bedroom. i'll look into getting a sample.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/11705791
> 
> 
> Get a sample from Da-Lite and try it out, if you can. At 6' down, the projector would be in a pretty good position for the HP, but if you could drop it another 6" - 1' it would work even better. With your smallish screen size, you should be in pretty good shape, although I'm not familiar with the brightness of the Sony.


----------



## bqmeister




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Grayson73* /forum/post/11641900
> 
> 
> I ordered the 106" HP Model B Manual from B&H Photo. Can't wait to get it! I hope installation isn't too difficult.



It's super easy.


I installed a 119" Model C by myself. It's HEAVY, but doable by one person. The model B is a much smaller case and a lot less heavy. If you have someone to help, it'd go faster, but it's really easy to install by yourself.


----------



## Tutmos

The 159" model C wasn't too bad to install by myself. It's long enough to rest one end on the floor while you lift the other up and hook it. : ) It's kind of heavy and clumsy at 12' long though.


----------



## Orwellflash

I got sliding brackets for my large 4:3 Model C. I definitely needed another person to help hang it. We mounted it on the wall next to the ceiling, so we had to hold up high. The brackets had to be lined up carefully and it is heavy (over 80lbs)! We were sweating profusely by the time we got it secured. I have heard Model B is much lighter, though.


----------



## Grayson73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bqmeister* /forum/post/11710236
> 
> 
> It's super easy.
> 
> 
> I installed a 119" Model C by myself. It's HEAVY, but doable by one person. The model B is a much smaller case and a lot less heavy. If you have someone to help, it'd go faster, but it's really easy to install by yourself.



You were right. Two drywall screws, hung it, and my 106" Model B was in business! It took longer to figure out where to screw in the screws. Model B is only around 26 lbs.


I'm loving it. The view within the viewing cone is considerably brighter and the image is amazing. Out to the side, the view is similar to that of projecting on a white wall.


----------



## Rudy81

Based on these calculations I have a viewing angle of 15.9 degrees. The rear seats are higher, so have a narrower angle. Does anyone know if that angle will still show reasonable gain? I currently have a 1.0 gain with my Sharp Z12000U, but don't want to waste $500 just to experiment.


----------



## Imageek2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rudy81* /forum/post/11715850
> 
> 
> Based on these calculations I have a viewing angle of 15.9 degrees. The rear seats are higher, so have a narrower angle. Does anyone know if that angle will still show reasonable gain? I currently have a 1.0 gain with my Sharp Z12000U, but don't want to waste $500 just to experiment.



I would guess that a 15.9 angle is going to look pretty close to the 1.0 gain that you already have. If you can tweak your setup a bit to get it under 15 you will notice more of a difference. Which row do you normally sit in? If guests normally sit in the front they aren't going to notice the gain difference that we will.


You might want to contact Da-Lite for a sample of the HP, might help you decide if it is worth it.


----------



## FLBoy

Rudy-

Nice theater! Your calculations of 15.9 degrees correspond to a gain of about 1.3. I looked at your photos, and if you can lower your mount a couple of feet without putting the PJ in someone's face, you will reap significant gain improvements with the HP screen. I would guess 2.0+ for the center seats, and around 1.5 for the outside ones.


If you have Excel on your PC, you can download my High Power Screen Calculator (described elsewhere in this forum) and try some different values to see what various PJ heights and seating positions will produce.


----------



## altec604




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BAB* /forum/post/11645876
> 
> 
> For those of you with HP roll up screens such as Model B, C, or Cosmopolitan Electrols, have your screens developed any ladder marks?
> 
> 
> Ladder marks are horizontal lines that repeat every 8-12" (one circumfrence of the roller) due to the seam at the top of the viewing area where the HP fabric is "seamed" to the drop fabric. At this seam, there is a ridge. When the screen is rolled up, the seam ridge will "indent" onto each layer of fabric that rolls over it. If screen is left rolled up for a period of time (overnight for example) and then rolled down, these indentations can be visible, usually only during very bright "white" scenes. These marks are very distracting as it takes away the "invisible-ness" of the screen.



I leave my screen rolled up until usage. I see the creases but never notice them during actual viewing. So up it goes when not in use.


----------



## moooog

I have an Optoma HD80 ceiling (necessary) mounted in the middle of a large rectangular room with matte white walls and ceiling to fill a 92" wide viewing area screen. I want to replace my 4x3 rolldown (necessary) matte white screen, and from what I've read on this thread - it sounds like (unfortunately) the more expensive Firehawk G3 would be the proper choice for me vs. a GrayWolf or HP? I'm looking for shadow detail in darker scenes.


----------



## Oiler




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/11683404
> 
> 
> Oiler- Thanks. Dang! I actually missed that post. Things get buried in a thread this long. It might be interesting to compare a few points with values in the spreadsheet I created last week. (See "High Power Screen Gain Calculator" in the Screens forum.) I wonder if we did our calculations the same way?
> 
> 
> ETA- We did not do our calculations the same way, according to some of your earlier posts that I found, and we do not appear to get the same results either. If you want to compare notes, feel free to PM me. If you are too busy to bother with this now (or just not interested), that's OK too.




Just for the record, in order to make the estimates as easy to use as possible

I made a couple of simplifications in my calculations relative to screen placement. My calculations are very close to Flyboys for most normal

installs I believe, but of the two his method is overall more accurate. It is also

clear that his calculator is very easy to use so of the two I would clearly

recommend going to Flyboys calculator to estimate your gain.

Regards


----------



## rontron

I have a Sharp 12000mkII and many folks have suggested the HP screen. However when i call DAlite dealers ( AVSStore, Visual Apex and Pro People) as well as Dalite themselves and all of them suggest the Cinema Vision and say to stay away from the HP that it is not needed. Anybody have any thoughts as to why this screen which seems to be so well regarded is not suggested by the dealers or by Dalite?


----------



## Joseph Clark

You don't mention what your room configuration is like. Some rooms are not well suited for the HP. Perhaps that's why they are steering you away. I have a Sharp XV-Z20000 and it works very well with the HP.


----------



## rontron

Hi Joe,


Room is light controlled, some rear lights for football but none directly on the screen. Screen wall and ceiling are dark, side walls medium tan, carpet light. 110" screen, seating at 14 feet, projector at 16" and ceiling mounted.


----------



## Joseph Clark

Two things - rear lights would adversely affect the HP and the ceiling mount would negate much of the HP's gain. Your arrangement is similar to mine and the HP didn't work for me with my projector ceiling mounted. I had to lower it about 2 1/2 feet. I think that's why they were steering you away from the HP.


----------



## Tutmos

Agree with Joseph, put your PJ on an extension bar from the ceiling mount to lower it down a couple of feet and consider changing the position of the lights that are going to be on during viewing. Directly behind seating position is a bad spot. Assuming the sharp puts out as much or more light than the RS1 you could easily light 133" or larger with a fair amount of ambient light in the room. At 110" with a lowered PJ I'd bet it will be brighter than a plasma with every light in the room on.


----------



## rontron

The rear lights are way back about 10 feet behind the theater seats and they shine straight down- but i dont see how i can lower the projector 2.5 feet, people would run into it-So if the HP is out what would be thenext best option- i am thinking it would need to be angular reflective with some gaim. Any ideas- Joe/ Tutmos what screen do you use?


----------



## Joseph Clark

I found a way to make the HP work in my theater. Be creative, if possible. You may be able to put it on a stand instead of suspending it. If that won't work, you'll have to go with another screen fabric. Ceiling mounting mine would have yielded almost no gain over what I already had with my older Firehawk.


----------



## rontron

I went ahead and measured and the projector is fairly low for a ceiling mounted projector. the center of the lens is at 6'8". I can probably lower it a bit more ( at least a few inches).. Now people are telling me HighContrast Cinema Vision is the way to go..man am i confused!!!!!


----------



## hkuhn

hi rontron...I own both Da-Lite's CinemaVision (white) and High Contrast CinemaVision (gray) in a Cinema Contour frame.


The bottom line for me is that I will never buy a gray screen again. From what I have observed over the years, gray screens soften the image and can obscure detail. In comparison to a good white screen, they often appear dull and lifeless in their presentation.


I imagine that we all try our hand at gray screens, only and eventually winding up with a really good white screen. I guess marketing is the culprit.


I have just ordered a Da-Lite High Power screen (white) in a Da-Snap frame. I have also recently purchased Sony's vpl aw15 projector. This should be a really good combination that would take advantage of the Sony's great color and contrast and the High Power's punch and brightness. I've kept my viewing cone within 15 degrees and will hopefully achieve a gain between 1.5 and 2.0.


Where are my sunglasses?


Harvey


----------



## Rudy81

Well, I finally pulled the trigger on the HP. It should be here in a few days and I plan to take some pictures of side by side comparisson. My room setup is not ideal for the angles between viewing position and pj, but I had to try it. If it doesn't work out, I will have one for sale. I ordered the Model C 87" x 116" or something like that.


----------



## KMR

Call me the dumbest person on the planet, but where in the world can I buy the High-Power? I know that people have said avscience.com, but the high-power links that I saw on there only lead to Da-Lite's official website where I also can't find any links to purchase anything. >_


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KMR* /forum/post/11926500
> 
> 
> Call me the dumbest person on the planet, but where in the world can I buy the High-Power? I know that people have said avscience.com, but the high-power links that I saw on there only lead to Da-Lite's official website where I also can't find any links to purchase anything. >_


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hkuhn* /forum/post/11899985
> 
> 
> hi rontron...I own both Da-Lite's CinemaVision (white) and High Contrast CinemaVision (gray) in a Cinema Contour frame.
> 
> 
> The bottom line for me is that I will never buy a gray screen again. From what I have observed over the years, gray screens soften the image and can obscure detail. In comparison to a good white screen, they often appear dull and lifeless in their presentation.



Some people still love 'em though.


I have to say even after seeing projectors on some higher gain screens (including the Silvestar) the single most impressive contrast, saturation and "pop" I've seen has been a Sharp Z2K projector on a gray Firehawk screen.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KMR* /forum/post/11926500
> 
> 
> Call me the dumbest person on the planet, but where in the world can I buy the High-Power? I know that people have said avscience.com, but the high-power links that I saw on there only lead to Da-Lite's official website where I also can't find any links to purchase anything. >_


----------



## FLBoy

I agree with Joseph that the _best_ way to watch is in a light-controlled room with all dark walls and ceiling. For some of us, however, that is not practicable. My HT is also my family room. I estimate its family room-to-HT usage ratio (in hours per day) to be about 10 to 1. It is thus first and foremost a family room, and secondarily a HT. I cannot imagine this room with anything other than light colored walls and ceiling.


Having said that, it is important to note that just about the _only_ compromise I have made in my HT is the white walls and ceiling. I use a 100" Da-Lite Cinema Contour (fixed frame) High Power screen with an Epson 1080 Home PJ, pedestal mounted at eye level behind my two main viewing positions. I get what I consider to be excellent pop and contrast. In the family room mode, I have a comfortable chair placed in front of the screen, which then virtually "disappears." I move the chair aside for watching movies and concerts. This arrangement works extremely well for me.


----------



## KMR




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/11930743
> 
> 
> I agree with Joseph that the _best_ way to watch is in a light-controlled room with all dark walls and ceiling. For some of us, however, that is not practicable. My HT is also my family room. I estimate its family room-to-HT usage ratio (in hours per day) to be about 10 to 1. It is thus first and foremost a family room, and secondarily a HT. I cannot imagine this room with anything other than light colored walls and ceiling.
> 
> 
> Having said that, it is important to note that just about the _only_ compromise I have made in my HT is the white walls and ceiling. I use a 100" Da-Lite Cinema Contour (fixed frame) High Power screen with an Epson 1080 Home PJ, pedestal mounted at eye level behind my two main viewing positions. I get what I consider to be excellent pop and contrast. In the family room mode, I have a comfortable chair placed in front of the screen, which then virtually "disappears." I move the chair aside for watching movies and concerts. This arrangement works extremely well for me.



That's a similar situation I have. My projector is in my living room, and it'd be really hard to have a dark-colored room in there. I currently use the white wall to project the image on, and that looks good enough at night, but sometimes the blacks can seem a little washed-out or "weak" I suppose.


I do have the windows covered though, and I do only ever really use the projector at night, so ambient light isn't really a problem, unless the light reflected off the walls from the PJ itself is considered such.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KMR* /forum/post/11931768
> 
> 
> ... I do have the windows covered though, and I do only ever really use the projector at night, so ambient light isn't really a problem, unless the light reflected off the walls from the PJ itself is considered such.



The HP screen is great for rejecting reflected light from all directions except the rear of the room, but using dark curtains or paint at the rear of the room will help to minimize that, should it become a problem. With your PJ and seating position, I expect the HP screen will make a huge, and very positive, difference.


Have you tried out my HP screen gain calculator with your system's geometry?

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post11658766


----------



## javry




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KMR* /forum/post/11931768
> 
> 
> That's a similar situation I have. My projector is in my living room, and it'd be really hard to have a dark-colored room in there. I currently use the white wall to project the image on, and that looks good enough at night, but sometimes the blacks can seem a little washed-out or "weak" I suppose.
> 
> 
> I do have the windows covered though, and I do only ever really use the projector at night, so ambient light isn't really a problem, unless the light reflected off the walls from the PJ itself is considered such.



I did this for a few years because, just like you, my room would not permit a screen. It worked out fine. When you do finally switch over to a screen, you'll still notice an improvement over the wall though.


----------



## rontron

Has anyone had the chance to compare the HP with the Designer White Laminate?


----------



## Blasst




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rontron* /forum/post/11970517
> 
> 
> Has anyone had the chance to compare the HP with the Designer White Laminate?



I've wondered the same question.


The DW puts out pretty good pop at 116" in my setup.


Damn, we are always wondering if we can do a little bit better


----------



## javry




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Blasst* /forum/post/11972957
> 
> 
> ...............
> 
> 
> Damn, we are always wondering if we can do a little bit better


----------



## Rudy81

I just finished putting up my NEW HP screen. After much consternation I decided to get the HP due to all the posts on this thread. I was tentative only because my PJ is ceiling mounted. I ordered the C model and figured if I didn't see much change in picture due to viewing cone I would just sell it. I put up the HP side by side with my 1.0 gain screen. WOW, what a differance. There was no doubt that the HP is much brighter with more punch. That led to about four hours of taking the C model apart and replacing my old material with the new HP material.


Finally got done a few minutes ago. I did take some before pictures and will post them on my site tomorrow sometime. l will provide links. Even with my less than optimum seating position the difference jumps out at you.


Did a little viewing with the new screen and found that my Sharp Z12000 is almost too bright with the iris in bright. The best picture is with the iris set to "High Contrast". I had never used that setting before because although the blacks were much better, the picture became too dim to see properly....now it seems just perfect.


Due to the viewing cone, my rear seats which are higher off the floor actually see a brighter picture...they will no longer be the peanut gallery.


I also found out that you can clean the surface just fine. Due to my stupidity I got some oily material on it from a piece of lumger I had under the screen during construction....used the denatured alcohol and it came up just fine. This is a great screen for the money. So far I am very pleased. More to follow.


----------



## RobZ

My room is also primarily a family room. Coming from a dedicated HT, I realized the importance of room colors and compromised (kept white ceilings). My screen is a Dalite 119" Designer Contour Electrol High Power.



BEFORE:












AFTER:

























The High Power is great. I initially had it installed with the white walls. There was a significant difference with the moderate darkening of the walls using less reflective suede paint and dark blackout velvet curtains.


I'm ordering a manual 138" 2.35:1 HP from AVS to have a dual screen setup.


----------



## Rudy81

I uploaded some pictures to attempt and show the results of the HP in my application. My room is not optimum for this screen due to a ceiling mounted PJ and a seating position approx. 52" below the pj and 16' from the screen. However, I am extremely pleased with the results. Although the pictures do show the brightness difference, they fail to show the "pop" my eyes see in the actual room. In any event, this will hopefully provide some comparison.


Visit http://www.prontoweb.com/DaliteHP.htm to see the pictures.


----------



## Anthony Cler

I've decided on a 119" Model C, High Power screen. It's going in a room with a 10' ceiling and I can't decide if it would be better to hang it from the ceiling and just order one with 2' of extra drop or to hang it from the wall 2' down from the ceiling.


I'm leaning toward the extra drop from the ceiling. Can anyone share some experience or advice for my situation?


----------



## Tutmos

Hang it from the ceiling with lag hooks and use a few inches of chain lengths to get whatever height you want? It's an easy install that way. Just one option.


----------



## Herve




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RobZ* /forum/post/12065456
> 
> 
> My room is also primarily a family room. Coming from a dedicated HT, I realized the importance of room colors and compromised (kept white ceilings). My screen is a Dalite 119" Designer Contour Electrol High Power.
> 
> ........................
> 
> The High Power is great. I initially had it installed with the white walls. There was a significant difference with the moderate darkening of the walls using less reflective suede paint and dark blackout velvet curtains.
> 
> 
> I'm ordering a manual 138" 2.35:1 HP from AVS to have a dual screen setup.



RobZ, I'm debating going with a pull-down screen or "velcroing" a 58"x104" HP screen surface to a custom-made aluminum frame that will swing up out of the way when not in use (so that another screen can be used).


Does your pull-down remain very flat when you are using it?


Other pull-down users - does you screen remain flat after you pull it out of the case?


----------



## smitty

Just another comment on how great the HP screen is. I'm using it with an RS1, and this screen really does give you great brightness and the "pop" someone referred to earlier. I'm absolutely floored at how good it looks. I'm using a 112" wide 2.35:1 screen, and a Blue-ray image looks as good as any movie theater I've ever seen. Watched Silver Surfer last night, and found it hard to concentrate on the movie because I kept marveling at how great the image was.


Now if Da-Lite would just make the installation screw holes in the back of the screen the right size for the screws they give you so that you don't have to be Hercules to put this thing together . . . .


----------



## FLBoy

I recently revised my High Power Screen Gain Calculator (see separate thread in this forum) to compute screen gain simultaneously for the left side, center, and right side of the screen. This reveals not only gain but also brightness uniformity for a given input configuration. While testing the new version of the calculator, I learned some things about brightness uniformity that I think may be of interest to current HP owners and those considering the HP, as follows.


1. For a center seat, the HP provides near perfect brightness uniformity, even for very wide screens.


2. For some configurations, the HP provides slightly *higher* gain at the right and left sides of the screen than at the center! This can help correct any edge brightness loss of the PJ. Note that this behavior is opposite that of angular reflective gain screens, which exhibit lower gain at the sides, IIRC.


3. For off-center seating, the brightness uniformity is _highly_ sensitive to the distance of the PJ lens from the screen, near perfect uniformity being achieved when the PJ lens is about the same distance from the screen as the off-center seating. A PJ position somewhat to the *rear* of the off-center seating makes the side of the screen brighter on the *same* side as the off-center seating. A PJ position somewhat to the *front* of the off-center seating makes the side of the screen brighter on the *opposite* side from the off-center seating.


I invite those of you who would like to evaluate your own HT configuration to play with my new (Ver. 2.0) HP screen gain calculator. It's free, of course, and very easy to use.


----------



## Jive Turkey

Didn't all of Tryg's reviews/tutorials have tons of pictures? None of my bookmarked links nor the posts here are giving me pictures now. I'm on a new computer with cable modem, so I don't think it's me, but..........?


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jive Turkey* /forum/post/12165994
> 
> 
> Didn't all of Tryg's reviews/tutorials have tons of pictures? None of my bookmarked links nor the posts here are giving me pictures now. I'm on a new computer with cable modem, so I don't think it's me, but..........?



If you don't see photos in the OP, it's you.


----------



## Tryg

It's your browser. Try using Firefox


----------



## Jive Turkey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/12172133
> 
> 
> It's your browser. Try using Firefox



Don't know why it would be my browser when I used to see them on the same Windows Explorer program on the same new computer. I did check my settings on AVS, and it's marked show images.....hmmm.


Maybe they'll just magically come back over time.


----------



## squeaks182

tried e-mailing AVS Jason about a month ago, but still no reply, so i'll ask in the forum...


Trying to see how much a Da-Lite High Power screen in a size 78" x 139" (159" diagonal) would cost me. I'd need 12" of drop on top (black), so factoring that in, how much would a Contour Electrol, and Model C, in High Power 78" x 139" cost? Thanks for any help.


----------



## smitty




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *squeaks182* /forum/post/12178679
> 
> 
> tried e-mailing AVS Jason about a month ago, but still no reply, so i'll ask in the forum...
> 
> 
> Trying to see how much a Da-Lite High Power screen in a size 78" x 139" (159" diagonal) would cost me. I'd need 12" of drop on top (black), so factoring that in, how much would a Contour Electrol, and Model C, in High Power 78" x 139" cost? Thanks for any help.



Jason was on vacation for awhile, and then was probably swamped when he got back. I'd try emailing him again, or call the toll free number for AVScience on Monday and ask for Jason, Richard, or one of the sales guys. Any other pricing information from us will be just a guess, unless someone recently ordered the exact same thing.


----------



## Rudy81

You can also contact the pointofpower.com folks if you don't get a response from AVS. I purchased from them and they were terrific.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rudy81* /forum/post/12182035
> 
> 
> You can also contact the pointofpower.com folks if you don't get a response from AVS. I purchased from them and they were terrific.



"Easy Sunday Plus Worship Software" ?? ewww!


----------



## Rudy81

 http://www.pointofpower.com/Screens/index.htm 


I have no affiliation with these folks, I ordered mine from them and they were extremely helpful.


----------



## squeaks182




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smitty* /forum/post/12179794
> 
> 
> Jason was on vacation for awhile, and then was probably swamped when he got back. I'd try emailing him again, or call the toll free number for AVScience on Monday and ask for Jason, Richard, or one of the sales guys. Any other pricing information from us will be just a guess, unless someone recently ordered the exact same thing.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rudy81* /forum/post/12182035
> 
> 
> You can also contact the pointofpower.com folks if you don't get a response from AVS. I purchased from them and they were terrific.



thanks a lot guys, i appreciate the info. will try both suggestions.


----------



## AVSRichard

Email me at [email protected] , I'll answer your questions tomorrow morning.


Richard


----------



## Tryg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/12152765
> 
> 
> 
> I invite those of you who would like to evaluate your own HT configuration to play with my new (Ver. 2.0) HP screen gain calculator. It's free, of course, and very easy to use.



Where is this HP gain calculator?


----------



## FLBoy

Hi Tryg-


Here it is:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=910144 

I thought you had seen it. It's based in part on the gain chart in the OP of your HP review thread, with a bit of 3-D vector mathematics to calculate the error angle. Give it a try. I'd like to know what you think of it.


----------



## georgeorwell

Thanks for all the good info here. After several other screens, I finally bought and installed the HP for use with my AX100U. I absolutely love it! I finally feel like I have a real screen that makes my pj look fantastic, and I didn't have to break the bank to get it.


----------



## javry

I'm of the same mind. Although I kinda wish I'd gotten it bigger.


----------



## fperra

I posted this elswhere, but I might get the answer I'm looking for here:


My current viewing room is with a Pany 65" plasma. I'm planning to keep the plasma for watching broadcast TV but would like to set up a projection system with a manual screen which would pull down in front of the plasma for blue ray movies and night time football. My projector of choice so far is the JVC DLA-RS2 which would be mounted 17' away from the screen, on center horizontally and only about 6 inches above the screen centerline. So it will be pretty much on axis. The room is not light controlled, but the left and right side are medium dark brown and dark green respectively. The ceiling is vaulted and is a light beige. The carpet is white. Seating area (3 seats) will be pretty much on center and 13' away from the screen. I'm thinking of ordering a Dalite 106" diagonal Advantage HDTV 16:9 Manual with either a Video Spectra or High Power Screen. What would you experts suggest? And is the 106" too large for the 13' viewing distance?


----------



## FLBoy

Based on the information you have given thus far, I would say the High Power might be your best choice. The key issue for determining the gain of the HP is whether the height of the PJ is fairly near your viewers' seated eye-level, not where it is w/r to the screen center. Also, with the HP screen, you will get better brightness uniformity for your off-center seats if you can position the PJ closer to the same distance from the screen as your seating. (This is not of huge importance, however, as most folks won't notice brightness nonuniformity until it becomes large.) If you want to quantitatively evaluate a few different arrangements, you can use my High Power Screen Gain Calculator, described in this thread.


As to your question about viewing distance, I use a 100-inch 16:9 screen at 13.5 feet, and I would like to have a slightly larger one, but the room width does not allow it, so I think a 106 at 13 feet would be fine.


----------



## fperra

Thanks. The projector lens will be mounted on a shelf about 65 inches above ground level and the viewing height (eye height) is about 41 inches above grround level. So a difference of about 24 inches. This can probably be tweaked a little lower if needed. Is this too much height difference?


----------



## erkq

Regarding viewing distance: I sit back 10' from a 10' wide screen. With the RS1 it's not too close! No pixel structure and very immersive. My second seating row is 16' back and I prefer the front row.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fperra* /forum/post/12523779
> 
> 
> Thanks. The projector lens will be mounted on a shelf about 65 inches above ground level and the viewing height (eye height) is about 41 inches above grround level. So a difference of about 24 inches. This can probably be tweaked a little lower if needed. Is this too much height difference?



I plugged your dimensions into my calculator, and your center-seat gain is about 2.1--not bad. A lower PJ position would make the gain higher, but you don't want a viewer's head to block the line of sight from the PJ lens to the bottom of the screen viewing area, which I calculate to be about 33 inches above the floor. Depending on how far over your side seats are, the gain will be less--probably around 1.5-1.7 at center screen. Side to side brightness uniformity will not be the greatest for the off-center seats, because the PJ is five feet behind the seating. (Most viewers won't notice the nonuniformity, though.) I suggest you download my calculator and try some "what ifs" to get a real feel for what happens with different PJ positions.


----------



## Tutmos

Go bigger!


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tutmos* /forum/post/12527605
> 
> 
> Go bigger!



Yes, THAT's my point! Go bigger, you won't be disappointed. 1x viewing distance works.


----------



## fperra

Too late to go bigger. I just ordered the JVC RS2 projector and the 106" diag. DA-lite high power screen. Thanks for the advice. Hopefully it will be all set up for the Superbowl (go Green Bay).


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fperra* /forum/post/12528763
> 
> 
> Too late to go bigger. I just ordered the JVC RS2 projector and the 106" diag. DA-lite high power screen. Thanks for the advice. Hopefully it will be all set up for the Superbowl (go Green Bay).



Congrats! That should be an absolutely stunning combination. I'm envious.


----------



## fperra

Thanks. My wife thinks I'm crazy and she doesn't understand why the 65" Pany plasma isn't good enough. Hopefully she will see the light once the system is set up.


----------



## AndyN

guys, just wanted to get more input from the HP owners. After browsing the thread I just wanted to clarify that waves on HP are not very visible so it not being available as a tensioned drop down is no big deal. Also I take it that owners don't notice/mind the loss of "black levels" due to the improved perceived contrast? (hope I'm stating that correctly). and even if you can't get a pj at eye level you still get some benefits as long as you're not ridiculously out of the recommended range? ( in other words any chance of negative effects or do you just not get full beneficial effects?)


thanks,


andy


ps.. I'll be using the hi power with a sony ruby, ceiling mounting, but dropping the pj 2 feet down, with sitting area about 10-12 feet away.


----------



## Tutmos

The black level increase isn't a concern assuming you're increasing the screen size to take advantage of the higher gain.


You really can't see screen waves at all. In 5 months I noticed one once during a long pan shot across a big outdoor shot.


Your pj location sounds good.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AndyN* /forum/post/12734376
> 
> 
> guys, just wanted to get more input from the HP owners. After browsing the thread I just wanted to clarify that waves on HP are not very visible so it not being available as a tensioned drop down is no big deal. Also I take it that owners don't notice/mind the loss of "black levels" due to the improved perceived contrast? (hope I'm stating that correctly). and even if you can't get a pj at eye level you still get some benefits as long as you're not ridiculously out of the recommended range? ( in other words any chance of negative effects or do you just not get full beneficial effects?)
> 
> 
> thanks,
> 
> 
> andy
> 
> 
> ps.. I'll be using the hi power with a sony ruby, ceiling mounting, but dropping the pj 2 feet down, with sitting area about 10-12 feet away.


----------



## hrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AndyN* /forum/post/12734376
> 
> 
> guys, just wanted to get more input from the HP owners. After browsing the thread I just wanted to clarify that waves on HP are not very visible so it not being available as a tensioned drop down is no big deal.



Da-Lite customer service reps have told me the reason the High Power is not available as a tensioned screen is because it is already a heavy enough material.


----------



## fperra

I posted this in another thread, but it should have been in this one:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fperra* /forum/post/12784604
> 
> 
> Well, got back from the Las Vegas late last night and my 106" diagonal HP screen was waiting for me. Its a manual pull down one and I just finnished
> 
> installing it. It's set up to pull down in front of my 65" Panny plasma. My projector is a JVC RE-2 mounted 16' away from the screen and pretty centered and on axis with the screen. My room is in no way light controlled, but it's not overly bright either. And all I can say is WOW! Thanks to those who recommended this screen and kudos to Da-Lite and JVC for some excellent products.


----------



## mooney

In my bedroom theater I am using a 92" diagonal DaLite Model B pull down with HCCV. I have (well the screen has) wrinkles that bother me. The AE900 projector is shelf mounted about 14' from the screen and is very close to the center of the screen.


I am pretty sure that the geometry would be good for a HP screen and my question is should I get a Model B or C ?


The screen is down about 99.9% of the time.


----------



## bqmeister




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mooney* /forum/post/12786065
> 
> 
> In my bedroom theater I am using a 92" diagonal DaLite Model B pull down with HCCV. I have (well the screen has) wrinkles that bother me. The AE900 projector is shelf mounted about 14' from the screen and is very close to the center of the screen.
> 
> 
> I am pretty sure that the geometry would be good for a HP screen and my question is should I get a Model B or C ?
> 
> 
> The screen is down about 99.9% of the time.



The model C has a better roller mechanism, but the only reason I went Model C instead of Model B is because I went with a 119" screen. Model B tops out at 106".


I'd have no problems getting a model B for a smaller screen.


----------



## BulldogFan

Hi All,


I'm hoping somebody can help me here. This HP fabric sounds pretty fantastic and I'm trying to work out how to get it in a 150 inch diagonal cinemascope screen.


Unfortunately the ready made scope screens only go up to 138 inch so I am looking at either building my own or buying a third party frame and attaching the HP fabric to the frame.


One of the frames I am looking at has a channel and beading method of attaching material but I am worried the HP material would be too thick to fit in the channel and take the beading. Does anyone know how thick the fabric is and if it would be pliable enough to attach to a frame using this method ?


Or anybody got any other ideas for getting this in a 150 inch cinemascope screen ?


Cheers.


----------



## hrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BulldogFan* /forum/post/12849513
> 
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> 
> I'm hoping somebody can help me here. This HP fabric sounds pretty fantastic and I'm trying to work out how to get it in a 150 inch diagonal cinemascope screen.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the ready made scope screens only go up to 138 inch so I am looking at either building my own or buying a third party frame and attaching the HP fabric to the frame.
> 
> 
> One of the frames I am looking at has a channel and beading method of attaching material but I am worried the HP material would be too thick to fit in the channel and take the beading. Does anyone know how thick the fabric is and if it would be pliable enough to attach to a frame using this method ?
> 
> 
> Or anybody got any other ideas for getting this in a 150 inch cinemascope screen ?
> 
> 
> Cheers.



You should be able to order a custom-sized HP of that diagonal size. A rep at Da-Lite told me a few weeks ago they can now provide the HP in a non-seamed length with as much as 74" high of viewing area. A 138" diagonal scope screen is 54" high by 126" wide. A 74" high scope screen should be 174" wide (74 times 2.35 = 173.9), which would be way more than 150" diagonal.


----------



## ca1ore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BulldogFan* /forum/post/12849513
> 
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> 
> I'm hoping somebody can help me here. This HP fabric sounds pretty fantastic and I'm trying to work out how to get it in a 150 inch diagonal cinemascope screen.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the ready made scope screens only go up to 138 inch so I am looking at either building my own or buying a third party frame and attaching the HP fabric to the frame.
> 
> 
> One of the frames I am looking at has a channel and beading method of attaching material but I am worried the HP material would be too thick to fit in the channel and take the beading. Does anyone know how thick the fabric is and if it would be pliable enough to attach to a frame using this method ?
> 
> 
> Or anybody got any other ideas for getting this in a 150 inch cinemascope screen ?
> 
> 
> Cheers.



The HP material is a real bear to stretch over a DIY frame. I have lived with one for a couple of yearsand finally the ripples have gotten the best of me - just ordered a new one!


----------



## jayteez

OK, I am trying to find out if High Power screen material will work for me.


VPL-AW15 ceiling mounted 7 inches from the ceiling.

17' between current screen and PJ lens @ 120" display.

Narrow room, so viewing angles shouldnt be a problem.


Will a High Power screen work for me?


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jayteez* /forum/post/12864564
> 
> 
> OK, I am trying to find out if High Power screen material will work for me.
> 
> 
> VPL-AW15 ceiling mounted 7 inches from the ceiling.
> 
> 17' between current screen and PJ lens @ 120" display.
> 
> Narrow room, so viewing angles shouldnt be a problem.
> 
> 
> Will a High Power screen work for me?



Probably, but you may need to add an extension pole to lower your PJ a bit. Suggest you try my screen gain calculator described here to see what your present and lower PJ positions will do. (Calculator parameters for the High Power screen are in the second post.)


----------



## garibay_2004

can you guys give me name of a vendor online where I can get it for lower than the amazon or bhphoto prices? thanks


----------



## Hopstretch

Anyone know if Da-Lite makes drop-down screens in Scope format? Their Web site makes no mention of it, but I've seen a couple of used ones for sale on Videogon. Custom jobs? Confused sellers?


----------



## Ian_Currie

Yup, they'll do it. Custom job, but that's not unusual.


----------



## video_bit_bucket

They cut a 16x9 short at the bottom to make a scope. Just look to see if they have a 16x9 in the width you are interested in.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hopstretch* /forum/post/12883201
> 
> 
> Anyone know if Da-Lite makes drop-down screens in Scope format? Their Web site makes no mention of it, but I've seen a couple of used ones for sale on Videogon. Custom jobs? Confused sellers?


----------



## garibay_2004

I have Sanyo Z5, had the Z2 and loved it but I always used my wall, all this talk about HP screen is making me rethink my options, I ordered samples from da-lite, I thik I will get the 72x96 and cut it and trim it to fit my painted screen on the wall, and glue it to the wall....any ideas what kind of glue is best for this? and is this a good choice of material for my Z5? thanks people


----------



## jason4vu

I just switched from 52*92 dalite cinemavision material to a 52*122 2.35 High Power screen from dalite for my jvc rs2. WOW! The HP material is awsome. I really struggled with making the change for a while, but definitely no regrets.


----------



## garibay_2004

how are the black levels with the HP as opposed to your cinemavision, my throw distance is short (10 ft) and I am using the wall light gray flat paint, was thinking about HP but even on my dull wall, my projector is bright enough at the lowest brightness setting, I am concerned that HP will be too bright and black levels will be washed out. I have yje sanyo z5, any advice, I am considering the graywolfII, since brighness is not an issue for me, what do you think?


----------



## jason4vu

To be honest I really haven't noticed much change in my black levels. Of course this is the rs2's strong point. I was worried about the same thing(elevated black levels), but so far it is not a factor. At a 10 ft. throw (I'm guessing your screen is under 100 inches) I would guess the HP could be too bright for you. Especially if you have full light control.Otherwise it's a great screen. Like others have stated the screen surface really disappears. Much more so than the cinemavision.


----------



## traderyodoa

I have a Dalite 78"x139" HP screen working with an RS1 at 20 feet in a black room. The image is fantastic -can't be beat IMHO. One problem though - wrinkles (see pic). There are significant wrinkles in the screen that are very noticeable when the image pans. The Dalite folks have been very responsive when I asked about this, but I wondered if any of you are having similar issues.


Overall, this was the right choice for my room and I'm very pleased. I was concerned at the outset about choosing an untensioned screen in an application this large, and maybe there's good reason for this concern. I've read in other threads that the heavy backing on the HP screens means wrinkling is not a problem - that's what prompted me to press ahead and purchase one.


I'll keep posting on the outcome in talking to Dalite, but if you folks have any ideas let me know.


Cheers

TY


----------



## AndyN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *traderyodoa* /forum/post/12907902
> 
> 
> I have a Dalite 78"x139" HP screen working with an RS1 at 20 feet in a black room. The image is fantastic -can't be beat IMHO. One problem though - wrinkles (see pic). There are significant wrinkles in the screen that are very noticeable when the image pans. The Dalite folks have been very responsive when I asked about this, but I wondered if any of you are having similar issues.
> 
> 
> Overall, this was the right choice for my room and I'm very pleased. I was concerned at the outset about choosing an untensioned screen in an application this large, and maybe there's good reason for this concern. I've read in other threads that the heavy backing on the HP screens means wrinkling is not a problem - that's what prompted me to press ahead and purchase one.
> 
> 
> I'll keep posting on the outcome in talking to Dalite, but if you folks have any ideas let me know.
> 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> TY




wow, that's awful. I just ordered my HP (much smaller than yours) from AVS. What model screen did you get?


----------



## mr_fitz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AndyN* /forum/post/12912113
> 
> 
> wow, that's awful. I just ordered my HP (much smaller than yours) from AVS. What model screen did you get?



Which one did you buy? I'm thinking about ordering the 92" model B.


John


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *traderyodoa* /forum/post/12907902
> 
> 
> I have a Dalite 78"x139" HP screen working with an RS1 at 20 feet in a black room. The image is fantastic -can't be beat IMHO. One problem though - wrinkles (see pic). There are significant wrinkles in the screen that are very noticeable when the image pans. The Dalite folks have been very responsive when I asked about this, but I wondered if any of you are having similar issues.
> 
> 
> Overall, this was the right choice for my room and I'm very pleased. I was concerned at the outset about choosing an untensioned screen in an application this large, and maybe there's good reason for this concern. I've read in other threads that the heavy backing on the HP screens means wrinkling is not a problem - that's what prompted me to press ahead and purchase one.
> 
> 
> I'll keep posting on the outcome in talking to Dalite, but if you folks have any ideas let me know.
> 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> TY



Even with these wrinkles, do you see any effect with the pic on the screen? The HP is well known about showing any effects of any wrinkles that are actually there.


----------



## AndyN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr_fitz* /forum/post/12935013
> 
> 
> Which one did you buy? I'm thinking about ordering the 92" model B.
> 
> 
> John



Due to space limitations I got the 45x80 Contour Electrol. It's here. I just need to get an electrician to do some wiring before I hang it.


----------



## traderyodoa

My screen is a Contour Electrol with HP. The screen image is superb - the projector lights this thing up like a plasma, but nothing is lost in terms of a theater-like experience; no complaints in this department. But the wrinkles are annoying, and are very noticeable, when the image pans; Discovery Channel is problemmatic with all those pan shots. I'm still working on figuring this out, and Dalite is being very helpful - kudos to them. My guess... the pattern of the wrinkles leads me to believe that there's some deflection in the roller. This is a big screen and the fabric is dense and heavy. It's possible that over this span the roller bends (sags) a little in the middle causing wrinkles in at the center top and bottom ends. I'll keep posting on what I find out and hope there's a solution. I'm betting though that this is something you might have to live with in screens this wide.


----------



## Laserfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *traderyodoa* /forum/post/12936026
> 
> 
> My guess... the pattern of the wrinkles leads me to believe that there's some deflection in the roller. This is a big screen and the fabric is dense and heavy. It's possible that over this span the roller bends (sags) a little in the middle causing wrinkles in at the center top and bottom ends. I'll keep posting on what I find out and hope there's a solution. I'm betting though that this is something you might have to live with in screens this wide.



Good grief TY but I think you've nailed it--hard to think of ANYTHING (save a steel I-beam) ten-feet wide that would not sag a little in the middle when hung by the ends.


Sorry for your dilemma but I appreciate your posts--I've been cogitating a 10' wide rollup myself but this gives me serious pause. Particularly at the prices for these screens.


----------



## Tryg

Use the aluminum bracket it comes with. This gives uniform suspension across the whole length of the screen casing. No winkles on my 12' wide scope screen


----------



## Laserfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/12938528
> 
> 
> Use the aluminum bracket it comes with. This gives uniform suspension across the whole length of the screen casing. No winkles on my 12' wide scope screen



While interim brackets will support the casing, they do not support the roller tube!!!!?!!!


----------



## Tryg

oh yeah.


Maybe the extra weight of the 16:9 is a contributor. Mine is scope so probably 1 foot less fabric on bottom.


I have a large leader on top which is slightly different fabric. This fabric may be more flexible allowing for the buffering of the stress. I alwasy recommend getting 2' of leader.


My screen does have some minor wrinkles as you would imagine in a V pattern. Like this


l \\ \\ / / l

l \\ \\ / / l

l \\ \\ / / l



Very minimal though and hard to see even looking from the side. Absolutely invisible looking straight on and impossible to see on a projected image.



Also mine is electric. This takes significant wear and tear off the pull down mechanism and fabric


----------



## Laserfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/12939231
> 
> 
> Maybe the extra weight of the 16:9 is a contributor. Mine is scope so probably 1 foot less fabric on bottom.
> 
> 
> I have a large leader on top which is slightly different fabric. This fabric may be more flexible...



Yup for sure a lot less fabric in a 2.35 screen.


@TY -- I have seen rollups though never owned one. I wonder if it's possible that your leader fabric has stretched, and not the screen material. If yes, maybe it is possible to re-inforce the leader with some addt'l material to "snug it up".


OTOH if the screen material has been wrapping/distended by a swayed roller tube over a long period of time it may itself be damaged I suppose.


Good luck w/finding a solution, and pls report back!!!?! I'm still toying with an electric screen myself but for the $$$ I don't like the risk...


----------



## Tryg

This size screen go with electric. Imagine how much less wear and tear there is on the fabric and roller mechanism. This is probably what is causing the wrinkles.


With pull down you have to yank the fabric out of the casing fighting a spring. Electric it just rolls down. Little or no forces


----------



## jarablue

I want a viewable 130 or 120 inch screen and 75-90 inch height. I am looking at getting a HP screen. My projector will be about 10.6 ft back from the display area and mounted on the celing which is 94 inches high. The seating will be 115 inches from the screen. Will this be a problem for a HP screen? I am calling them Monday to ask. Seating will be almost directly in the middle. Lighting will be dark. Can these dimensions support a 130x75 inch screen? Thanks.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jarablue* /forum/post/12944252
> 
> 
> I want a viewable 130 or 120 inch screen and 75-90 inch height. I am looking at getting a HP screen. My projector will be about 10.6 ft back from the display area and mounted on the celing which is 94 inches high. The seating will be 115 inches from the screen. Will this be a problem for a HP screen? I am calling them Monday to ask. Seating will be almost directly in the middle. Lighting will be dark. Can these dimensions support a 130x75 inch screen? Thanks.



No. Your PJ is too close to fill such a large screen even at maximum wide zoom for either of the PJs you mentioned in another post (HC4900 and 1080UB). If you move your PJ back to around 17 feet, you can fill the screen, but you won't have enough brightness, because your PJ is too far above eye level to get sufficient gain from the HP screen. You need to lower your PJ to about 55 inches above the floor to bump the screen gain above 2. Your seating is also too close. You need to move your seating back about even with the PJ (17 ft.), or you will have a large side-to-side brightness non-uniformity, not to mention overwhelming your viewers with such a large screen.


----------



## jarablue

Ok done. I have the best spot which will be 17 ft give or take a foot if I need and then 55 inches high? Is that the best height?


Now my question is what is the path of the projection? I ask this is because sometimes my newphews like sitting on the floor with the XBox 360 controllers and playing. If I put this projector up with the dimensions you gave me, are we limited to sitting far apart from the projector? I don't want to have shadows on the wall when I am trying to catch a ball in Madden08. What would be the best seating for the dimensions you gave me? Hopefully the more casual seating the better. This will be in my living room as a TV and everything, but mostly for movies and gaming. Lounging around the living room is my thinking. I'd hate to seat everyone everytime they want to come over. But if that is a MUST then I can but I'd rather not. Thank you so much for the help.


Edit: I am going to take pictures of my basement living room where this will mounted to let you guys see the area this will be used in. I hope that will let you give me the best suggestion. Again thank you much.


----------



## FLBoy

The HP screen is retro-reflective. That means it will return most of the light back in the direction of the PJ. The BEST height for the PJ (in terms of screen gain) is thus at the eye level of the viewer. That's the bad news. The good news is that the PJ height does not have to be exactly at eye level--just fairly close to that. If you will learn how to use my screen gain calculator (linked in my signature below), you can experiment with different PJ heights, different seating, etc. Bear in mind that you will probably need a screen gain of about 2.0 for sufficient brightness with the large screen size you have indicated. If you decide to use a smaller screen, you will not need as much screen gain. You can see this from the calculator at Projector Central here . In any case, you want to shoot for an image brightness of about 14-16 foot-Lamberts (fL).


If, alternatively, you want people to be able to walk around without shadowing the picture, then you will need to mount the PJ up high. If so, the HP screen may not be your best choice. A smaller, angular-reflective screen with a lower gain might be what you will need. Home theater is about compromise, as you are no doubt beginning to learn. If price were no object, I would say put in a huge matte white screen with a gain of 1.0 and a really bright (read expensive) PJ up high. Unfortunately, price is usually an object for most of us. Once you understand the limitations, I am sure you will be able to find a compromise that suits you. Hope this helps.


----------



## jarablue

Wow thank you so much. I will post pictures of my basement living room within an hour. Thank you again!


----------



## jarablue

The mount point of this projector will be here in the recess of this room: (pardon the picture quality I am stuck with a laptop web cam)











Now the beggining of that room, where the square is(entrance), I want to mount it on a table shooting out or having a mount drop down from the celing(inside the entrance not on the entrance top) just enough to have clearance from the top entrance(square). The height of my celing is 94 inches and the top of the entrance is about 75 inches. So I would have to drop the mount from the celing 19 inches for clearance. This is where I need the help. The minium throw of the ax2000 is 14 ft. I really like the idea of using minium throw so I am going to mount this as close to the display as I can without going beyond that number.


This is going to be my screen area that is right in front of that room..












From side to side of the wall, in from the railing on the left, it is about 137 inches. And from celing to floor is 94 inches. You guys should have a good idea now of the room. My screen is going to cover the windows completely and the entire wall. The furniture will be removed and re arranged. The wall will be completely empty cept for the widows, which will be either blacktaped if I get fixed screen or if I get a manual screen NP. Those blinds and curtains block a good amount of light so in the daytime when my wife watches tv it will be decent lighting. I get home at 6pm and it is night here after I am done working. That is when this will be used. We watch tv with a light on in the basement kitchen which is in anohter room. When it's movie and xbox360 night, there are no lights on except the projector. Completely dark. This is my furnished basement and is naturally dark. So my lighting will no be an issue at all to me.


The screen I am debating on is HP 79047C with custom dimensions of 127.75w and 71.7h. The case will be 135 inches which will fit the top of that wall perfectly from edge to edge. Or I am thinking of another screen hopefully you guys can recommend with seeing the pictures.


Seeing both pics I would like you guys to give me suggestions on how to mount and where in the pics (celing or desk) and whatnot. I am thinking of a celing mount just so my family can lounge around easier. The HP rep told me for optimal picture I should mount the projector somewhere near eye lvl and something about the screen bouncing the light back toward the path of the projector (retro reflecting?) I am just torn on optimal projector placement for my room and what screen I should get for that for best vibrancy/image.


Seating. I will most likely having couches in the front of the entrance to that room. Making me think celing mounting will be best so we can lounge around easier then if desk mounted. Seating will be 120 inches from the windows. And no one will ever be outside the width of this screen. But I have white walls which have to stay white (wife!)


Again you guys are priceless with your advice. I am looking forward to your suggestions. Thank you!!!


Edit: And thinking about my screen purchase....I want to buy one that will last me a very long time. So I do not want to skimp out on this. My budget will be UP TO 1k flat. NO MORE then 1k. But of course the less I spend the better. I do not mind manual screens. But I think with that budget fixed frames are out no? I would love a fixed frame though. I just want the best COLOR VIBRACNY. So seeing my room setup can you guys recommend the best screen/gain and where I can buy it from for the best deal (cheap and fast?). Thank you


----------



## FLBoy

Jarablue- I don't see any major problems with what you are planning. With your proposed higher PJ mount you should still get a gain of about 1.5 from the HP, which should produce adequate brightness with the 1080UB.


One concern I do have is that some here have reported physical waves/wrinkles with large manual screens. You may want to consider an electric to minimize the strain on the screen material (as well as your wife). Electric adds about $200, but you should be able to find discounts of about 40% on Da-Lite screens if you shop around. I would suggest you contact the AVScience Store (link at the top of this page) for a quote when you are sure what you want. You can also browse pricing at thefinalclick.com, which carries a wide selection of Da-Lite screens.


I am also concerned that you may be getting a screen that is too big. This of course gets into the realm of personal preference, but a good rule of thumb is viewing distance = 1.5 x screen width. Your stated viewing distance is 115", which is 0.9 x your 128" width. Unless you and your family always sit on the front row at your local cinema, you may find your proposed screen size too overwhelming--particularly for TV watching. Just as a reference, I sit 150" from my 87" wide fixed frame HP screen and do not yearn for anything bigger.


----------



## Joseph Clark

I sit about 11' from a 110" diagonal HP screen and often yearn for something larger.







I envy my friend who was able to put up a 119" HP at about the same distance. I never see pixel structure at that distance with my Sharp 20k 1080p projector. It's a matter of personal preference.


----------



## millerwill

Yes, screen size preference varies a great deal from one individual to another. As many people have said, it's a good idea to set up the pj first and show it on a wall (or some other temporary surface) for several weeks to see what size you like, and then buy the screen. I think more people regret not going larger than they do than the other way around, but I'm sure there are exceptions. I sit at about 1.3 screen widths away (12 ft from a 126" diag fixed frame HP), and find this just right for me.


PS I tried showing a 133" diag size on my wall for several weeks, since that is one of the standard sizes that Dalite makes. But it was just too big from my (and wife's) seating distance, at least for us. So I went down to the 126" (Dalite will actually make any size you want).


----------



## jarablue

Thanks so much!!!


Can't wait till the family checks out the setup. It'll be the talk of the town!!


Thanks so much!


----------



## FLBoy

Hey jarablue ... Enjoy!!


Glad we could be of help.


----------



## Hopstretch

Hey all. Have an RS1 on the way and this thread (together with the kindness of another forum member who let me view his setup) has sold me on the High Power combo. I'll be throwing 17 feet to a 106" diagonal, with seats at about 12 feet. Can anyone venture a back-of-the-envelope gain estimate if the projector is mounted a foot above eye line, with seating at about 10 degrees max. Sure it will be plenty, but just curious.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hopstretch* /forum/post/12972734
> 
> 
> Hey all. Have an RS1 on the way and this thread (together with the kindness of another forum member who let me view his setup) has sold me on the High Power combo. I'll be throwing 17 feet to a 106" diagonal, with seats at about 12 feet. Can anyone venture a back-of-the-envelope gain estimate if the projector is mounted a foot above eye line, with seating at about 10 degrees max. Sure it will be plenty, but just curious.



With the pj that close to eye level, you should be close to the full 2.8 gain. You are going to LOVE the pic this setup will provide for you! Happy viewing.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/12973496
> 
> 
> With the pj that close to eye level, you should be close to the full 2.8 gain. You are going to LOVE the pic this setup will provide for you! Happy viewing.



My eyes, my eyes!!!


----------



## watsonusn

Can i get a head check on my screen size? I currently have a home made 100" screen, with seating about 20 feet away, it was fine. Now ive moved, & its 12' 3" wall to wall, so roughly a 10.5-11' seating distance. The projector is an HD1000u, ceiling mounted at about 7'. The screen is 22" off the floor. I havent set anything up yet, but just from looking at the distance from the couch to the other wall, it looks too big. I was thinking maybe an 85" screen would be better? I want to give the HP a go, so i figured id ask here.


----------



## m_tyson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *watsonusn* /forum/post/12974339
> 
> 
> Can i get a head check on my screen size? I currently have a home made 100" screen, with seating about 20 feet away, it was fine. Now ive moved, & its 12' 3" wall to wall, so roughly a 10.5-11' seating distance. The projector is an HD1000u, ceiling mounted at about 7'. The screen is 22" off the floor. I havent set anything up yet, but just from looking at the distance from the couch to the other wall, it looks too big. I was thinking maybe an 85" screen would be better? I want to give the HP a go, so i figured id ask here.



Here's a size/distance calculator:
http://myhometheater.homestead.com/v...alculator.html 


At 11 feet, you are a hair closer than THX recommends, but personal preference rules. Give it a try.


----------



## Rickd

what do you lose if you have ceilling mount ie not quite in line with eye level ie a little compromise with this material


----------



## Will d s




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rickd* /forum/post/12975700
> 
> 
> what do you lose if you have ceilling mount ie not quite in line with eye level ie a little compromise with this material



You will lose brightness the farther off from eye level that you go but if you are not too far off you will still benefit from it.


----------



## Teddy Bruckshot

Pretty impressive set to say the least.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hopstretch* /forum/post/12972734
> 
> 
> Hey all. Have an RS1 on the way and this thread (together with the kindness of another forum member who let me view his setup) has sold me on the High Power combo. I'll be throwing 17 feet to a 106" diagonal, with seats at about 12 feet. Can anyone venture a back-of-the-envelope gain estimate if the projector is mounted a foot above eye line, with seating at about 10 degrees max. Sure it will be plenty, but just curious.



I agree with millerwill that the gain should be excellent, although probably not quite 2.8. It is hard to achieve 2.8 unless you wear the projector as a hat! If you want numbers, you can use my screen gain calculator (thread linked below). Note also that you will improve screen gain uniformity if you can adjust the PJ throw somewhat nearer to your seating distance. You can play with the calculator values to see what I mean. Setup parameters for the HP are in post #2 of the thread.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/12976994
> 
> 
> I agree with millerwill that the gain should be excellent, although probably not quite 2.8. It is hard to achieve 2.8 unless you wear the projector as a hat!



It's almost like a hat!: about a ft above and a ft to the right of my head (on a stand between two recliners). In my case, however, it's basically just my wife and I (kids are grown and out on their own), with friends or relatives only occasionally, so things wouldn't be quite so ideal in a larger 'theater room' type HT.


----------



## Hopstretch

Thanks millerwill and FLBoy.


Razzle dazzle!


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/12977660
> 
> 
> It's almost like a hat!: about a ft above and a ft to the right of my head (on a stand between two recliners). In my case, however, it's basically just my wife and I (kids are grown and out on their own), with friends or relatives only occasionally, so things wouldn't be quite so ideal in a larger 'theater room' type HT.



Your setup is almost identical to mine (pedestal mount, two recliners either side), except that my PJ is about 5 feet to the rear. Per my gain calculator, this is not the best location for brightness uniformity, but my PJ's fan is a bit too noisy to put it right beside my ear. Fortunately, the human eye/brain can handle a fair amount of brightness nonuniformity without noticing it. Maybe someday I will get a new PJ with a super quiet fan and then I will be able to duplicate your setup, which I agree is near ideal.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/12978280
> 
> 
> Your setup is almost identical to mine (pedestal mount, two recliners either side), except that my PJ is about 5 feet to the rear. Per my gain calculator, this is not the best location for brightness uniformity, but my PJ's fan is a bit too noisy to put it right beside my ear. Fortunately, the human eye/brain can handle a fair amount of brightness nonuniformity without noticing it. Maybe someday I will get a new PJ with a super quiet fan and then I will be able to duplicate your setup, which I agree is near ideal.



I was worried about whether or not fan noise would be a problem, but fortunately the RS1(in low lamp mode) is OK in this regard (may be helped by my 67 yr old ears!). I can hear it when there is no audio, but rarely ever notice it if there is. But I wouldn't want a pj that is any louder, and would of course not mind if it were less (e.g., like the Sony VW60, or Mits 5000/6000, etc.) Many of the dlp's are louder, and that might be a problem in my location.


----------



## SRT-10 Viper

I am looking at a Da-lite B CSR 106" Diag High Power. I can't tell by the literature and the pictures if I ceiling mount on an 8 foot ceiling and want the picture top to be 20 inches bellow the ceiling, is there felt (or material )above the actual screen to allow for this?


----------



## smithfarmer

I'm pretty sure that when you order it you can tell them how much drop that you want. The drop is the amount of black material between the case and the top of the actual screen area.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Drop is also available on most Da-Lite wall, ceiling and electric screens. Drop is extra fabric added to the top or bottom of the screen to adjust the screen surface to within normal viewing heights. Drop can be specified in either black or white.
> 
> 
> Note: Tensioned electric screens are standard with 12" black drop at the top in all sizes except for 200" diagonal which is standard with 4" black drop.


 http://www.da-lite.com/products/selecting.php


----------



## mystery

I guess I'll contribute here with regard to the waves and High Power screens. I have owned two of these, one @ 92" and the other @ 106". Both 16:9. Both Model B manual pull down.


There are waves in both unfortunately. However the amazing thing is that you only notice them during panning scenes. Slow panning scenes that is. A regular static shot renders them invisible. You can see them while standing off to the side right up at the screen projector on or off. But I haven't watched a movie from that seating in years.

















But depending on the number and size of the waves, whenever there is a slow panning scene things get ugly. I hate it. I otherwise absolutely love High Power screens. I just wish I could get rid of these waves once and for all.


I'm moving to a new home in April and will have a theater room with black walls and ceiling. Windows will have black honeycomb cellular blackout shades. I am considering getting another High Power screen in 133" 16:9 AR. I've been considering a fixed frame screen but don't wish to go through the hassles of stretching, sweating and swearing that most people seem to endure.










So the options left are manual pull down or electric non tensioned. I could also order the material or take out the material and attach it to the wall and put a frame around it I suppose. I'm not real handy with woodworking skills though. Is there any place where the exact size framing can be ordered with black felt on it?


Wayne


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mystery* /forum/post/13029941
> 
> 
> I am considering getting another High Power screen in 133" 16:9 AR. I've been considering a fixed frame screen but don't wish to go through the hassles of stretching, sweating and swearing that most people seem to endure.



It's really not that difficult! After screwing the frame together, my wife held the frame vertical while I snapped the HP material onto it. Yes, a little tugging to stretch it tight, but really not bad; and you only do it once. And the result is extremely satisfactory. (My HP is 126" diag; I just couldn't quite manage the 133" one, but would have if I had been able to.)


----------



## Joseph Clark

It is fairly easy as long as you don't try to do all the snapping while the screen is on the floor, as Da-Lite instructs. If you can hold it vertical (you'll need some help), the whole process is relatively painless. I lost about 5 pounds trying to do it according to the instructions.


----------



## Grayson73

Are people getting waves because they roll the screen up and down?


----------



## mystery

That doesn't sound TOO bad.










Thanks for the encouragement. I guess I'll keep this option in the mix then.











Wayne


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/13030436
> 
> 
> It is fairly easy as long as you don't try to do all the snapping while the screen is on the floor, as Da-Lite instructs. If you can hold it vertical (you'll need some help), the whole process is relatively painless. I lost about 5 pounds trying to do it according to the instructions.



Really agree, Joe! With my wife holding the frame vertical, it really wasn't bad at all. And the result with a fixed frame screen is outstanding. The only down side is the extra price, but I guess that just the way it is.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mystery* /forum/post/13029941
> 
> 
> I've been considering a fixed frame screen but don't wish to go through the hassles of stretching, sweating and swearing that most people seem to endure.



But you only have to do it once... one afternoon of hell... and then you're good to go forever more... or at least 'till you get upgrade-itis again.


----------



## mystery

I thought I'd only get married once but upgraditis hit in a big way there too!

















Wayne


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mystery* /forum/post/13030470
> 
> 
> That doesn't sound TOO bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the encouragement. I guess I'll keep this option in the mix then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wayne



It also makes the job easier if you snap the four corners first and then snap the rest.


----------



## mystery

Yeah, that makes sense.










Wayne


----------



## jarablue

I guess on a 128x72 viewable DaLite HP screen, the Epson Pro Cinema 1080 UB would be barely making it? I mean the image would suffer due to the size of that screen? I am mounting it 12 inches from eye lvl and 14-18 ft throw. Would this not look good?


Or should I shrink the screen size (I dont want to!!!!) and get a cinema vision? Or keep the HP? I really want my 128x72. But someone told me the ProCinema1080UB would be hurting at that size/throw listed....


What to do?


----------



## SRT-10 Viper

I am looking at the HP, Deluxe model B. Has anyone tried / seen it. Does the tension bar remove most of the waves in the screen? Also what's the difference between C and B models. I know the C models are heavier and can go larger so I assume it's more sturdy. Any other feedback on the two?


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jarablue* /forum/post/13037502
> 
> 
> I guess on a 128x72 viewable DaLite HP screen, the Epson Pro Cinema 1080 UB would be barely making it? I mean the image would suffer due to the size of that screen? I am mounting it 12 inches from eye lvl and 14-18 ft throw. Would this not look good?
> 
> 
> Or should I shrink the screen size (I dont want to!!!!) and get a cinema vision? Or keep the HP? I really want my 128x72. But someone told me the ProCinema1080UB would be hurting at that size/throw listed....
> 
> 
> What to do?



The 128x72 HP should be plenty bright with that arrangement.


----------



## AaronS

I sent this originally as PM to Tryg, and he suggested I post it here. Any advice would be appreciated. I have considered going a little larger in the screen (maybe the 58"x194"), but I only have about 13 feet available on the wall that is going to have the screen in front of it. I don't want to place it all the way to the right of that wall, or all viewing would be at an unnatural angle, plus I have floor standing speakers that need to go to the sides of the screen (42" high).


Another thing I didn't mention originally is that the room has a stepped ceiling that will be at 9 feet at the wall, stepping up to 10 feet a foot from the wall. Because of the requirement to clear a wall mounted set, the screen will be mounted recessed at the 10 foot level. I assume I will need an extended black border at the top of the screen. My understanding is that this is an orderable option. With that in mind and the screen being 54-58" high, how high can I afford to have the screen, without the sensation of looking "up" to watch the movie. I think some would be O.K. and would like the screen to be as high as possible to avoid the image clipping objects in the room.


The rest is as follows:

Re: Still like the Da-lite HP screen?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


yes post this to the forum.


yes it's a superb screen. If set up properly the best.


It's on thick vinyl so you cant tension it, light wont shine through it and you dont need to worry about it wrinkling.


although those dimensions aren't that large for a 2.8 gain screen. It should be very bright depending on the projector





Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronS

Tryg,


I'm currently building a new home and after reading your review, I felt the Da-lite High Power screen might be just what I'm looking for.


Do you still feel it is one of the best screens out there? I looking to use an electric screen and have considered one of the Da-lite masking screens, or the Director Electrol, an Advantage Electrol, or others.


I have a friend in the AV business and he tells me I really need a tensioned screen, or the edges will eventually start curling. The HP screen material only seems to be available in the non-tensioned screens.


Is there a reason for this? Why isn't the HP available in a tensioned screen? A fixed screen is not an option for me, as this will be in a family room (around 17'x19').


The plan would be to have an electric screen come down when wanting to do some "serious" movie watching, to cover a wall mounted flat screen of 55"-65" range. The screen will be probably the 54"x96" size and will need to be mounted offset from the wall by 1'-2'. The main seating position will be in the short dimension from the screen, probably around 13'-14' from the screen.


The projector is to be mounted behind the wall a foot or two above eye level while seated on the couch, with the lens around even with the wall, or slightly behind on a shelf in my master closet.


The room has windows to the East and I will not make it entirely light proof, but they will have blinds and curtains, so the light will be able to be subdued to a large extent and I likely would not use the projector unless it was dark outside. I live in a rural situation and it will be perfectly dark at night, other than moonlight, but that should be easily controlled.


Obviously there will be some seating positions in the setup that are not ideally located for the screen type and location, but if the image is of uniform brightness to them, and not washed out looking, I would think it would still be pretty cool. I'll likely use it mostly with just my wife and I, so I'm really wanting to optimize it for that.


The projector I'm designing it for is the JVC RS1, or RS2 (If I win the lottery )


Do you think this will be a winning combination?


Do I need to get a rear lined screen, since there will be space between the back and the wall, and it is possible light could hit the rear of the screen from windows/lights in the kitchen/breakfast area.


I'm hoping the retroreflective aspect of the screen will keep the ambient light situation manageable. My belief is that this should also minimize the effect of a light colored ceiling. I'll try to tone that down a little, but it's had to get any sort of WAF in painting the ceiling a very dark color.


My wife also likes a little illumination during many movies (If I don't whine too much). I think I've read it is best to have such lights mounted slightly in front of the seating position, aimed back towards the viewers?


Can you convince me that a non-tensioned screen will not curl? Otherwise an electric Da-lite HP screen may be part of my future!


Maybe I should have just posted this on the forum!


Thanks,


Aaron S


----------



## Steve Dodds

I'd like to be the voice in the wilderness again.


I tried out an HP screen years ago with an Infocus X1 and couldn't handle what it did to blacks.


I recently bought an RS1 and tried a HP out again after all the positive comments about the combination, with many saying the blacks on the RS1 are so good the increased level the HP causes doesn't matter.


I have to say that I wonder if we are looking at the same image.


My RS1 with my 120" HP screen was extraordinarily bright, which was nice. But the blacks were extraordinarily high as well. I assume most bought the RS1/Rs2 for the same reason I did - deep blacks and good whites.


But any projector can do bright whites. What makes the JVC (and the VW60 etc) unique is deep blacks too. With the HP, the RS1 can't. Even an ND2 filter didn't help, although it dulled the flaming whites.


My RS1 replaced a projector that could, in brightest mode, power out 1500 lumens. It was bright, peppy, contrasty etc etc. But blacks suffered.


That's what the RS1 looks like with the HP.


Again, I just don't get it.


Addendum:

I should qualify this by saying that I may have a brighter than normal RS1. Mine lights up my 125" grey screen just fine even after 700 hours. With the HP it was twice as bright as my 32" direct view monitor.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

If the white level is fine for you then you don't need a HP screen otherwise it will do what you are seeing.


It's not true that all projectors can do bright whites - if the screen size is too large for the lumen output you are going to get a very low reflectance level, and if you don't like that kind of image then you will need a higher gain screen.


If you have a very large screen (lets say 15ft wide 16:9) and want a white level that is similar to cinema levels of reflectance then you may need the HP. For example, an HD1 with around 600 lumens when new will give you around 4.75 foot lamberts. That's less than the 12fL +- 2fL recommended for cinema so you will need the HP to bring you up to around those levels (depending on your line of view in the viewing cone).


Gary


----------



## FLBoy

AaronS- I have a family room HT similar to yours. I can assure you that with light walls and ceiling you will *not* get inky blacks no matter what PJ and screen you use. Having said that, I further believe that the High Power screen will give you the best contrast and the best rejection of the reflected wall/ceiling light, particularly if you can darken at least the rear of the HT room. My HP screen is slightly smaller (100" diag. 16:9) than your proposed size, and I do not find it too bright at all. The extra gain does advantageously allow me to run my Epson Home 1080 in the low-power Theater Dark mode for best color and reduced fan noise.


----------



## millerwill

Steve, It does seem like we are looking at different things, for my RS1 with a 126" diag HP produces a very constrasty pic, with deep blacks (and detailed structure in them)--at least to my eyes! But as FLBoy said, it is imp to have the back wall (the one opposite the screen) as non-reflective as possible; I have dark drapes across it. I also have black material on the ceiling about 6 ft out from the wall the screen is on, and this made a quite noticeable improvement. But I do agreed that we all see things differently.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/13088058
> 
> 
> Steve, It does seem like we are looking at different things, for my RS1 with a 126" diag HP produces a very constrasty pic, with deep blacks (and detailed structure in them)--at least to my eyes! But as FLBoy said, it is imp to have the back wall (the one opposite the screen) as non-reflective as possible; I have dark drapes across it. I also have black material on the ceiling about 6 ft out from the wall the screen is on, and this made a quite noticeable improvement. But I do agreed that we all see things differently.



Sometimes less than stellar blacks are the result of an improperly set "enhanced" input. It think it effects the black level floor. PC vs. video or something like that. Mine got set correctly a year ago and I've forgotten the exact details.


----------



## Joseph Clark

I have a 110" HP paired with a Sharp 20K 1080p projector. I need the extra brightness, because this is relatively dim projector. With the HP, I couldn't be happier with both white and black levels. I do have a very light controlled environment - from dark carpeting to dark navy blue colored walls and ceiling.


----------



## AaronS

Since my screen size is not that great, would I be better off using something like the upcoming SI Black Diamond material? Since it is angular reflective, I could move the projector mounting position higher, which would probably also reduce noise from the projector as perceived from the seating postions.


Maybe one of the near unity gain white or grey screens? I thought I had this figured out, and now I'm starting to wonder. I do think I can treat some of the walls in some manner to reduce reflections of light and sound. The home will have a western theme, and I can hang some decorations on the wall that should help overall.


AaronS


----------



## hrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AaronS* /forum/post/13113591
> 
> 
> Since my screen size is not that great, would I be better off using something like the upcoming SI Black Diamond material? Since it is angular reflective, I could move the projector mounting position higher, which would probably also reduce noise from the projector as perceived from the seating postions.
> 
> 
> Maybe one of the near unity gain white or grey screens? I thought I had this figured out, and now I'm starting to wonder. I do think I can treat some of the walls in some manner to reduce reflections of light and sound. The home will have a western theme, and I can hang some decorations on the wall that should help overall.
> 
> 
> AaronS



The Black Diamond sounds promising, especially for those of us who do not have a bat cave, but it remains to be seen how well it performs when it comes out. If it performs as well as Screen Innovations claims it does, I will be buying one. If not, I will go with a high gain screen. You may have to wait a month or two before there's a decent amount of feedback on it.


----------



## Semisentient

(I copied my post from the +3000K forum - I am using an Epson Pro 1080UB with this screen)


I received my new screen yesterday and put 'r up...


It's a 139" x 78" DaLite High Power Model C. Since I like the brightness I was getting on my painted screen at 110" wide I tried to set everything up to give me a similar brightness.


I think I figured the new screen would be 1.8 the area of the old, so I aimed to get a gain of 1.8 with my setup.


Originally I decided to build a bar right behind my couch (chesterfield for us Canucks) that would also house the projector. This would have placed the projector near eye level and helped generate the highest gain. Once I got the projector, I realized it was bright enough to allow more flexible projector positioning. Plus I had the mount now anyways...


So, anyways it seems like I will be able to both ceiling mount the projector (I may let it hang at around 6 feet, so I will have to make an extension piece for the mount - the ceiling at that point is 9.5 feet), and also put it farther back trading some lumen for a bit more contrast.


I did a temporary setup and was very pleased with the results. The picture is bigger, but very similar in brightness and black level. In the past I have read posts saying a HP screen will ruin black level. Not if you are getting the screen to increase size, not brightness! If the HP increases brightness, but you also increase the area projected you end up with the same FL at the screen. If anything a blacks are a bit better because the HP screen will reject more ambient light (send it back towards it's source).


I mounted the screen too low for now, so will have to re-adjust. The bottom is more of less sitting on the floor. I like it like this, but don't have room for the centre speaker... I'll move it up 2 feet or so. That wall is 14' high, so I have lots of room to play with...


Other observations (many just reconfirming what has been written 1000 times on these forums...)


- no detectable hotspot

- screen surface/structure not visible

- less affected by projector/viewer positioning than I thought.

- does the case come in black? mine was white, I didn't think about that when ordering and I was not asked for a preference.


go big or go home! (or go home and go big)


----------



## mystery

That's one high wall you've got there.







I can see how a 150" screen won't look too big on a surface that size.


The casing can be special ordered as black. There is an extra charge, usually around $40.00 or $60.00 some where in there if I'm not mistaken. If the option didn't come up while ordering the screen on line then I would have phoned the dealer and specified black.


You can cover it with black felt which you may need to hang anyway to cover the top bar on 2.35:1 presentations. What I've done is go to Home Depot and get a magnetic roll. I think it comes in packages of 10'. You can snip off what you need and place it along the edge of the black felt. It has a sticky back to it. The other side being magnetic, adheres to the metal casing and then you can adjust the felt up and down to align it perfectly with the bar and the image. Works great! So you'll be masking your top border and covering up the white casing at the same time.










Wayne


----------



## mystery

I'm thinking of getting this exact screen in the 133" size. Would you carefully inspect for waves. It must have some even if you can't see them when the projector is on. What I'm most worried about is slow panning shots. My 106" High Power has waves that can be seen when the projector is off but can't be seen when it's on except for these slow panning shots.


Wayne


----------



## shigaloo

quick question:


I have a ceiling mounted PJ about 12' from a 106" screen in an all white room. Will a High Power light up the white ceiling even more than a unity gain screen and if so will it be a big problem?


----------



## Semisentient




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mystery* /forum/post/13127380
> 
> 
> I'm thinking of getting this exact screen in the 133" size. Would you carefully inspect for waves. It must have some even if you can't see them when the projector is on. What I'm most worried about is slow panning shots. My 106" High Power has waves that can be seen when the projector is off but can't be seen when it's on except for these slow panning shots.
> 
> 
> Wayne



It does has some waves, but I have not noticed them in the projected image at all yet. I have only sampled a bunch of movies so I can't be sure I will never see them.


I will probably take the screen out of the case and fix it to the wall. I find a little extra tension just about takes out all the waves.


----------



## wohlstad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steve Dodds* /forum/post/13086369
> 
> 
> I'd like to be the voice in the wilderness again.
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> I recently bought an RS1 and tried a HP out again after all the positive comments about the combination, with many saying the blacks on the RS1 are so good the increased level the HP causes doesn't matter.
> 
> 
> I have to say that I wonder if we are looking at the same image.
> 
> 
> My RS1 with my 120" HP screen was extraordinarily bright, which was nice. But the blacks were extraordinarily high as well.
> 
> Again, I just don't get it.
> 
> 
> Addendum:
> 
> I should qualify this by saying that I may have a brighter than normal RS1. Mine lights up my 125" grey screen just fine even after 700 hours. With the HP it was twice as bright as my 32" direct view monitor.



I think the HP makes sense if one uses it to maintain brightness on a larger area, not the other way around.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *shigaloo* /forum/post/13128123
> 
> 
> quick question:
> 
> 
> I have a ceiling mounted PJ about 12' from a 106" screen in an all white room. Will a High Power light up the white ceiling even more than a unity gain screen and if so will it be a big problem?



Quick answer: Yes and yes, unless you move your PJ down to near eye level.


----------



## drizzo4shizzo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Grayson73* /forum/post/13030459
> 
> 
> Are people getting waves because they roll the screen up and down?



I have the Model C w/CSR and I do not think i have any waves at all. I certainly haven't noticed any. The Model C has a wider roller it mitigates the risk of waves. When I get home I'll double check but I definitely have not noticed any waves at all, and I have the 119" paired with a Panny AX-100 - it's like a 10' plasma I swear










To be honest this post serves a double purpose - the screen in question is actually posted in "for sale" because I have 6" extra drop which I no longer want. Having moved into a house, the new space (in picture) has lower (7.5') ceilings and this makes the screen block all my AV components.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/vbcla...?do=ad&id=3082 


One day they'll be in a closet and out of sight anyway, but I need the extra 6" back so I can do multiple rows of seats without having people's heads smacking the ceiling.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/vbcla...?do=ad&id=3082 


I reviewed the forum rules and I believe this post is fine but I apologize if you feel spammed







. Hopefully someone out there will be looking for this and will get a sweet deal


----------



## deanzsyclone




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smithfarmer* /forum/post/9254044
> 
> 
> F
> 
> 
> All kidding aside, this shot does look like it was taken very slightly off axis and both SilverStar samples appear much brighter than the HP sample. What gives?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been toying with the idea of getting an 11' wide 2.35:1 HP to complement my 9' wide 16:9 SS as well. How high is the pj's lens from the floor and what is the height from the top of the HP's screens viewable area to the floor?



Yah that's got me confused also, why does the silverstar look WAY more brighter than the one you report being the brightest (HP)? Especially since the photo shows to be taken from straight on!


Still enjoying my silverstar just trying to make sense out of what's written and what's shown.


----------



## Scrimpin

Hi folks. I have made it through about half of the posts here and think I have a good idea of what the HP will and will not do, but I would like to get my interpretations verified by those of you in the know:


1. To get max gain the HP should be placed at eye level of the viewer (not mid-point of screen?)


2. If ceiling mounted, the HP will provide an effective gain of 1.0.


Now, what I am unsure about is whether it is a good idea to use a HP on smaller size acreens. I was thinking of Carada BW but the HP has me curious now.


My set up is a 96" 16:9 diag. screen (I could go max 106" but frame would be but up against columns on each side. My seating is ~11-12 ft. back. I plan on adding a second tiered row ~16 ft. back (8 inch riser). I presently mount my projector (Sony HS-20) 14~ back but have flexibility to move back to 18-19 ft. back. 8 ft. ceiling painted beige. All other walls are GOM black (which I find to be quite reflective) and a very deep blue. Total light control. I plan on upgrading projector to probably the Epson 1080UB.


What bothers me about my DIY (behr silverscreen) screen is the light reflected on the side columns (currently 6" to each side of screen) and the ceiling. I planned on using a dark fabric but maybe a HP would help to get rid of the reflection, correct?


Also, if I mount my projector at eye level (not my preference but willing for 90% of movie watching) I can simply mount the projector on ceiling for football parties when there is walking around.


Sorry for the long post. I greatly appreciate your advice.


----------



## scottyb

1. Incorrect. The projector should be as close to eye level as possible. The HP reflects light back to where it came from so the closer your eye level is to the source the brighter it will be.

2.If your talking your projector you are correct.

How are you going to move your projector regularly?


scott


----------



## Scrimpin

I would only move it from it's eye level position, to a ceiling mount, a couple times per year. Do you think the HP would be too bright for a 96" screen from 11 feet (assuming 1080UB projector)


----------



## scottyb

No.

I have a Highpower and really like it.


Scott


----------



## JackLT

I use a HP with a 92" screen from 11.5' ... perfect !


Where you put the screen height does not matter,

be sure to get the projector as close to eye level as possible, can make a big difference.


If you go with an large offset between your eyes and the projecgtor,

I find the gain drops and the contrast drops, looks much worse.

The HP is best with projectors shelf mounted within the screen height.


If one has to ceiling mount, I'd suggest another screen.


----------



## grisch

HP folks, I've demo'd quite of few projectors over the past couple of weeks here in C-Bus (Sony 60, JVC RS-1, Marantz-can't remember to model, Epson 1080, Espon 1080UB). So far, the Epson 1080UB (ceiling mounted) with the Da-Lite HP screen has looked the best to me. The extra brightness was stunning for HD sports, my primary viewing preference, and the blacks still looked good to me (even on standard DVD like star wars).


I was hoping to get some suggestions for the largest screen size for the following room parameters: 18ft wide by 34 ft long with ceiling starting at 11ft high at the front of the room to 9ft high at the back of the room. The viewing distances will be from 12 or 13ft back to about 20ft.


Thanks


----------



## hrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *grisch* /forum/post/13575110
> 
> 
> HP folks, I've demo'd quite of few projectors over the past couple of weeks here in C-Bus (Sony 60, JVC RS-1, Marantz-can't remember to model, Epson 1080, Espon 1080UB). So far, the Epson 1080UB (ceiling mounted) with the Da-Lite HP screen has looked the best to me. The extra brightness was stunning for HD sports, my primary viewing preference, and the blacks still looked good to me (even on standard DVD like star wars).
> 
> 
> I was hoping to get some suggestions for the largest screen size for the following room parameters: 18ft wide by 34 ft long with ceiling starting at 11ft high at the front of the room to 9ft high at the back of the room. The viewing distances will be from 12 or 13ft back to about 20ft.
> 
> 
> Thanks



Tech support at Da-Lite told me the HP material can be had up to 74" high seamless. In 16X9 format, that will allow you to have a screen that is 151" diagonal. In 2.35:1 format, that will allow you to go 174" wide. They can make you a larger screen if you don't mind a seam, but they told me they would not allow a seam in a fixed frame.


According to the Epson Pro Cinema 1080 UB manual, the largest size that can be projected is 150" diagonal.


I like bright, too, but even with the HP material, 150"-151" is a lot of screen to fill up, so I think you might want to make sure you have plenty of lumens for it. The Epson would be the brightest, but only if you're okay with running it in high bulb. Vivid mode messes up the colors, but it gains much of its lumens just from having the bulb in high mode, which you can do with the other modes. Read the main thread on it in the 3000+ forum, though, so that you are aware of all the quality control issues.


----------



## CADOBHuK

The manual most likely states the spec for 1.0 gain screens.

With high power in absolut perfect setup that'd translate into 3 times larger area, such as 200" diagonal, could still be watchable.

Those are my guesses.


----------



## Kelvin1965S

I almost feel embarassed to post in this thread as a Greywolf II owner, given the scathing comments on the GW owner's thread.







In my defence it is the first screen I've had and was based purely on screen calculator's suggestion that I needed a 1.8 gain approx for my then AE1000 (now AE2000) to use a 120" screen at long throw and availability/price in the UK. I see that a number of former Greywolf owners have replaced them with HP screens, so I'd like to ask a few questions about this 'upgrade'.


I'm looking at getting a 133" up from my 120" Greywolf II. I currently like the good blacks with this screen, my room is completely dark, no ambient light when viewing, but has light side walls, a dark brown screen wall and a white ceiling. I actually use an ND4 filter at the moment as I find it too bright without, plus it makes the blacks even deeper. I occasionally find the screen texture annoying on the GW, but no sparklies (possibly because of my ND filter), but I understand the HP is smoother so is less likely to give this effect. Ideally I would have liked another Grey screen, but they seem difficult to find with any gain ( I like to have the headroom available for future lamp dimming and occasional ambient light viewing). Oh; the Stewart Firehawk is just too expensive incase anyone suggests that. For info I have my PJ on a shelf behind me at less than 12" above me, which I gather is the ideal for the HP.


My question is: Would I loose the blacks with the HP even if I continued to use the ND filter, or would I have to use an ND8? I also wondered if the HP has a tighter viewing cone than my GW II and therefore would it help reject the white ceiling and light side walls better? Finally, can the drop on the Cosmopolitan Electrol be set higher (like my GW) so that only a 2.35:1 section is viewable below my screen pelmet (soffit)? So many questions, but hopefully someone who has already troden this path might be able to advise.


----------



## millerwill

It sounds like you will have an excellent setup for the HP. The blacks will be elevated, but so will the whites, so the CR remains the same. So yes, you can use an ND filter to reduce both if you find it too bright. Also yes, the narrow viewing cone of the HP will reduce reflections from side walls and ceiling.


I had a GWII very briefly and liked it fine except for the horrible screen texture. The HP that I've had now for over a year is a major step up.


----------



## noah katz

Eleveated blacks from rereflected light, i.e., washout, will probably be better w/ the HP because of its retroreflectivity.


----------



## Joseph Clark

I moved from a Firehawk to the HP and it's been a major step up, in both brightness and screen uniformity - no sparklies with the HP, either (quite noticeable on the FH).


----------



## Kelvin1965S




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/13688482
> 
> 
> It sounds like you will have an excellent setup for the HP. The blacks will be elevated, but so will the whites, so the CR remains the same.



That's my only concern, in that I don't want the blacks any lighter as I find it spoils the image as I can 'see' the screen in the dark parts of the picture.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/13688878
> 
> 
> Eleveated blacks from rereflected light, i.e., washout, will probably be better w/ the HP because of its retroreflectivity.



That's good as I can't paint the room any darker than it is, ie only the screen wall is dark (which doesn't help reflections, only it does help making the image 'stand out')



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/13689256
> 
> 
> I moved from a Firehawk to the HP and it's been a major step up, in both brightness and screen uniformity - no sparklies with the HP, either (quite noticeable on the FH).



Good to knwo about the sparklies and uniformity, cheers.


----------



## thuway

So chalk one up for another person thats on the fence big time. I have a 92 inch Gray Wolf 2 in 16:9 mode. The projector is table mounted three feet in front of me but I want to change ALL of THAT.


I would like to purchase a Da Lite High Power 2.35 screen that is 44 inches tall.

I want to mount the projector behind my head on top of the sofa approximately a few inches higher than my head. My question is, will I be able to see the benefits of the Projector if it is mounted on top of the sofa above my head by a few inches?


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thuway* /forum/post/13690830
> 
> 
> So chalk one up for another person thats on the fence big time. I have a 92 inch Gray Wolf 2 in 16:9 mode. The projector is table mounted three feet in front of me but I want to change ALL of THAT.
> 
> 
> I would like to purchase a Da Lite High Power 2.35 screen that is 44 inches tall.
> 
> I want to mount the projector behind my head on top of the sofa approximately a few inches higher than my head. My question is, will I be able to see the benefits of the Projector if it is mounted on top of the sofa above my head by a few inches?



Don't know about the pj, but you will certainly see optimal performance of the HP screen.


----------



## thuway

I am running an HD1000u


----------



## Joseph Clark

That's almost exactly where mine is - above the back of the sofa less than a foot. It's a perfect spot to get high gain.


I tried hard to make my Firehawk work with a Sharp 20k projector, but I just couldn't live with the lack of brightness. I sent for samples from DaLite and Vutec (the Silverstar). I loved the HP sample and decided to figure out a way to make it work in my room. I couldn't be happier with it. It never, ever calls attention to itself, unlike the snowy sheen of the Firehawk.


----------



## nydennis

I have the Ae2000. It is mounted about 6 feet from the floor. Currently have the Graywolf II. Been thinking for a long time about what screen I want. This is the only screen that keeps popping back into my head.


I am looking at a 110 inch screen. The walls in the room are not painted black, but are not painted white either. It is a dull color. The only wall painted black in the room is the one that the screen is on.


Would the blacks be noticeably lighter? Would this even be the best screen for me? It's so tough to decide on the type of screen.


----------



## javry




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thuway* /forum/post/13690830
> 
> 
> So chalk one up for another person thats on the fence big time. I have a 92 inch Gray Wolf 2 in 16:9 mode. The projector is table mounted three feet in front of me but I want to change ALL of THAT.
> 
> 
> I would like to purchase a Da Lite High Power 2.35 screen that is 44 inches tall.
> 
> I want to mount the projector behind my head on top of the sofa approximately a few inches higher than my head. My question is, will I be able to see the benefits of the Projector if it is mounted on top of the sofa above my head by a few inches?



The visual benefits will be huge though you may suffer a bit from an audible perspective. I had mine mounted about 15 to 20 inches directly above, firing a 92 inch HP with a 13 foot throw. Great PQ.


----------



## robo1234

Great info now I am really out of sorts......(pulling trigger on JVC RS1X & screen Monday) I like a pic that pops room is small seat is 12 ft from screen screen size is 106 thinking about silverstar pj will be mounted on ceiling dark room ......Is this to much screen for sitting so near the screen?


thanks


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *robo1234* /forum/post/13739216
> 
> 
> Is this to much screen for sitting so near the screen?
> 
> 
> thanks



IMHO no! You can sit 1x screen width with the RS1. I do. It's fantastic! My front row is 10' back from a 10' wide screen. Second row is 16' For 'scope movies I much prefer the front seats. 16:9 I prefer the 16' seats.


----------



## mjg100




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/13688482
> 
> 
> It sounds like you will have an excellent setup for the HP. The blacks will be elevated, but so will the whites, so the CR remains the same. So yes, you can use an ND filter to reduce both if you find it too bright. Also yes, the narrow viewing cone of the HP will reduce reflections from side walls and ceiling.
> 
> 
> I had a GWII very briefly and liked it fine except for the horrible screen texture. The HP that I've had now for over a year is a major step up.



When I was shopping for a screen last year I almost pulled the triger on a GWII and then I came across the HP. I went with a 106" HP and I am very happy with my image, lots of pop and good contrast. I took a ceiling/floor mounted projector mount and modified it so that I could wall mount it. This allows me to have adjustable projector height anywhere from 3 feet to 6 feet above the floor. HP is a great screen that does not break the bank.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mjg100* /forum/post/13739825
> 
> 
> When I was shopping for a screen last year I almost pulled the triger on a GWII and then I came across the HP. I went with a 106" HP and I am very happy with my image, lots of pop and good contrast. I took a ceiling/floor mounted projector mount and modified it so that I could wall mount it. This allows me to have adjustable projector height anywhere from 3 feet to 6 feet above the floor. HP is a great screen that does not break the bank.



That mount sounds very neat. Can you post a pic?


----------



## mjg100




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/13740023
> 
> 
> That mount sounds very neat. Can you post a pic?



I am out of town right now, but it is a Peerless projector mount. Two tubes, one fits inside the other. I placed the foot on it so that it can rest on the floor and I attached (weld) an angle iron clip to the outside tube that I used to bolt it to the wall. The other end I installed a shelf and I bolted my projector to this shelf. Rather than install a bolt and have the projector at a fixed height, I bought a clevis pin with spring clip. This allows me to raise and lower the projector (one inch spacing) to the height that I want. It also allows me to lower the projector so that it is hidden behind a plant so you don't even notice that the room has a projector. When I get back into town I will try and remember to post a pic.


----------



## javry

the only downside I noticed with the HP was the viewing cone. Anything over 60 degrees would show a loss in PQ. For my setup, that was okay though.


----------



## Joseph Clark

Yeah, the viewing cone is a deal breaker for some people. The farther your eyes are from the lens, the less gain you'll get. But, if you can get the projector close, you'll love it. Someone who has a wide seating area would suffer. Those outermost seats would have much lower gain. Since almost all of my viewing is within the cone, it's perfect for me. When I need extra gain, I can go to high lamp mode or open the iris on my projector. It's a rare situation I'd need to do that, though.


----------



## scottyb

The thing is though, once outside the viewing cone it is still a good pic, even, just not as bright.


Scott


----------



## CADOBHuK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *javry* /forum/post/13753191
> 
> 
> the only downside I noticed with the HP was the viewing cone. Anything over 60 degrees would show a loss in PQ. For my setup, that was okay though.



Did you mean "brightness" instead of PQ? Or do you actually lose the PQ?


----------



## sfitzger

Can someone ease my mind, I just bought the HP from AVS - it came with the instructions and recommends me using method 3 of installing not the actual method 4 for High power screens, did anyone else do this? I am using a 138" 2.35 fixed frame screen



Thanks!


----------



## max90034

I have a rather common question: would it be a good idea to get HP screen? Here is my setup:


1) PJ - Panasonic AE-2000U. It will be bookshelf mounted 1-1.5' from my eyes (~0.5' above and ~1' right) in the main seating position;


2) The room (family room) is large, has no light control, white seiling and light yellow walls and many windows. However, I am planning to use PJ only during evening/night, so ambient light should not be a huge problem. Still the room most likely will have some light (my wife prefers some table lamp or something similar being ON while watching the movies) and white/yellow walls are not good, of course.


2) The distance from the screen to PJ is ~16.5'. The screen is 16:9 92" (tentatively Designer Contour Electrol Da-Lite model).


Would HP screen is too bright considering screen size, distance and projector (use it now in eco-mode)? Would HP be a good choice in general for such set up? Thanks a lot!


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *max90034* /forum/post/13811466
> 
> 
> I have a rather common question: would it be a good idea to get HP screen? Here is my setup:
> 
> 
> 1) PJ - Panasonic AE-2000U. It will be bookshelf mounted 1-1.5' from my eyes (~0.5' above and ~1' right) in the main seating position;
> 
> 
> 2) The room (family room) is large, has no light control, white seiling and light yellow walls and many windows. However, I am planning to use PJ only during evening/night, so ambient light should not be a huge problem. Still the room most likely will have some light (my wife prefers some table lamp or something similar being ON while watching the movies) and white/yellow walls are not good, of course.
> 
> 
> 2) The distance from the screen to PJ is ~16.5'. The screen is 16:9 92" (tentatively Designer Contour Electrol Da-Lite model).
> 
> 
> Would HP screen is too bright considering screen size, distance and projector (use it now in eco-mode)? Would HP be a good choice in general for such set up? Thanks a lot!



The calculator-pro at projectorcentral.com indicates that with your screen size, projector, and throw you will get 18 fL brightness with a unity gain screen. (15 fL is recommended.) As much as I love the HP--especially for very large screen sizes--I really don't think your application needs a gain screen. Why narrow your viewing angle if you don't have to?


Having said that, if you do decide to go with the HP, your setup is fine, as you can see from the screen gain calculator linked in my signature. You should get a very bright picture (about 37 fL)--if that's what you really want. The extra brightness may help to overpower ambient light from a lamp, as long as the lamp is not in the rear of the room. Unfortunately, it will also raise the black level produced by your LCD projector.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *max90034* /forum/post/13811466
> 
> 
> I have a rather common question: would it be a good idea to get HP screen? Here is my setup:
> 
> 
> 1) PJ - Panasonic AE-2000U. It will be bookshelf mounted 1-1.5' from my eyes (~0.5' above and ~1' right) in the main seating position;
> 
> 
> 2) The room (family room) is large, has no light control, white seiling and light yellow walls and many windows. However, I am planning to use PJ only during evening/night, so ambient light should not be a huge problem. Still the room most likely will have some light (my wife prefers some table lamp or something similar being ON while watching the movies) and white/yellow walls are not good, of course.
> 
> 
> 2) The distance from the screen to PJ is ~16.5'. The screen is 16:9 92" (tentatively Designer Contour Electrol Da-Lite model).
> 
> 
> Would HP screen is too bright considering screen size, distance and projector (use it now in eco-mode)? Would HP be a good choice in general for such set up? Thanks a lot!



Sounds like the location of the pj is perfect, and the light-colored walls shouldn't be bad because the HP is retro-reflective. It is not good, though, to have any light coming from the same direction as the pj. So re your wife's reading lamp, I would recommend that you get her a very directed reading light, so that very little of the light hits the screen. I have two of these, halogen lights that have a directional metal canopy that can be adjusted to focus the light on reading material, and they work very well.


----------



## sfitzger

What material can you put over your screen, incase you have to do work around it? Plastic sheet just taped to the sides?



BTW just put up the HP with the RS2 - PJ 8 in above my head - watched simpsons and fifth element - A-M-A-Z-I-N-G. I dont know why everyone complains about black levels. My ps3 black levels are real inky love it even with that high gain


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sfitzger* /forum/post/13817351
> 
> 
> What material can you put over your screen, incase you have to do work around it? Plastic sheet just taped to the sides?
> 
> 
> 
> BTW just put up the HP with the RS2 - PJ 8 in above my head - watched simpsons and fifth element - A-M-A-Z-I-N-G. I dont know why everyone complains about black levels. My ps3 black levels are real inky love it even with that high gain



Those of us who own the HP know that black levels are not an issue. IMO, in the worst case scenario, if your black levels are raised too high by using the HP, filter it. When your lamp dims, remove the filter and your brightness is like new again. (I don't have that problem, since my projector is the relatively dim Sharp XV-Z21000. As far as I'm concerned, the only downside to the HP is the viewing cone. If you can live with the narrower viewing cone, the HP excels in all other areas. I have a Firehawk sitting in my basement that I wouldn't use again. Anyone need a 109" Firehawk? Good screen and a great frame, but it doesn't compare to the HP experience.


----------



## max90034




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/13812858
> 
> 
> The calculator-pro at projectorcentral.com indicates that with your screen size, projector, and throw you will get 18 fL brightness with a unity gain screen. (15 fL is recommended.) As much as I love the HP--especially for very large screen sizes--I really don't think your application needs a gain screen. Why narrow your viewing angle if you don't have to?
> 
> 
> Having said that, if you do decide to go with the HP, your setup is fine, as you can see from the screen gain calculator linked in my signature. You should get a very bright picture (about 37 fL)--if that's what you really want. The extra brightness may help to overpower ambient light from a lamp, as long as the lamp is not in the rear of the room. Unfortunately, it will also raise the black level produced by your LCD projector.



Indeed with my sitting position the gain with HP screen should be around 1.8-1.9 (estimated using your very nice calculator), so the calculator gives about 37 fL on screen for my PJ, distance, etc. I am wondering, however, if it was estimated for Normal lamp power and using Normal picture mode. E.g., projectorcentral review reported 900 ANSI for AE-2000U in Normal picture mode and 345-370 ANSI in Cinema mode. Based on the same review AE-2000U is very flexible in controlling light output. Also, I am using eco lamp mode which supposed to be less bright. Does it make more sense to get HP screen if I use such projector settings?


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *max90034* /forum/post/13820028
> 
> 
> Does it make more sense to get HP screen if I use such projector settings?



As long as you don't mind the tighter viewing cone, and you are not obsessed with black level, I think you should be very happy with the HP. I use a 100" HP with the Epson Home 1080 projector in a low-brightness mode and on low-power lamp, and I am quite happy with it. Given the choice between (1) a dim picture with inky blacks and (2) a bright picture with blacks that still appear black but show a slight shadow if you hold your hand up and block the light, I personally prefer (2). And, as Joseph Clark points out, you can always put a filter on the lens if it's too bright for your preference.


----------



## grisch

For those that have shelf mounted their PJ's would you mind posting pics? I won't be able to shelf mount as the room is very long with a bar in the back. However, I'm considering having the "high-top" behind the last row of seating custom built with an enclosure to house my projector (either Epson 1080UB or JVC RS1) but I'm not exactly sure how to give my builder direction regarding the size and height of the enclosure. I think the distance from the high-top to the screen will be about 19 to 21 ft.


thanks


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *grisch* /forum/post/13842465
> 
> 
> I'm considering having the "high-top" behind the last row of seating custom built with an enclosure to house my projector (either Epson 1080UB or JVC RS1) but I'm not exactly sure how to give my builder direction regarding the size and height of the enclosure.



For ventilation reasons, you may want to reconsider building a full enclosure. If you want to hide/protect the PJ when not in use, you can have a custom dust cover made. (That's what I did.)


As to the height of the high-top, an easy way to determine this is to make a scale drawing of a side view of the room. Mark the bottom of the screen on the drawing, as well as the tops of the (tallest) viewers' heads in each row. Draw a vertical line at your proposed throw distance. Now draw a straight line from the bottom of the screen to the vertical line, making sure that the straight line clears the tops of all viewers' heads. Where the straight line crosses the vertical line is the location of the bottom of the PJ lens. Build the high-top high enough to place the lens there.


----------



## dreamstate

Got my sample of the HP and of course I receive no benefit from it at all. In fact the image is darker with it.


Can you guy's recommend a good angular reflective screen material that can give a close match in gain to the HP from Dalite?


Amazing material, but I'd need a pj with lens shift and I'll have my new one without it for sometime.


Thanks.


----------



## CADOBHuK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dreamstate* /forum/post/13850570
> 
> 
> 
> Can you guy's recommend a good angular reflective screen material that can give a close match in gain to the HP from Dalite?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.



Everyone has been mentioning it for ages and its the Vutec Silverstar


----------



## dreamstate

I don't think 6-9 gain is gonna look good. My blacks will be grey, right? Does this material respond differently with respect to black levels than the HP does?


----------



## hrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dreamstate* /forum/post/13851426
> 
> 
> I don't think 6-9 gain is gonna look good. My blacks will be grey, right? Does this material respond differently with respect to black levels than the HP does?



It's not really a 6-9 gain. Read Tryg's review of it. He estimates it's closer to a 3 gain. I've seen one with an RS1 three times and I think that the blacks look better than they do on the HP and that it gives a more 3D look than the HP. It's a terrific screen if you want contrast and over-the-top whites and brights at the same time. The negatives are it is much more expensive than the HP, it comes pre-assembled in a gigantic crate, and some are bothered by seeing the surface, which is common with grey and silver screens, but is exacerbated by the Silverstar due to the high gain.


Vutec recommends a ceiling mount for it.


----------



## javry

seems like the general take was that the SS and the HP were about equal. In addition to the things already mentioned, if you can tolerate a tight viewing angle then go with the HP. If you don't mind an occasional screen glare and you need a wide angle, go with the SS. Also, the HP comes in kit form while the SS comes fully assembled.


----------



## RearProjection1292

I read most of the comments about projector mounting height when using a High Power screen but I cannot seems to find a definitive mounting height answer. My CRT projector is about 2 feet above my head. Can I use the High Power screen with this projection height?


Thanks


----------



## CADOBHuK

Rear projection, the key thing is the angle. 2 feet can be a lot or a little, depending on how far the projector is from the screen. But overall I'd say it's not too bad, definetely will get you noticable gain.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RearProjection1292* /forum/post/13869859
> 
> 
> I read most of the comments about projector mounting height when using a High Power screen but I cannot seems to find a definitive mounting height answer. My CRT projector is about 2 feet above my head. Can I use the High Power screen with this projection height?
> 
> 
> Thanks



Plug your specific HT geometric values into my screen gain calculator for a definitive answer. HP screen parameters are in post #2 of my signature link.


----------



## Pedro2

My sense is that much of what attracts people to a high power screen is that they can have a much larger screen that is still bright enough. But if one has a fairly modest sized screen--such as 92"--is the attractiveness/advantage of the high power substantially less?


I need a 92" screen, 9 foot viewing distance, 9.5 foot throw distance, reasonable light control (though white ceiling). Haven't decided on the projector yet, but probably a Sanyo Z2000.


----------



## Pedro2

PS: forgot to add that the projector will be shelf mounted, and the screen needs to be a manual pull-down--which is why I am considering the High Power.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pedro2* /forum/post/13895611
> 
> 
> PS: forgot to add that the projector will be shelf mounted, and the screen needs to be a manual pull-down--which is why I am considering the High Power.



In addition to the gain (for a large screen) is the lack of any screen texture visible on an HP, and also the invisibility of any waves in a pulldown screen as you are planning.


----------



## FLBoy

Yes, and the narrow viewing cone of the HP helps reduce light scatter to and from a light ceiling or walls (provided you darken the rear of the room with drapes and/or paint).


----------



## Pedro2

OK, thanks. Alas, the only wall that is white is the back wall where the projector is--and it sounds like that is the most important wall to have darkened.


----------



## FLBoy

Yep.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pedro2* /forum/post/13898951
> 
> 
> OK, thanks. Alas, the only wall that is white is the back wall where the projector is--and it sounds like that is the most important wall to have darkened.



Same in my room, but my wife agreed to a dark wine-colored drape that can be drawn across the back wall. (It also covers a white door into a bathroom.) Looks nice and is unobstrusive.


----------



## pottscb

So I'm convinced that the HP is the screen for me, however, I'm almost sure its going to be impossible as the back of my HT room opens into a dining room with no place to shelf mount, so I'm left with mounting at 8 ft. high or moving the pj to the right or left border of the screen (does anyone know if there are any 1080p pjs that do ~200% horizontal lens shift?). Any advice is appreciated...


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pottscb* /forum/post/13899828
> 
> 
> So I'm convinced that the HP is the screen for me, however, I'm almost sure its going to be impossible as the back of my HT room opens into a dining room with no place to shelf mount, so I'm left with mounting at 8 ft. high or moving the pj to the right or left border of the screen (does anyone know if there are any 1080p pjs that do ~200% horizontal lens shift?). Any advice is appreciated...



I'm also not able to shelf mount my pj on the back wall because of a door to a bathroom (very imp!). What works for me, though, is to have it on a 4ft high stand just behind my wife and my recliners. This is the best of all locations for a HP screen since the lens is close to your eyes, meaning that you get full brightness and also a completely uniform brightness over the whole screen.


The primary caveat is that my room is basically just for the two of us, though we do have a couch to the side for visitors that also has good viewing (though not as good as the two primary seats).


----------



## FLBoy

Pottscb- Moving the PJ way off-center to the right or left is a very bad idea! Lens shift or not, the HP will reflect the maximum amount of light towards the PJ lens. This would make the brightest viewing position way off to the same side as well. Seats centered on the screen would be much dimmer.


I have a six-foot sliding glass door (to the outside) at the rear of my room. My PJ sits atop a three-foot-high pedestal just in front of the sliding glass door. The glass door is covered by a dark green blackout drapery to block the light and darken the rear of the room. As in millerwill's setup, my PJ shoots between my two primary seats, which are separated by a narrow end table used for snacks and beverages. A three-foot walkway runs between my PJ and my primary seats.


Perhaps an arrangement like mine or millerwill's will work for you too. Alternatively, some use a ceiling mount with a long extension rod to bring the PJ down to near eye level. A least one person uses a telescoping extension rod to store the PJ near the ceiling when not in use and to lower it to near eye level when in use.


----------



## Joseph Clark

My projector is mounted at the base of what was a very high custom shelf mount when I had a Firehawk screen. I used a Chief extension from that shelf to lower the pj to a height of about 4 feet. The projector now sits directly behind the couch in the back, effectively eliminating the middle couch seat as a viewing spot when the projector is on (except for small children). I loved the elegance of having the projector completely out of sight on the shelf, but the lure of the HP's brightness and beautiful image was too tempting. Most of the time, it's just a couple of people watching, but if I need to I can put the pj back on the shelf, open its iris and run it in high lamp mode for a much brighter image. I can do that in about 5-6 minutes. I tested that with the Chief mount when I put in the HP. In daily use, though, I've never had to do it. The HP screen forced the compromise, but I've never once regretted it. It's a stunning screen in that, once the show starts, I never see it. I can't remember a time with the Firehawk that it didn't remind me it was there. From the sample I got from Vutec, I don't doubt the SS would have been just as intrusive as the Firehawk, if not more so. I saw the sheen no matter where I sat with the SS. Some people were not bothered by it at all, just as I'm not bothered by RBE with a DLP, even though I occasionally see it. Depends on your situation. Had I not been able to come up with my compromise, I probably would have gone with the SS, but I would have spent a lot more money.


----------



## quietmouse

I've had my *133-inch* High Power screen for almost a couple of years now.

Very happy with it.


Currently it's being used with the Panasonic AE2000 1080p pojector,

in a totally-dark viewing room.


However, I have re-arranged the room very differently after getting

some new couches, speakers, receivers, etc.... now I'm sitting closer

to the screen. The 133" size is a bit too big now.


I zoom down the projected image from 133" to about 106" now. It's

aligned to to the top, leavning a white column on either side, as well

as the bottm.


what's the best way to cover up the white area? ideally, I guess

I should just buy another smaller High Power screen... but don't know

what I can do with the old 133" one.... on the other hand, if I'm going

to buy a new screen, I was wondering if there's anything newer/better

than the High Power on the market right now? I'm used to the High Power,

so anything else probably need to have equal/better brightness...










any advice appreciated!


----------



## aragheb

Are you considering selling your 133 hp?


----------



## Ron Jones

Using FLBoy's calculator it looks like the Da-lite HP would have what I would consider severe hot spotting when seated even a small distance off center. I looked at the case of a 120" dia. HP with the seating at a distance of 150" from the screen and the end seat being just 36" off center. The results of the calc indicate the the image on one side the screen would appear about 50% brighter than on the other side. This ratio holds as the projector's vertical position is moved from near eye level to well above eye level (i.e., the overall gain decreases as the projector is moved further above eye level but one side of the image remains about 50% brighter than the other). It looks to me that the sweet spot for acceptable viewing with the HP is limited to perhaps the center 2 or 3 seats (at most) with the geometry I have described able.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ron Jones* /forum/post/13984393
> 
> 
> Using FLBoy's calculator it looks like the Da-lite HP would have what I would consider severe hot spotting when seated even a small distance off center. I looked at the case of a 120" dia. HP with the seating at a distance of 150" from the screen and the end seat being just 36" off center. The results of the calc indicate the the image on one side the screen would appear about 50% brighter than on the other side. This ratio holds as the projector's vertical position is moved from near eye level to well above eye level (i.e., the overall gain decreases as the projector is moved further above eye level but one side of the image remains about 50% brighter than the other). It looks to me that the sweet spot for acceptable viewing with the HP is limited to perhaps the center 2 or 3 seats (at most) with the geometry I have described able.



Don't let calcs make you believe the HP hotspots. I would try to find someone (preferrably yourself) who has actually seen hotspotting on an HP. All seem to indicate brightness falls off at the sides but does so uniformly. I have never heard anyone who actually uses an HP complain of hotspotting.


----------



## Joseph Clark

Ditto. The HP does not hotspot.


----------



## jrobe008

I have recently switched my screen going from a Draper Accuscreen 120 to a Dalite HP 120. All I can say is I love it. The images just pop off the screen. I am amazed at the performance of this screen. This screen is paired with my sony pearl vw50 and I could not be happier. Big thanks to Jason Turk, as he is a pleasure to deal with and shipping was fast. No hotspotting or sparkles, and gain drop off is not as bad out of the viewing cone as I thought. I am setting 14 feet from the screen.


----------



## Ron Jones




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrobe008* /forum/post/13989887
> 
> 
> I have recently switched my screen going from a Draper Accuscreen 120 to a Dalite HP 120. All I can say is I love it. The images just pop off the screen. I am amazed at the performance of this screen. This screen is paired with my sony pearl vw50 and I could not be happier. Big thanks to Jason Turk, as he is a pleasure to deal with and shipping was fast. No hotspotting or sparkles, and gain drop off is not as bad out of the viewing cone as I thought. I am setting 14 feet from the screen.



For your projector's mounting location, what is the distance up from the floor to the center of the VW50's lens.


----------



## FremontRich




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *quietmouse* /forum/post/13917635
> 
> 
> I've had my *133-inch* High Power screen for almost a couple of years now.
> 
> Very happy with it.
> 
> 
> Currently it's being used with the Panasonic AE2000 1080p pojector,
> 
> in a totally-dark viewing room.
> 
> 
> However, I have re-arranged the room very differently after getting
> 
> some new couches, speakers, receivers, etc.... now I'm sitting closer
> 
> to the screen. The 133" size is a bit too big now.
> 
> 
> I zoom down the projected image from 133" to about 106" now. It's
> 
> aligned to to the top, leavning a white column on either side, as well
> 
> as the bottm.
> 
> 
> what's the best way to cover up the white area? ideally, I guess
> 
> I should just buy another smaller High Power screen... but don't know
> 
> what I can do with the old 133" one.... on the other hand, if I'm going
> 
> to buy a new screen, I was wondering if there's anything newer/better
> 
> than the High Power on the market right now? I'm used to the High Power,
> 
> so anything else probably need to have equal/better brightness...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> any advice appreciated!




If it ain't broke don't fix it! Buy another but smaller HP screen...










I've been tempted to buy an HP screen too but so far I'm quite happy with my 92" Wilsonart DIY Designer White screen. Supposedly it mimics the Stewart ST130 screen quite closely.


----------



## jrobe008

My pearl sits at 52" from the floor


----------



## CADOBHuK

quietmouse, buy a smaller screen and sell the 133" one


----------



## ham

Well, I managed to read the whole thread! Great job and kudos to all of you all who have stuck with it, advising us about to leap into HP.


I've moved, and my HT will change. Now I have a 23 ft wide x 33 ft long room with a truncated vault ceiling max 13 ft high and about 6 ft wide at the top. There is a fireplace at the far end of the room directly opposite the entrance door along the 33 ft axis. The room is light in color with several floor to ceiling windows and serves as a game room/family room with a pool table on the opposite end from the fireplace, so there will be some ambient light. Clearly not my old batcave but what can you do.


Could I ask your opinions on this setup: recess mount a Da-Lite 139" wide Model C electric screen into the ceiling with a scope format screen. It will drop down in front of the fireplace. Should be 58" high, with about 5 ft of black fabric for the drop, placing the bottom of the screen 3 ft off the floor.


There will be an 8ft wide couch, head position about 15 ft from the screen, with couches on either side (I know the off axis will be killed in these, but that's WAF)


The big questions are: If I mount the PJ on the back wall, does that change the angle of incidence for calculation of gain, or is it really just the distance above your eyes? Either way, if it is 7 ft up, the angle will be about 15 degrees, apparently acceptable. If I do mount it way back there, does being at the max zoom reduce lumens? Looking at the PJ Central ft-lambert calculator, it seems zoom does drop output. I guess I could mount the PJ lower and off the the side of the door frame, but that introduces another angle. The other option might be to make a credenza behind the sofa with a motorized popup to raise the PJ and be closer to the ideal angle, but that seems awfully complex and possibly noisy. Finally, are you all using anamorphic lenses or just zooming? and, if zooming, are the black bars noticable enough to benefit from masking, or are they still really black?


Re PJs, given this possible setup, are the RS-1 and Epson 1080 UH still hot tickets?


Thanks much-I'd appreciate comments.


----------



## millerwill

ham: That's an awfully big screen. You may want to do the ftL calculation [ftL = lumens*screen gain/screen area (in sq ft)] to make sure it will be bright enough for you. I think the gain of the HP falls to ~ 1.5 if the angle between lens-to screen-to eye is ~ 15 deg, but you've probably seen the relevant graph of gain vs angle in this thread. The RS1 does loose ~ 30% of its lumens, I believe, at its longest throw; thus probably ~ 420 lumens in low lamp.


----------



## hrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ham* /forum/post/14041572
> 
> 
> The room is light in color with several floor to ceiling windows and serves as a game room/family room with a pool table on the opposite end from the fireplace, so there will be some ambient light.



If you want to benefit from the contrast levels the RS1 can do, you are probably better off looking into the Black Diamond screen rather than the High Power. I love high gain screens, and will admit the most preferred setups I have seen were an RS1 with a Silverstar and an RS2 with a High Power, however those were in bat caves. With light walls, the best thing to do is to either take advantage of the ambient-light rejecting nature of the Black Diamond or to throw as many lumens at the screen as possible.


The Epson does have a lot of lumens, but not in every mode...best way to handle that is to choose which mode you like the best, then turn the bulb setting for that mode from economy to high. AV Science stopped selling the Epson, though, due to convergence issues with so many of them.


Bob Sorel has a 139" wide HP screen in cinemascope format in a bat cave and has had to deal with lumens as a major issue. Bob has had a number of different projecters, with varying success with lumen levels. At one time, he had an RS1. You could try PMing him.


----------



## FLBoy

ham- I see several problems. First, I agree with millerwill that with such a large screen and the two PJs your proposed, you may be in Dim City _unless_ you adjust your setup to maximize the HP gain. Second, even with your large screen I don't believe that the zoom range of the RS1 or the 1080UB will allow a throw of more than about 24-25 feet. Third, with the PJ far behind the viewers, all but the center-most viewer will experience brightness non-uniformity across the screen from side to side.


A solution to all three problems may be to place the pj 2-3 feet behind the main viewing position, just above head level. This will provide a screen gain of about 2.0 for the two main viewing positions. The 2-3 foot distance should be sufficient to alleviate any noise/heat issues. An 18-foot throw will put you near the middle of the zoom range for either PJ. Brightness uniformity with this arrangement should be adequate.


As to white walls, I too have to live with them, and I think the HP's narrow viewing cone helps a lot with secondary reflected light. The rear of your room is advantageously far enough away from the screen that it probably won't cause much of a problem. If it does, I would suggest either painting it darker or using some dark draperies.


Feel free to use my screen gain calculator (in my signature line) to experiment with different arrangements. Parameters for the HP are in the second post of that thread.


----------



## Toe Tag

I am using a DaLite Model B HDTV Format 92 Inch Diagonal 45X80 High Power. I measured my maximum angles using a protractor and a piece of string. Taped the string to the top of the projector, handed the ball of string to my wife who held it in the middle of her forehead and took up slack, then took the middle of the string and the protractor to the corners of the screen. Can also do this with Trygonometry. Anyway, my maximum angle was about 10 degrees.


0. The chart in the original post implies that the brightness of my glass-bead retro-reflective screen would vary. But I don't see any hot spotting whatsoever. Why not?

1. How much further beyond 10 degrees can you go with retro-reflective and still have no hot spots or contours?

2. I don't understand why retro-reflective would not need tensioning; is the material particularly firm or supple to account for this? And all the angular-reflective happen to use materials that need tensioning?

3. The original post seems to pooh pooh angular-reflective. But it seems to me as long as I get ambient light rejected, I don't care if it retro-rejects it or angular-rejects it. And that in some applications where you have more than 10 degree angles (not sure where the cutoff is, see above) retro-reflective won't cut it. In fact if you're all sitting on a sofa watching it seems that if your geometry is right, angular-reflective could put you spot on in the sweet spot. Seems to me that if you have to put your projector not 2 feet above your head but 6, that angular-reflective could be the bees knees. Tryg, why would angular be inferior to retro?


----------



## Tryg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe Tag* /forum/post/14051814
> 
> 
> I am using a DaLite Model B HDTV Format 92 Inch Diagonal 45X80 High Power. I measured my maximum angles using a protractor and a piece of string. Taped the string to the top of the projector, handed the ball of string to my wife who held it in the middle of her forehead and took up slack, then took the middle of the string and the protractor to the corners of the screen.



Pictures please...










Am I reading this wrong? You say "I am using a DaLite Model B". But your post insinuates you dont have one yet....










0,1 you wont see hotspotting at any angle

2 material to stiff to tension, also not necessary

3. they both do different things. retro is better for rejecting ambient light


----------



## ham

The largest screen possible would be great as I'd also like to be able to comfortably watch sports playing pool at the back of the room. Also, it needs to be retractable.


That said, while a stronger projector seems in order, IIRC Tryg uses a G1000 for his 12 ft hi power from 28 ft back? That's a 1000 lumen PJ pre calbration.


Glad to hear the rear wall is far enough back to dampen reflections. There is no way the wife will allow that to be painted. I've spoken with the wife re a popup PJ in a credenza behind the seats--could fly but not known yet.


Re the Black Diamond, in reading the BD thread the advantages still seems to be unconfirmed although promising. Perhaps the best course is to wait--however, in either case, BD or HP, that large a screen seems to need a light cannon. Any suggestion?


----------



## Toe Tag




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/14052230
> 
> 
> Pictures please...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I reading this wrong? You say "I am using a DaLite Model B". But your post insinuates you dont have one yet....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 0,1 you wont see hotspotting at any angle
> 
> 2 material to stiff to tension, also not necessary
> 
> 3. they both do different things. retro is better for rejecting ambient light



Tryg, sorry I confuse things, I have an old room I'm discussing above, and in my other post I'm setting up a new HTPC in another room. I should have taken a measurement of my BEST angle as well as my worst angle. I had to resort to trygonometry. I sit with my eyes 18 inches below the lens, and 118 inches from the screen. I just assumed I had a right triangle and calculated the hypotenuse at 119.36 inches (sqrt(18^2+118^2)), then I had excel calculate degrees(arccos(118/119.36)) and there is our answer 8.67 degrees. So what becomes obvious is, I'm saying hey Tryg, my viewing angle on my retro-reflective screen varies from 8.67 to 10 degrees... I was wrong to use the word hot spotting... What I meant was, why don't I see variations in brightness across the screen... And the answer is, even with the graph in post #1 above, one will see precious little variation if the angle of reflection varies by one or two degrees across the entire screen! So really the only question I am left with is, at what degree would you say retro-reflective starts to fall off unacceptably in terms of loss of gain? At which angles one might have to resort to tensioned+angular-reflective instead of retro-reflective?


One other idea, given that this room is 20' deep... any thoughts about rear projection and what kind of screens are used with that and how they reject ambient light?


Guys, I really recommend you determine the angles, either analytically with Excel or, its kind of fun to have your wife sit there looking dumb holding a piece of string to her forehead. Or, you can do the trig or, maybe the projector calculator websites should tell you the angles. I think this is a pretty interesting result, that the angle varies so little. Its surprising to me. In retropspect its not surprising because nobody has been complaining about brightness varying across the screen. But its nice to know why now.


----------



## ham

Tryg,


Any current thoughts re projectors, ambient light, mounting position and these HP screens? While your real world experience, as reflected in post #41 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...83#post9254183 seems to indicate that these screens perform well in a lot of environments, do not need a light cannon to drive them, and PJ placement is somewhat flexible, would you put in a higher powered PJ such as a 1080 UB, Mits or other?


Otherwise, it is apparent that your ancient G1000 is too dim to light up your 12 ft HP, and you need to remount it lower.










Finally, reading the BD thread with the note that there may be no 1.4 available till 2009, it appears the HP is currently the best bet for a good dropdown screen. Agree?


----------



## Tryg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe Tag* /forum/post/14055912
> 
> 
> Guys, I really recommend you determine the angles, either analytically with Excel or, its kind of fun to have your wife sit there looking dumb holding a piece of string to her forehead. Or, you can do the trig or, maybe the projector calculator websites should tell you the angles. I think this is a pretty interesting result, that the angle varies so little. Its surprising to me. In retropspect its not surprising because nobody has been complaining about brightness varying across the screen. But its nice to know why now.



I vote for the string to your wifes head. Tell her this is necessary


----------



## Tryg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ham* /forum/post/14057232
> 
> 
> it appears the HP is currently the best bet for a good dropdown screen. Agree?



I agree it's a good choice. I use an RS1 but any projector will do


----------



## Toe Tag

Tryg, everyone, I'm hearing two schools of thought on screens.


The old school advocates low gain (grey, lossy, diffusive) screens like the Da-Lite HC CinemaVision with a gain of 0.8. This then backs you into projectors with higher lumens which then backs you into DLP or the IN83 for example. I talked to a guy who installs home theater rooms for a living, he's not a salesman, but he said he's never installed a single high power screen. The old school does it the old way and has done it this way for decades, damn the rainbow effect, full speed ahead. And light rejection is done the old school way too, the grey low gain screen rejects all light equally, ambient and projector alike, but the projector wins because its got lots of lumens like a good healthy American projector should. I shouldn't make fun of it because in reality this guy has honestly done nothing but install theaters like this day in and day out for decades. We have to explain that somehow. As far as I can understand it, he didn't like the new school gain screens because it multiplies the black level, but my take is it also multiplies the white level and all that matter are the contrast RATIOS which are unaffected. That and ambient light rejection. The guy is sincere and not a salesman. Though it would be awkward for a salesman to put in a $400 screen with a $6000 projector.


The new school uses retro-reflective screens with a gain up to 2.8 or so. At least 80% of the projectors made and sold are not light cannons and thus work well with this approach. So I have to believe it is the dominant approach. I am simply standing on the shoulders of giants like Tryg, he posted years worth of experiments here on screen materials and I wholly agree with his finding that HP retro-refecttive looks fantastic, not merely for the brightness but also it seems to me it rejects more than the above 20% of ambient light. And lower lumen = less heat = less fan noise.


Problems would result from mixing and matching the projectors called for by the old school with the new school screens, and vice-versa. Anyway at this point I'm sticking with the new school and thinking RS1 or RS2 instead of IN83.


----------



## Toe Tag




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/14058678
> 
> 
> I vote for the string to your wifes head. Tell her this is necessary



This offset to the forehead is because I didn't want to put the other end of the string in the middle of the lens. For ceiling mount, string is under the projector, so wife should put string on her nose, or perhaps hold it between her teeth like a bit.


On a more serious note, the measurement can be performed for each viewer location. I wonder what your angle is Tryg. Though, its probably not essential for everyone to measure. The important point is that the angles experienced by each viewer don't vary that much. Even if your angle to a retro-reflective screen varies from 20 to 22 degrees, its no problemo for uniformity, but that viewer will only get say a 2.0 gain and not a 2.8 gain. This just confirms the consistent response of the retro-reflective screen over a small range of angles, since the angles are surprisingly consistent for each individual viewer.


----------



## ham

Does having a longer throw reduce the impact of PJ height and improve gain in the offset seats? Seems like the PJ level, if further back, results in a shallower angle to the screen, mitigating some of the effect of PJ height relative to the viewer. I'm going on Tryg's PJ height of 8 ft with normal couch seating, and yet his apparent satisfaction with the setup.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe Tag* /forum/post/14055912
> 
> 
> Guys, I really recommend you determine the angles, either analytically with Excel or, its kind of fun to have your wife sit there looking dumb holding a piece of string to her forehead. Or, you can do the trig or, maybe the projector calculator websites should tell you the angles. I think this is a pretty interesting result, that the angle varies so little. Its surprising to me. In retropspect its not surprising because nobody has been complaining about brightness varying across the screen. But its nice to know why now.



Or you could simply plug your dimensions into my All Screen Gain Calculator (see my signature link), and let it calculate the angles and the gains for you. It's a whole lot faster than chasing your wife around the room with a string (though possibly less fun).


----------



## Toe Tag




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/14059695
> 
> 
> Or you could simply plug your dimensions into my All Screen Gain Calculator (see my signature link), and let it calculate the angles and the gains for you. It's a whole lot faster than chasing your wife around the room with a string (though possibly less fun).



Excellent. It might be fun if you imported that spreadsheet into docs.google.com with worldwide sharing option. I noticed that in my taking one measurement using trig and one using a string and a protractor, one or both are incorrect. I'm going to stick to your spreadsheet. I notice several non-intuitive results from calculating the angle.


1. The angle (which is proportional to the gain) doesn't vary that much for a given viewer across the screen.

2. 5 viewers sitting at different locations, each will see rather consistent gain across the whole screen. But each will see a different amount of gain.

3. The screen can in fact be brightest AT THE EDGES (though again, imperceptibly). Think of a screen that grows infinitely wide. As you chase the edge of that screen out to infinity with your string, the angle gets closer and closer to zero (or call it 90), which is the brightest angle with the highest gain.


Bottom line is they look great, just interesting to examine the details of why or how. The last part is that they don't seem to need tensioning. I tried to think about maybe this was because of the reflective properties of their microscopic glass spheres, but likely its just that the material is just the right stiffness. Anyway my screen always hangs down I don't run it up and down.


----------



## FLBoy

Toe Tag- Good observations. Actually you can get brightness nonuniformity with the HP, but you have to work at it. Try placing a row of viewers several feet ahead of the PJ (or several feet behind the PJ), and you will begin to see significant gain variations from one side of the screen to the other, for off-axis viewers.


For example, in a row well forward of the PJ, viewers on the right will see higher brightness on the right side of the screen than on the left. If you think about it, this makes sense, because the projector's beam to the right side of the screen is more nearly directly lined up with the head (and viewing angle) of a forward viewer on the right, while this is not the case for the left side of the screen.


----------



## cal87

I am thinking of moving to the High Power, which I think will be a good fit for my projector/desired screen size. I will probably lower my projector to try to achieve somewhere around 1.5-1.7 gain.


As I will inevitably move to a higher lumen projector, I am interested in comments as to how this screen performs in lower gain configurations, say 1.0-1.2. Is the image quality different in any way, besides brightness? How does the retro-reflectivity and ambient light shedding ability change when moved further away from optimal gain position?


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cal87* /forum/post/14124323
> 
> 
> I am thinking of moving to the High Power, which I think will be a good fit for my projector/desired screen size. I will probably lower my projector to try to achieve somewhere around 1.5-1.7 gain.
> 
> 
> As I will inevitably move to a higher lumen projector, I am interested in comments as to how this screen performs in lower gain configurations, say 1.0-1.2. Is the image quality different in any way, besides brightness? How does the retro-reflectivity and ambient light shedding ability change when moved further away from optimal gain position?



I think the main disadvantage is that the highest gain goes back in the direction of the pj. Thus is the pj is ceiling mounted, up high enough so that gain to the viewers is !.0-1.5, the highest gain is back toward the pj and thus lights up the ceiling more than you would like. Conversely, if the pj is low, so that viewers get the high gain, the ceiling is lit up much less.


----------



## R Harkness

Does anyone know if Da Lite will make high power screens to a custom size?


In my situation I'll be using a 2:05:1 screen size, ordered from Carada, who will do custom sizes. But I'm curious if I wish to later swap out the Carada screen for another, if a company like Da Lite will do custom size. I'm pretty sure Stewart does custom size.


Thanks.


----------



## hrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/14124477
> 
> 
> Does anyone know if Da Lite will make high power screens to a custom size?
> 
> 
> In my situation I'll be using a 2:05:1 screen size, ordered from Carada, who will do custom sizes. But I'm curious if I wish to later swap out the Carada screen for another, if a company like Da Lite will do custom size. I'm pretty sure Stewart does custom size.
> 
> 
> Thanks.



The answer is yes.


----------



## cal87




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/14124440
> 
> 
> I think the main disadvantage is that the highest gain goes back in the direction of the pj. Thus is the pj is ceiling mounted, up high enough so that gain to the viewers is !.0-1.5, the highest gain is back toward the pj and thus lights up the ceiling more than you would like. Conversely, if the pj is low, so that viewers get the high gain, the ceiling is lit up much less.



That makes sense. Would probably have to do something about the ceiling.

The main question I have is how a High Power at ~1.3 gain would compare to a Studiotek or Firehawk.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cal87* /forum/post/14124587
> 
> 
> That makes sense. Would probably have to do something about the ceiling.
> 
> The main question I have is how a High Power at ~1.3 gain would compare to a Studiotek or Firehawk.



I can't speak to the Studiotek, but I can say how much more I like the HP than I did my Firehawk. There is no sheen on the HP, unlike the Firehawk. The HP really does "disappear" when a projected image hits it. I wanted to keep my Firehawk when I got a new Sharp XV-Z20000, but the gain was just so much lower than it had been with my Optoma H79. When I put up the HP, I realized that it wasn't just the gain that was better. It was the screen's utter invisibility.


----------



## cal87




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/14125102
> 
> 
> I can't speak to the Studiotek, but I can say how much more I like the HP than I did my Firehawk. There is no sheen on the HP, unlike the Firehawk. The HP really does "disappear" when a projected image hits it. I wanted to keep my Firehawk when I got a new Sharp XV-Z20000, but the gain was just so much lower than it had been with my Optoma H79. When I put up the HP, I realized that it wasn't just the gain that was better. It was the screen's utter invisibility.



Thanks. Was it a G3 Firehawk, because that is what I have now.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hrd* /forum/post/14124508
> 
> 
> The answer is yes.



Thank you.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cal87* /forum/post/14125531
> 
> 
> Thanks. Was it a G3 Firehawk, because that is what I have now.



No, it was a G1 - I got it when the Firehawk line was first introduced. I imagine the newer models have addressed some of the earlier problems, though of course I don't know for sure.


----------



## KMR

Is there such a thing as a 2.4:1 manual pulldown? Or are those only possible through a fixed frame?


----------



## scottyb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KMR* /forum/post/14128119
> 
> 
> Is there such a thing as a 2.4:1 manual pulldown? Or are those only possible through a fixed frame?



Yes,

Dalite will make pretty much anything you want. They just charege for the next size up.


scott


----------



## pottscb

Hey guys,

I'm trying to set up an HT room that is very problematic...see the diagram linked below...


I'm trying to figure out if I can use an HP or if I need to look at Silverstar...my initial feeling is Silverstar with the ceiling mount unless I get creative with pj placement, wife would hate creativity with pj placement (I told her, build me my own room!). I would rather use HP so I could use an electric screen and retract it to view a flat panel behind it for high ambient light viewing...the Silverstar would be permanent and my only option for ambient light viewing (unless I put the LCD on a lift out of the cabinet, too expensive).


Thanks,

Cory


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pottscb* /forum/post/14149405
> 
> 
> Hey guys,
> 
> I'm trying to set up an HT room that is very problematic...see the diagram linked below...
> 
> 
> I'm trying to figure out if I can use an HP or if I need to look at Silverstar...my initial feeling is Silverstar with the ceiling mount unless I get creative with pj placement, wife would hate creativity with pj placement (I told her, build me my own room!). I would rather use HP so I could use an electric screen and retract it to view a flat panel behind it for high ambient light viewing...the Silverstar would be permanent and my only option for ambient light viewing (unless I put the LCD on a lift out of the cabinet, too expensive).
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Cory



How about having the pj on a stand, right behind the seats, about a foot about eye level? This type of arrangement works well in my room, and it looks like the pj would also be pretty much out of the way in your room. And this would be perfect for the HP.


----------



## Joseph Clark

Yes, millerwill is right. I have a friend with a similar arrangement with his Sony Pearl. He doesn't even have as much room to work with as you do in the back of his seating area, but it's proved ideal. With the projector positioned just behind the seats, you should get terrific gain from an HP. Another advantage with an HP is that if you plan to roll it up, the folds aren't visible during viewing. My buddy has some minor waves from retracting so often, but they disappear when the image hits the screen.


Another advantage of such an arrangement is that a stand mount is typically going to be easier and (maybe) cheaper than a ceiling mount.


----------



## Tryg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pottscb* /forum/post/14149405
> 
> 
> the Silverstar would be permanent and my only option for ambient light viewing



I don't know where you got the idea that ambient light and front projection work together but they don't. Silverstar is not a fix for ambient light...or any other screen.


----------



## pottscb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/14150417
> 
> 
> I don't know where you got the idea that ambient light and front projection work together but they don't. Silverstar is not a fix for ambient light...or any other screen.



Ah Tryg, you old stick in the mud...90% of the pics you post have ambient light in them (see below) and I have light control it just isn't perfect, stop being so grouchy and allow others to help a guy out.


----------



## ham

Tryg,

Given that your PJ is mounted at 8 ft or so, if you want to watch a movie, are the folks on the couch happy with the projected picture using the HP in ambient or dark? I know you have the Silverstar, but how is the HP screen's performance in the real world? Does the punch really drop off to where you wish the PJ was mounted on axis, or is it still a great picture?


----------



## Tryg

ambient light bad


where my couch is, good


----------



## mbroder

Is anyone using a bias light (backlighting) behind their HP screen?


I was thinking it would really help out perceivable black levels to the eye, but was wondering if it would be annoying to have a slight glow coming from behind the screen.


I was thinking of building my own DIY frame with a channel at the back for rope light that can me used with a dimmer switch.


Any thoughts?


For those of you using a pull down HP, try putting a dim light behind it and let me know what you think.


----------



## hrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mbroder* /forum/post/14235821
> 
> 
> Is anyone using a bias light (backlighting) behind their HP screen?
> 
> 
> I was thinking it would really help out perceivable black levels to the eye, but was wondering if it would be annoying to have a slight glow coming from behind the screen.
> 
> 
> I was thinking of building my own DIY frame with a channel at the back for rope light that can me used with a dimmer switch.
> 
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> 
> For those of you using a pull down HP, try putting a dim light behind it and let me know what you think.



I would not suggest doing that if the backlight in any way reflected off of the ceiling and side walls.


----------



## Nedtsc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mbroder* /forum/post/14235821
> 
> 
> Is anyone using a bias light (backlighting) behind their HP screen?
> 
> 
> I was thinking it would really help out perceivable black levels to the eye, but was wondering if it would be annoying to have a slight glow coming from behind the screen.
> 
> 
> I was thinking of building my own DIY frame with a channel at the back for rope light that can me used with a dimmer switch.
> 
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> 
> For those of you using a pull down HP, try putting a dim light behind it and let me know what you think.



I've a dark wall and works really well.


----------



## KMR

Those of you that ordered a screen from AVScience, did you happen to get a notice from the freight company before the delivery of the screen?


I work nights and sleep during the day, so I'd really hate to miss a knock at the door. =/


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KMR* /forum/post/14374448
> 
> 
> Those of you that ordered a screen from AVScience, did you happen to get a notice from the freight company before the delivery of the screen?
> 
> 
> I work nights and sleep during the day, so I'd really hate to miss a knock at the door. =/



If I were you I'd sleep on the couch by the front door. It's that important.


----------



## KMR




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/14374540
> 
> 
> If I were you I'd sleep on the couch by the front door. It's that important.



So I guess that means you never received a notification, huh?


----------



## HTFAN007




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KMR* /forum/post/14374448
> 
> 
> Those of you that ordered a screen from AVScience, did you happen to get a notice from the freight company before the delivery of the screen?
> 
> 
> I work nights and sleep during the day, so I'd really hate to miss a knock at the door. =/



I just ordered and have received a Da-Lite 106" High Power screen from AVS. AVS sent me a confirmation via E-mail on the order to Da-Lite and also sent me a confirmation and Tracking number. I tracked and it was delivered on the day stated in the note. It was delivered by Fed-Ex ground.


AVS was very responsive to my requests and kept me notified every step of the way. Thanks Mark!!


Hope to be in the market for a 1080P projector in about 3 to 6 months and will contact AVS for their quotes.


----------



## oscars

I am new and setting my small HT I got the Sony HS60 and I in the need a Gain screen but my situation is that it would need to be a drop down screen, those power gain screen comes even in roll down types?


----------



## hrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oscars* /forum/post/14378095
> 
> 
> I am new and setting my small HT I got the Sony HS60 and I in the need a Gain screen but my situation is that it would need to be a drop down screen, those power gain screen comes even in roll down types?



The High Power can be had in fixed frame, electric, and pulldown formats. The Model C pulldown seems to be popular here.

http://www.dalite.com/products/


----------



## oscars

thanks for that prompt help I will check it and hoping to find the right measures.


(until tonite I will be able to ran a test of how much screen do I need for sure is a custom size screen that I may end up in that wall)


----------



## hrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oscars* /forum/post/14378383
> 
> 
> thanks for that prompt help I will check it and hoping to find the right measures.
> 
> 
> (until tonite I will be able to ran a test of how much screen do I need for sure is a custom size screen that I may end up in that wall)



Da-Lite will make a custom size for you. The cost is a bit more because you have to pay the price of the next higher standard size along with a small amount for a custom-sized roller mechanism. AV Science, the forum sponsors, carry the Da-Lite line and can get you a screen.


----------



## stereomandan

I'm considering the Da-Lite HP, 106" for my Epson 1080UB, but don't want the elevated black level.(I'm very picky about black level).


How much are Neutal Density (ND) filters that would work with the Epson, and how much light output do they drop? I know you can get varying degrees of ND filters regarding how much light output they drop but can someone point me to information on the more common ones?


Thanks,

Dan


----------



## mystery

I own the BenQ W5000 1080p projector but I demoed the 1080UB Pro model in my home a few weeks back. I have a 106" Da-Lite High Power screen and I calibrated the 1080UB with SpyderTVPro software and SpyderII colorimeter.


I was really surprised at how less bright the 1080UB was when compared to my BenQ on a 2.8 gain screen. I know if it were me I wouldn't touch a ND filter with the 1080UB and a High Power screen. The image, although very nice, lacked the brightness and pop of my DLP unit. Given that my dark walls and ceiling and blacked out windows provided the exact same environment for both projectors, I feel that I was able to really compare the two projectors fairly.


I tried to be fair and I used both projectors in low lamp mode and also used similar color mode and picture mode settings. Because I have such a dark room and a bright screen, I find it's not necessary to use bright picture modes or lamp settings. I have the BenQ set at whisper mode (kind of like eco) and the Dynamic Iris set at 1 on a scale of 0 to 19. I have Brilliant Color off and I'm using Cinema Mode with Gamma set for a less bright 2.4 and it's calibrated using ColorHCFR software. This is about as low as you can go for brightness yet if it were any brighter on the screen I'd have to wear sunglasses.










Sadly, the 1080UB didn't fare quite as well. The image was very nice but dimmer. Blacks are not a problem with this screen because your eyes adjust to the brightness and perceive the blacks to be deep.


I wouldn't consider any other screen for use with the 1080UB or any other projector for that matter. I've used ND filters in the past when I had light cannon projectors and they work wonderfully to reduce the brightness but I certainly wouldn't do that with the Epson.


Of course you might like it but this has been my experience.


Wayne


----------



## hrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mystery* /forum/post/14380937
> 
> 
> I own the BenQ W5000 1080p projector but I demoed the 1080UB Pro model in my home a few weeks back. I have a 106" Da-Lite High Power screen and I calibrated the 1080UB with SpyderTVPro software and SpyderII colorimeter.
> 
> 
> I was really surprised at how less bright the 1080UB was when compared to my BenQ on a 2.8 gain screen. I know if it were me I wouldn't touch a ND filter with the 1080UB and a High Power screen. The image, although very nice, lacked the brightness and pop of my DLP unit. Given that my dark walls and ceiling and blacked out windows provided the exact same environment for both projectors, I feel that I was able to really compare the two projectors fairly.
> 
> 
> I tried to be fair and I used both projectors in low lamp mode and also used similar color mode and picture mode settings. Because I have such a dark room and a bright screen, I find it's not necessary to use bright picture modes or lamp settings. I have the BenQ set at whisper mode (kind of like eco) and the Dynamic Iris set at 1 on a scale of 0 to 19. I have Brilliant Color off and I'm using Cinema Mode with Gamma set for a less bright 2.4 and it's calibrated using ColorHCFR software. This is about as low as you can go for brightness yet if it were any brighter on the screen I'd have to wear sunglasses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, the 1080UB didn't fare quite as well. The image was very nice but dimmer. Blacks are not a problem with this screen because your eyes adjust to the brightness and perceive the blacks to be deep.
> 
> 
> I wouldn't consider any other screen for use with the 1080UB or any other projector for that matter. I've used ND filters in the past when I had light cannon projectors and they work wonderfully to reduce the brightness but I certainly wouldn't do that with the Epson.
> 
> 
> Of course you might like it but this has been my experience.
> 
> 
> Wayne



You might have a QC issue with your 1080UB. The first one I demoed was also dim, although it was brand new and had a mere 12 hours on the bulb. The place where I demoed it was the area rep for Epson and Vutec, and so I got to view the 1080UB on both a 100" white screen and a 60" Silverstar. The image was dim and washed out on the 100" white screen, and although it looked plasma-bright on the high-gain 60" Silverstar, that was only in the very bright vivid mode, and vivid mode on a small Silverstar should have required not one, but two pairs of sunglasses. The next two demos had no problems with the lumens output from the projector.


----------



## mystery

You could be right. The projector had about 1000 hours on the lamp. Maybe that had something to do with it. I'm not sure that it was defective though. It was the high end dealer's demo unit that had been hanging from the ceiling being used to showcase the product in an all black room. They were using a Stewart Filmscreen greyhawk screen I think. I felt that the images at the store were dim and that at home they would be brighter. They were but I expected the Epson to at least match the BenQ.


The vivid mode did produce bright enough images to hurt my eyes. I can't explain it because the reviewers who properly calibrate the 1080UB aren't complaining about brightness but then again their units don't have 1000 hours on the lamp.


I think I'm just used to the punch of DLP and would miss that. I guess the 1080UB isn't really a dim projector per se. It just turned out to be dimmer than my BenQ and to be fair, my W5000 has only 200 hours on it.


Anyway, I could be happy with the Epson if I hadn't seen the BenQ.










Wayne


----------



## hrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mystery* /forum/post/14381882
> 
> 
> You could be right. The projector had about 1000 hours on the lamp. Maybe that had something to do with it. I'm not sure that it was defective though. It was the high end dealer's demo unit that had been hanging from the ceiling being used to showcase the product in an all black room. They were using a Stewart Filmscreen greyhawk screen I think. I felt that the images at the store were dim and that at home they would be brighter. They were but I expected the Epson to at least match the BenQ.
> 
> 
> The vivid mode did produce bright enough images to hurt my eyes. I can't explain it because the reviewers who properly calibrate the 1080UB aren't complaining about brightness but then again their units don't have 1000 hours on the lamp.
> 
> 
> I think I'm just used to the punch of DLP and would miss that. I guess the 1080UB isn't really a dim projector per se. It just turned out to be dimmer than my BenQ and to be fair, my W5000 has only 200 hours on it.
> 
> 
> Anyway, I could be happy with the Epson if I hadn't seen the BenQ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wayne



Forum members with 1080UBs shy away from vivid mode because of what it does to the colors, but that mode's image characteristics are from a combination of factory settings and not just from what the factory did to the colors. The most important setting is that the projector is in the higher of the two bulb settings. You can change any of the dimmer modes to turn the bulb to the higher setting and maintain many of the other characteristics of that mode. I tried that on a forum member's 1080UB using the mode Jason had calibrated for him and it looked just the way I like it, bright and no offensive colors.


DLP is going to have a different type of punch, because its strength is ANSI contrast, while the 1080UB's strength is on/off contrast.


----------



## stereomandan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mystery* /forum/post/14380937
> 
> 
> Sadly, the 1080UB didn't fare quite as well. The image was very nice but dimmer. Blacks are not a problem with this screen because your eyes adjust to the brightness and perceive the blacks to be deep.
> 
> 
> Wayne



It's quotes like this that really make me nervous about the High gain screen. I am very picky about black level, and want blacks to be black, so maybe a HP screen isn't for me. I agree that in a dynamic scene with widely varying luminance levels you will probably not notice the lack of deep blacks. The problem for me is when an all dark scene show up, like a space scene, or a darkened alley... The lack of deep black is so obvious, and really kills the experience for me because it takes me out of the movie. I stop watching the movie and start seeing the screen.


Even being able to see the black bars on a 2:35-2:40 movie really bother me. I saw the demo of the 1080UB at my local dealer, and while I could see the black bars, it was just barely noticeable. My fear is that with a high gain screen, I'd be able to see them pretty clearly.


I guess I'll find out later this week anyway, when my projector comes in. I have samples of Da-Lite 1.0 gain Matte white, 1.1 gain HCMW and 2.8 gain HP screen materials. I'll see how they look. Hopefully I'll be preasantly surprised by the HP!


Thanks for the excellent reply though, and I appreciate the feedback.


Dan


----------



## mystery

Hi Dan,


Black bars on the top and bottom of the screen bother me too. I used to mask them with black felt material, but now I have such dark walls that I raise the bottom of the screen until the screen resembles a 2.35:1 aspect ratio or thereabouts and then I raise the image up and the bars fall on the dark paint of the wall and they cannot be seen.


I think you'll be impressed by the sample of HP. Unfortunately that won't give you a really true idea of what it's like but it's better than nothing. If you don't want to mask the bars or do what I do then you may really need to get the new JVC RS2 with it's 30000:1 contrast ratio attained without dynamic iris. The 1080UB is pretty good in this regard as well but you'll still see the bars as you found out. I imagine even on the JVC that the bars are visible. Perhaps only a CRT projector can completely eliminate them.


I didn't mean to scare you off by my comment about perceived blacks. The images are so bright in non dark scenes that it doesn't appear that blacks are suffering. It may be hard to believe or understand but when you see it for yourself I think you'll realize what I'm trying to say.


I would read Tryg's threads about High Gain screens. I'm even sure he'd be happy to help you out via a pm if you send him one. He assisted me a while back when I had some questions.


Anyway, good luck and let us know your impressions after you've had a chance to look at the samples.


Wayne


----------



## Chadci

Might need some help setting up my HP in a new room. We decided our house was not suiting our needs anymore and are making an offer on a new house this Sat. If everything goes smoothly we will be moving in the near future.


In my current room, I have a coat closet that I converted into a AV rack. In the new room , the living room opens into the dining room and I don't have that luxury. May be forced to do A. a ceiling mount or B. a side wall mount... neither of which are going to be optimal for a HP screen, but, those are my options.


What can I do to make the most out of a *bad* situation? The rest of the system will work out well and I should be able to keep an IB going as well. The rest of the house is just perfect for us so not making an HP screen *perfect* is the least of our concerns.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chadci* /forum/post/14406814
> 
> 
> What can I do to make the most out of a *bad* situation? The rest of the system will work out well and I should be able to keep an IB going as well. The rest of the house is just perfect for us so not making an HP screen *perfect* is the least of our concerns.



What about having the pj on a stand, right behind the viewers seats, and a foot or 2 above the heads? This works well in my room, and of course it's perfect for the HP screen.


----------



## Chadci

Well, currently it has it's own shelf in the closet at the perfect level. With kids running around I'm not sure this will be an option. The ONE option I have to do something like that would be to put a book case. It was serve as a room divider of sorts. I could also use it to store all of my SD-DVD, HD-DVD and Blu titles


----------



## stereomandan

Chadci,


Some situations just aren't good for the HP screen, and it sounds like your's is one of them unless you can mount it close to your viewing location like millerwill suggested.


Dan


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chadci* /forum/post/14407349
> 
> 
> The ONE option I have to do something like that would be to put a book case. It was serve as a room divider of sorts. I could also use it to store all of my SD-DVD, HD-DVD and Blu titles



This sounds like it would work very well.


----------



## Joseph Clark

Ditto to millerwill's comments. A stand could be a great solution for you, if you can manage it. Ceiling or side mounts will not give you much gain with an HP. Look your space over carefully and see if you can figure out a way to make it work. The HP screen is worth the effort.


----------



## Chadci

Oh, I know I love the screen and would hate to have to accept anything less at this point. We have had it for nearly 18 months and it's perfect for our needs. I think I have 1 idea of how to make it work... It won't be pretty or free but it would keep it safe from the kids.


----------



## Chad T

Hello.


I'm trying to wrap my head around all of the setup peculiarities of the High Power. Below are my numbers from the High Power Screen Calculator.


My room has light carpet and white ceilings and walls, however, I am going to be painting the walls a dark beige color. Ceiling will most likely stay white.


I have a little bit of flexibility with screen height, but that doesn't affect the gain output very much. I don't have much flexibility with the other other parameters. I'm not sure I really want max gain because it would probably require an ND filter with my projector (Epson HC720)......I'm happy with 2.0 gain give or take a little.


A couple concerns:
To calculate gain at ceiling height, I changed viewing height from 39 to 96 to reflect my 8' ceiling height. This puts ceiling height gain at 1.47/1.49/1.47. How big of a problem do you think this will be (reflectivity-wise) since I have a white ceiling?
My seating consists of one 3 person sofa. Outside seats are approximately 24" left and right of center. This puts right seat screen gain at 1.29/1.58/1.95. This puts left seat screen gain at 1.95/1.58/1.29. How big of a problem is that variation?


Overall, how do you think a 110" diagonal 16:9 High Power would work in my setup?


Thanks for any input!


Here is a pic of the main calculation:


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chad T* /forum/post/14421490
> 
> 
> A couple concerns:
> To calculate gain at ceiling height, I changed viewing height from 39 to 96 to reflect my 8' ceiling height. This puts ceiling height gain at 1.47/1.49/1.47. How big of a problem do you think this will be (reflectivity-wise) since I have a white ceiling?
> My seating consists of one 3 person sofa. Outside seats are approximately 24" left and right of center. This puts right seat screen gain at 1.29/1.58/1.95. This puts left seat screen gain at 1.95/1.58/1.29. How big of a problem is that variation?
> 
> 
> Overall, how do you think a 110" diagonal 16:9 High Power would work in my setup?



The light from the white ceiling may slightly illuminate the dark areas of the image, thereby slightly degrading your black level. How big a problem that will be depends on how obsessed you are with black level. Since the HC720 is an LCD PJ, your open-iris black level will be fairly high already, so you may not even notice a little added light from the white ceiling. As an additional reference, I use the Epson Home 1080 with a 100" HP screen in a room with a white ceiling, and I think it looks great. And, no, my black level is not as black as the black velvet surrounding the screen. My ANSI contrast, on the other hand, is quite good.


I wouldn't worry too much about the horizontal brightness nonuniformity for your off-center seats. You will not see it on normal program material. If you try real hard, you might be able to see it on an all-white image. If you are concerned about this, move your PJ closer to your sofa. You will see that with the PJ just a few inches behind your viewing distance, virtually all of the brightness nonuniformity will disappear for the two off-center seats.


I think a 110" HP screen will work fine for your setup. I do not think it will be anywhere near too bright. Anyway, you will probably want to run the lamp on low power to reduce fan noise and extend lamp life.


Hope this helps.


----------



## thrang

Just wanted to post that I recently added an Epson Pro Cinema 1080UB and a 119" HP to my theater, and am overall extremely happy with the set-up - stunning color, contrast ratio, sharpenss, and brightness without being harsh. I had the system professionally calibrated yesterday, so things are looking superb.


One small issue - I'm noticing a slight horizontal banding or shadowing - slight, and noticeable during bright fields in motion. I had the 110 inch screen which I exchanged for the 119 - the 110 had it a bit more pronounced, but in the upper third. The 119 has it less pronounced, but over more of the screen.


There is no obvious issue with the screen when inspecting it in normal room light - screen is snapped taut, and I stretched the frame and screwed the bottom brackets to the wall.


The best way to describe it is like a faint rows of horizontal bands, just slightly darker than the brighter portions of the image.


Is this a stretching issue - will it smooth out over the next week or so? Just the nature of the material? Or something I should contact DaLite about?


Not noticeable on a lot of material, but I watch a lot of hockey and golf, so the ice and bright skies will and can reveal it...


----------



## FLBoy

Thrang- My HP has never had horizontal banding of any kind, so I would say it is definitely not a characteristic of the material. First, are you sure it is coming from the screen and not the PJ? Try pausing an all-white image from a test dvd. Now move the image up and down with the vertical lens shift. If the bands move with the image, they are coming from the PJ. If they stay put, they are coming from the screen. In either case, I would talk with with the corresponding manufacturer, as horizontal bands are not normal.


----------



## Joseph Clark

Probably not the issue, but have you checked for any sort of residue on the screen? Carefully wipe that section of the screen to see if it's dirty.


----------



## thrang




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/14463939
> 
> 
> Thrang- My HP has never had horizontal banding of any kind, so I would say it is definitely not a characteristic of the material. First, are you sure it is coming from the screen and not the PJ? Try pausing an all-white image from a test dvd. Now move the image up and down with the vertical lens shift. If the bands move with the image, they are coming from the PJ. If they stay put, they are coming from the screen. In either case, I would talk with with the corresponding manufacturer, as horizontal bands are not normal.



Yes - I checked, and it is the screen and not the Epson



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/14464007
> 
> 
> Probably not the issue, but have you checked for any sort of residue on the screen? Carefully wipe that section of the screen to see if it's dirty.



Thanks - no the screen is brand new and perfectly clean - since I received the 110 a week or so earlier, I'm wondering if I'm running into some type of production issue with the material...I've got an email into DaLite, so let's see what they say.


When I did report a similar issue, though on a smaller portion of the 110, they were very quick to arrange for an exchange - they didn't acknowledge anything, but I'm wondering if they are aware of some issue...


Bummer, since I love the screen otherwise - and I'm tiring of the SNAPS!


----------



## thrang

It's a difficult issue to photograph, but here is an attempt to show it. If you look carefully, you will see subtle horizontal striations...its more obvious during normal playback, as motion against a static artifact is more apparent...

http://gallery.me.com/gbastug#100223...&bgcolor=black


----------



## thrang




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thrang* /forum/post/14464937
> 
> 
> It's a difficult issue to photograph, but here is an attempt to show it. If you look carefully, you will see subtle horizontal striations...its more obvious during normal playback, as motion against a static artifact is more apparent...
> 
> http://gallery.me.com/gbastug#100223...&bgcolor=black



I posted a movie, which might show the issue a bit better - you can see it during the scenes with brighter, more solid backgrounds - again, more noticeable in person than in this video


Da-Lite sent a second 119 screen, and the same issue exists....


A Da-Lite rep is coming next Tuesday to take a look....


http://gallery.me.com/gbastug#100236


----------



## rsamos

I've decided to pull the trigger on a 106" High Power after seeing a sample in my viewing room.


I'm looking at the electric for a couple reasons:


- I already have outlets in the ceiling, so the install looks *much* easier.

- I believe the electric I'm looking at (Designer Contour w/ IR remote) is a bit less expensive than a fixed.


Since the HP can't really be stretched and folks say you can't notice the ripples from being rolled (and not tensioned) - is there any advantage to the fixed screen other than aesthetics? I can ignore both my reasons for going electric if the fixed is a better screen for some reason, I'm just not sure what it would be. This is a dedicated room, so I can go either way I like.


One disadvantage to the electric that I'm not sure is much of a deal, is that I have rather low ceilings in this room so the screen would only be dropped a couple inches from the case. Maybe that doesn't make a difference?


Thanks.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsamos* /forum/post/14617030
> 
> 
> I've decided to pull the trigger on a 106" High Power after seeing a sample in my viewing room.
> 
> 
> I'm looking at the electric for a couple reasons:
> 
> 
> - I already have outlets in the ceiling, so the install looks *much* easier.
> 
> - I believe the electric I'm looking at (Designer Contour w/ IR remote) is a bit less expensive than a fixed.
> 
> 
> Since the HP can't really be stretched and folks say you can't notice the ripples from being rolled (and not tensioned) - is there any advantage to the fixed screen other than aesthetics? I can ignore both my reasons for going electric if the fixed is a better screen for some reason, I'm just not sure what it would be. This is a dedicated room, so I can go either way I like.
> 
> 
> One disadvantage to the electric that I'm not sure is much of a deal, is that I have rather low ceilings in this room so the screen would only be dropped a couple inches from the case. Maybe that doesn't make a difference?
> 
> 
> Thanks.



I'd say it's an aesthetic decision more than anything else. I have a fixed and my friend has a roll down. Either way, the image looks great once the lights go down.


----------



## Telynau




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsamos* /forum/post/14617030
> 
> 
> I've decided to pull the trigger on a 106" High Power after seeing a sample in my viewing room.
> 
> 
> I'm looking at the electric for a couple reasons:
> 
> 
> - I already have outlets in the ceiling, so the install looks *much* easier.
> 
> - I believe the electric I'm looking at (Designer Contour w/ IR remote) is a bit less expensive than a fixed.
> 
> 
> Since the HP can't really be stretched and folks say you can't notice the ripples from being rolled (and not tensioned) - is there any advantage to the fixed screen other than aesthetics? I can ignore both my reasons for going electric if the fixed is a better screen for some reason, I'm just not sure what it would be. This is a dedicated room, so I can go either way I like.
> 
> 
> One disadvantage to the electric that I'm not sure is much of a deal, is that I have rather low ceilings in this room so the screen would only be dropped a couple inches from the case. Maybe that doesn't make a difference?
> 
> 
> Thanks.



I have a 123" Da-Snap High Power fixed frame screen with T-Legs (allows the screen to be free-standing and -- carefully -- moveable). I chose the fixed frame over an electric drop-down because I didn't want waves, which I understand can be seen (if you are a perfectionist) at least under certain circumstances. The fixed frame does a great job of tensioning the screen -- just what I wanted. The High Power fabric doesn't stretch like other screen fabrics, but it will "tension up." I have only had my screen (and Sony VPL VW-60 projector) for a few months, but I am very happy with the combination. I have the projector mounted on an adjustable, rollable Da-Lite CRT stand (about 48" high), so the lens is right in the center of the screen. With a relatively new projector lamp, seating where the viewer's eyes are about 12-15" lower than the projector lens, about a 16.5 foot throw and the High Power screen, I get a stunning picture with plenty of light. FWIW, I made the effort to get a rig where I could move the screen and projector because I wasn't sure what I was going to want as a final configuration. Next step is to create masking for a constant image width setup. I had intended to do constant area, but once my wife saw a 1.78 Blu-ray image (from Planet Earth) covering the whole screen there was no going back. Regards, James


----------



## Fartnokker

I've been reading this freakin' monstrosity for 2 days now, and only paused long enough to order a HP Model B 106" screen about halfway through. I have never owned a "real" screen, having used a framed 110" blackout cloth screen for about 4 years, and now a piece of BO cloth literally tacked up on my apartment wall. I had Da-Lite samples that I tried out for a long time, and was always pretty impressed by the High Power sample. How can you _not_ like that kinda punch?


In my previous residence, I had a ceiling-mounted InFocus 4805 hitting the big blackout screen from about 8 feet above the floor, so the HP would never have worked out.


Now is completely different. I have an Optoma HD65 on a stand centered about 16 inches offset from the main seating positions left and right of the projector, just about perfectly at eye level. I'm guessing the HP is gonna make the image pretty much explode off the screen when I get this pup.


You guys are entertaining, and the various reviews and anecdotes tipped me in the direction of the HP once and for all. Thanks to all who contributed to this thread. I'll post back once I have it up and running, to let you know how it works out. Pretty well, I'll bet...


----------



## mystery

Danny, congratulations and welcome to the club. You're gonna need sunglasses my friend.







If you find it too bright, no problem, your next projector probably won't be a light cannon and you'll appreciate the High Power. I'm not sure if your current PJ is bright or not but my experience with Optoma projectors as I've owned 4 of them in the last 5 years is that they're pretty blessed with lumens.


Don't fret if it's too bright by the way. You can always do what I did and slap an ND2 filter on the lens and tame that sucker a little bit. Works like a charm. My Optoma H57 was a bona fide sun imitator and I tried both ND2 and ND4 lenses and decided that the ND4 was a little too dim but that the ND2 was just right. The beauty of it is that as the bulb ages, you can then remove the filter and the brightness returns.


Good luck!


Wayne


----------



## Joseph Clark

Yes, I went from an Optoma H79 (you don't want to hear the horror stories about that machine), which was very bright, to a Sharp XV-Z20000, which is much dimmer. I HAD to move to the HP, because my Stewart Firehawk wasn't nearly bright enough. I could not be happier. The screen brightness and color uniformity both improved dramatically. With my last Sharp bulb, I was able to take it normal end of life (close to 3000 hours) with the lamp in economy mode and the iris fully closed (for maximum contrast). That's how bright the HP is! I love this screen.


----------



## Fartnokker

LOL! Thanks for the warning, Wayne!










I've been lucky so far; my InFocus 4805 (my first pj, circa 2004) spec'd out at about 25% brighter than the 750 lumens advertised, and the Optoma HD65 I have now is rated at 1600 lumens in "cannon" mode. It is funky-way brighter than the InFocus ever was, not to mention quiet as heck, which makes it perfect for low-mounting & taking advantage of the High Power screen. I first got the HP sample in late 2004, I think, and have been wistfully drooling a bit since then. My plan had always been to get fabric from one of the manufacturers & constructing a mounting frame myself. Who knew that a pulldown of the same dimensions would be even cheaper?










I know myself, and while a neutral density filter would make long-term sense, I'm probably gonna be so bowled over by the WOW factor that I won't be able to bring myself to do anything to dim the divine light.










Seems like most of the High Power detractors either haven't actually owned one, or didn't set it up for viewing within the magic cone of viewing pleasure. Fortunately, my current setup plays directly to the HP's strengths, and I'm looking forward to getting blown away shortly.


I've tried some grey screen samples, including a fairly large Da-Lite HCCV sample screen. For me, dimmer is dimmer, and bright is right. All else being the same, I'll take brighter with "less-black blacks" every time over squinting to make out the details on a dim screen with darker blacks. As many have repeated over and over, the human eye is a wonderful thing, and black will appear black when you adjust to the brightness level of the image. For me, the higher lumens, DLP "pop" and the High Power seem like a match made in home theater heaven.


With the projector acting as my only television, the High Power should also provide a little better off-axis light rejection than my current makeshift blackout cloth screen, which is still quite watchable during the day in my modestly-lit living room. Truthfully, I can't see a downside. Some folks trumpet the virtues of the Vutec SS over the less-expensive (therefore inferior) High Power, but when sitting and watching from my seat, I'll be willing to bet my lunch money that the High Power would provide a brighter & punchier image than the SS. More expensive doesn't always make for a better product, and the SS is certainly more expensive. To be exact, 6.2 times more expensive, based on comparable-sized screen from the same vendor I ordered the HP from, including shipping.


Even if the SS were twice as good as good as the HP, the HP would be the far-and-away better deal. I'm feelin' pretty good right now!


Now, if the darned thing would just _get_ here....


----------



## Fartnokker

Joe, your enthusiastic, impartial, and long-standing endorsement went as far as Tryg's comparisons in convincing me to get the HP. Thanks, buddy!


----------



## tebbens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/14406870
> 
> 
> What about having the pj on a stand, right behind the viewers seats, and a foot or 2 above the heads? This works well in my room, and of course it's perfect for the HP screen.



I'm looking for a stand just like that... where did you get yours, where can buy one ?


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fartnokker* /forum/post/14678310
> 
> 
> Joe, your enthusiastic, impartial, and long-standing endorsement went as far as Tryg's comparisons in convincing me to get the HP. Thanks, buddy!



Yeah, my enthusiasm for the HP has never faltered. The more time I spent with the Firehawk, the more the flaws bothered me. I've never felt that way about the HP. It just disappears when the projector lights up. I feel almost as certain that the Vutec SS would have bothered me more than the Firehawk did, based on the sheen of the sample I was sent by Vutec. It's a different sort of sheen than the Firehawk, which reminds me of sunlight glistening off a snowy mound. In some ways the SS sheen seemed worse - more like a dull metallic reflection. I saw that in just the small sample Vutec sent, and it was what really tipped the scales toward the HP for me.


----------



## mystery

Hey Danny,


I forgot to mention that when I had the Optoma H57 that I needed to use with an ND2 filter, I had it ceiling mounted although lower than most installations at about 6'3". Even with this configuration I STILL needed to cut the lumens in half!!


My setup is similar to yours. The lens isn't exactly at eye level but the projector sits on a A/V stand between the recliners that my wife and I use at the back of the room. No more ceiling mounting for me. This is the way to go believe me. Take it from a guy who wall and ceiling mounted 5 projectors in a row before going this route. It's so handy and easy to use a projector in this fashion. And I have the added brightness now since the pj isn't mounted as high as before. I'd say it's just above eye level at maybe 6" and both my wife and I are only about 1 1/2 to 2 feet at each side of the projector. I have our BenQ w5000 set at level 2 out of 19 on the Iris setting and it's always on the lowest setting of the two for lamp power.


Before this I had a grey screen from Da-Lite and I'll never go grey again. As a matter of fact it's really hard to go into a shop that sells and demonstrates projectors because they always have some Stewart or other high end screen in use and it drives me crazy because it's so dim by comparison and I can't make a relative judgement. The last time I tried this was looking at the Epson 1080UB Pro Cinema projector and I told the salesperson that I couldn't make an informed decision about it unless I had it in my own home to properly evaluate it with my own screen and viewing environment. So, he let me take it home with me for the entire weekend. This is truly the only way that you can properly decide whether a projector is for you or not and it's too bad that it can't be done with every projector purchase because you're flying blind by buying a projector based on the in store experience.


I know that you're excited about the brightness and well you should be but take care to carefully check out brighter scenes like ones with clouds etc... You may find as I did that some detail was being lost due to the whites being blown out because of the brightness. This is where toning the lumens down a little bit can help you to achieve a better and more accurate image. So, once the initial euphoria passes, use a critical eye to evaluate just exactly what you're seeing and if you do see images that are torched as I did then you can remedy the situation by either raising the projector a little higher, sitting off to the side a little farther or filtering the lens.


I'll probably never buy another type of screen again.


Wayne


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tebbens* /forum/post/14678638
> 
> 
> I'm looking for a stand just like that... where did you get yours, where can buy one ?



I almost got a projector stand from Dalite--check their website for these. But my wife saw a 4 ft high oak stand in a furniture mag; sort of a small open-back bookshelf. It's ~10 to 12" wide, and sits right between my wife and my recliners. (The shelves, accessible from both sides, are also convenient for various items, e.g., remote controls, etc.) Works perfectly.


----------



## Fartnokker

Yeah, you're obviously right, Wayne. I'll have to wait until the initial grin wears off a bit, then observe it critically. My 4805 was calibrated by an ISF tech, but I just tweaked the Optoma HD65 a bit using the THX setup on various Pixar DVD's. That'll at least help me get the brightness & contrast in the ballpark. I already (and always) have my projector on the lower-power setting, so we'll see what happens next week. I'm not adverse to doing what it takes to get the best image I can, within reason.


In the meantime, I'm still just salivating. Watching Sportscenter this morning on the BOC screen just made me think "how much better will this look on the HP?"


----------



## mystery

Danny,


If you're into Sports, wait until you see well, ANYTHING with this screen.










There's no turning back now. A full screen will make the sample look like a flashlight by comparison. I especially love hockey on the High Power but football is great too.


Wayne


----------



## Fartnokker

Man, I wasn't even _thinking_ of hockey! I love hockey in HD, and I bet it just explodes off the HP screen! I'll certainly get the NFL and MLB playoffs in the coming weeks, waiting for the 11-month hockey season to begin again.










Since Fox Sports started doing all the Mariners games in HD this year, I've been in viewing heaven, but fan hell - seeing just how dismal this season has been in sparkling high definition!










Anyway, waiting impatiently...


----------



## HTFAN007

You guys are exactly right about the HP - makes my PJ image look much brighter and much more enjoyable.


I have an Optoma HD70 with about 1700 hours on the lamp. About 2 months ago I switched from a Greywolf II 106" to an HP 106". What a perceived mid-life kicker for my aging bulb and gray screen. Now even dark movies are much brighter and detailed without going to Hi lamp mode. And regular TV and normal to bright movies have a definite punch that I did not see before.


My HD70 is table mounted back about 12 feet 6" and about 3 feet tall with seating on both sides and behind the projector.


I definitely recommend that if you are using a gray screen and you have good ambient lighting control especially from in front of the screen (going directly toward it) you will see a much improved image with the High Power screen.


----------



## Nisei

Maybe a bit offtopic but in the OP I read: _...unlike the crunchy glass bead screens that are angular reflective, the high power uses micro beads_

I've read a lot of topics where people would say all glass beaded screens are retro reflective. Does this mean that's not true and regular glass bead screens (the crunchy versions) are angular reflective?


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nisei* /forum/post/14694472
> 
> 
> Maybe a bit offtopic but in the OP I read: _...unlike the crunchy glass bead screens that are angular reflective, the high power uses micro beads_
> 
> I've read a lot of topics where people would say all glass beaded screens are retro reflective. Does this mean that's not true and regular glass bead screens (the crunchy versions) are angular reflective?



No, all glass bead screens are retro reflective. The advantage of the micro beads of the HP is higher resolution. A further advantage is that the micro beads of the HP are covered with a protective layer that keeps them from falling off and makes the screen surface washable.


----------



## pottscb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/14694819
> 
> 
> No, all glass bead screens are retro reflective. The advantage of the micro beads of the HP is higher resolution. A further advantage is that the micro beads of the HP are covered with a protective layer that keeps them from falling off and makes the screen surface washable.




And is a contributing factor to the reduced sparklies...I think.


----------



## deanzsyclone

Where do I go to get a price quote on this screen??


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deanzsyclone* /forum/post/14695851
> 
> 
> Where do I go to get a price quote on this screen??



Contact AVS (the people who run this forum). They're a great company to work with. I've worked with Jason Turk a lot. Good guy.


----------



## millerwill

I got my 126" diag HP from AVS (Jason); excellent prices and great service. There was a mixup and I received the wrong frame size, and Jason took care of it instantly and efficiently.


----------



## dirtman62801




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/14678245
> 
> 
> Yes, I went from an Optoma H79 (you don't want to hear the horror stories about that machine), which was very bright, to a Sharp XV-Z20000, which is much dimmer. I HAD to move to the HP, because my Stewart Firehawk wasn't nearly bright enough. I could not be happier. The screen brightness and color uniformity both improved dramatically. With my last Sharp bulb, I was able to take it normal end of life (close to 3000 hours) with the lamp in economy mode and the iris fully closed (for maximum contrast). That's how bright the HP is! I love this screen.



Joseph,


At what level is your projector mounted? I am considering the Firehawk and HP but do not plan on being able to mount the projector at viewing level. As I understand it the HP does extremely well on gain when the projector is mounted at viewing level. I have ambient light problems and I have on order the new Sony VPL-HW10.


----------



## FLBoy

Dirtman- I'm not Joseph, but I own the HP, and my PJ's lens is centered at 39 inches. If you want to try some what-ifs, feel free to use my screen gain calculator linked below. Setup values for the HP are in the second post of the thread.


----------



## Fartnokker

*Cross posted from another thread, since this seems to be the main High Power thread:*


Okay, guys, here's how it went...


Got it home last night (wow, that sucker is awfully long, and stretched from the dashboard to the tailgate in my Durango!) and set it up.



- The actual viewing surface really is 92" by 52", as close as I could figure using a tape measure by myself. Nice black border all around. It really is 106" diagonal viewable... 4 times the size of a 53" TV. Not that I've ever seen a 53" TV, mind you.



- There were some minor waves in the screen near the sides, probably wholly due to my [email protected]$$ mounting job in my haste to get it up & running. The current setup is temporary, and will be more optimal in my next abode - hopefully in the next few months. The waves made absolutely zero difference in the picture, and I did not notice them whatsoever on the projected image. This included ESPN Sportscenter, with lots of panning, and some HD nature stuff. I repeat, zero impact on the picture, and I have noticed waves on other screen surfaces in the past & their noticable effect on the image. Not on this one.


- The gain difference... well, it was pretty damned noticable. I have my Optoma HD65 set to 50% on contrast & brightness, with video gamma setting, and for the life of me, the picture looks like my 50" plasma used to, but a lot bigger. Much punchier than the blackout cloth screen, better perceived contrast, the blacks look dark, the brights are freakin' bright.


Quick story: I was thinking, "hey, it looks pretty bright, I guess..." when all of a sudden, the new Apple iPod Nano commercial comes on. For those of you who haven't seen it, it starts off suddenly with a bright white screen. It was like being slapped in the face; it was so bright, my eyes felt actual pain - just like being the first out the door of a dark movie theater & walking into bright, direct sunlight. Holy frickin' cow, this thing can seriously do bright! Not blown out whites, just seriously intense. Like I said, quite plasma-like brightness & punch.


- Okay, here's my observation on the viewing cone. Inside the cone, close to the projector, this thing is incredibly intense. Uniform brightness perceived from side to side. As you move your seating position towards the edge of the screen, the brightness drops somewhat, but no matter where you are, it stays uniform across the screen, so it looks perfectly normal. I stood about 10 feet to the side of the screen, at about a 45-degree angle to the edge of the screen, and it wasn't as bright as inside the cone. But, and a huge but, it was still as bright & watchable as my 1.0 gain blackout cloth screen had been from the same angle.


Did everyone get that? Yes, there is a viewing cone within which you will get the brightest, punchiest projected image you can imagine. I do not exaggerate when I compare it to a good plasma. Outside the cone, it'll still be as good as a matte white screen, so there really is no bad angle to watch from. Just make sure that when you have a crowd over, you get to stay in the sweet spot!










The off-axis light rejection was damned impressive. I have a dome light fixture ( 2 x 60w) centered about 1 foot in front of the screen on the ceiling, and the screen sits about 3 inches from the ceiling. While it washed out a bit compared to pitch darkness, the image was totally watchable with that light, and others in the room, blazing away.


Today, I watched some TV before moseying my way into work, with the blinds in my living room letting the sun in at about a 45-degree angle to the screen, and the contrast & punch were dramatically better than they had been with my old matte white screen. I can comfortably watch this with sunlight, light fixtures, whatever lights I want going.


One spooky feature: Walking past my living room later at night, with a hallway light on nearby, the screen reflected back a greenish glow, like a glow-in-the-dark toy. Freaky!







Haunted projection screen!


Anyway, I'm here to tell you, the hype is true, and it really is as good as people say. Once again, not perfect, but my setup (projector mounted at eye level) is dynamite for this screen. If you are thinking about it, take the jump & do it with confidence.


----------



## Joseph Clark

Good to hear it didn't disappoint. This, I think, is the reaction most people have. Despite some articles I've read, not all high gain screens are the same. As far as I'm concerned, the HP does not exhibit the weaknesses I've read about and seen in other such screens.


----------



## Fartnokker

Yes, Joe, and as everyone says, you have to play to its strengths. If you ceiling mount the PJ and use it as you would an angular-reflective screen, you'll get good results.


Set your projector at eye-level and sit within the viewing cone, and you'll get dramatic results.


Happy new owner here...


----------



## mystery

Great news Danny and welcome to the club! Now just try to go into any of your local video stores and you'll wince at how dim their setups are compared to yours.


Wayne


----------



## Fartnokker

LOL! Right you are, Wayne. This is the hometown of Magnolia Audio/Video, and there are plenty of 'em here. Between them, and the silly displays in the big box stores, it is a wonder any of us ever bought our first projectors!


----------



## saxman717

Help! I am trying to purchase a 92" or preferably a 106" Dalite HP screen (HDTV format), but can't find the proper model number or screen dimension. Can anyone help me narrow down exactly what screen models I shoul dbe looking at?


Thank you!!!


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *saxman717* /forum/post/14776442
> 
> 
> Help! I am trying to purchase a 92" or preferably a 106" Dalite HP screen (HDTV format), but can't find the proper model number or screen dimension. Can anyone help me narrow down exactly what screen models I shoul dbe looking at?
> 
> 
> Thank you!!!



Go to www.dalite.com , and click on 'Products', and you'll find everything you need. (Then go find a good source, such as AVS.)


----------



## WOLVERNOLE

A followup question for you happy owners of the Da-Lite Hi-Power screen, please. I viewed a VuTec SilverStar screen that was about a 120" screen with a Sony VW-60 from about 18' away. Initially the Sony demo that they had on there dropped my jaw. It was the cleanest, most plasma-like (in a 120") that I'd ever seen...fantastic...IMHO the BEST demo I had ever seen in a screen/front projector in my life. But then as I watched BRIGHT scenery (white clouds and say...light blue sky) they had those dreaded "sparklies" that I then could not avoid seeing that kinda ruined it for me. (I get the sparklies like that to a lesser extent from my Sony rear-projection in particularly bright areas, but I guess it is less noticable at 60" than 120").

Anyway, to the point: How would you compare the potential for those "sparklies" to appear with the DaLite Hi-Power in comparison? My future sitting area would be "within" the 96" diagonal screen (I don't know what angle that would work out to be, but I am planning on only a three-seat configuration, and they would all fall within the edges of the screen if that makes sense). Many thanks for advice on comparison and my potential for success here.


----------



## millerwill

The HP doesn't have those 'sparklies', and is thus much better in this regards. The HP will be a better choice if the viewers are all not too far away from the pj--i.e., inside the L and R edges of the screen, and if the pj is not too far (within a ft or 2) from eye level. The main advantage of the SS is a very wide viewing angle if you do have viewers outside the sides of the screen. (At least this is my short take.)


----------



## FLBoy

I have used the HP for the last year and one-half. I have yet to see any "sparklies." What I see is a uniformly bright, high resolution image. I love this screen.


----------



## millerwill

+1 to FLBoy, and I've had mine ~ 2 yrs.


----------



## hrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WOLVERNOLE* /forum/post/14782642
> 
> 
> A followup question for you happy owners of the Da-Lite Hi-Power screen, please. I viewed a VuTec SilverStar screen that was about a 120" screen with a Sony VW-60 from about 18' away. Initially the Sony demo that they had on there dropped my jaw. It was the cleanest, most plasma-like (in a 120") that I'd ever seen...fantastic...IMHO the BEST demo I had ever seen in a screen/front projector in my life. But then as I watched BRIGHT scenery (white clouds and say...light blue sky) they had those dreaded "sparklies" that I then could not avoid seeing that kinda ruined it for me. (I get the sparklies like that to a lesser extent from my Sony rear-projection in particularly bright areas, but I guess it is less noticable at 60" than 120").
> 
> Anyway, to the point: How would you compare the potential for those "sparklies" to appear with the DaLite Hi-Power in comparison? My future sitting area would be "within" the 96" diagonal screen (I don't know what angle that would work out to be, but I am planning on only a three-seat configuration, and they would all fall within the edges of the screen if that makes sense). Many thanks for advice on comparison and my potential for success here.



There's a showroom in MA that has an RS1 with a 110" Silverstar and I visited for long demos three times. I was amazed by the image with just a FIOS cable feed - never watched it with 1080p. What was especially impressive is how the blacks appeared so inky with the RS1/Silverstar combination. The first two times I was there, it did not bother me much that I could make out the screen surface in bright areas, but the third time I was there it did because I sat in the first row. First row was about 11 feet from the screen. I think the Silverstar can show the best plasma-like image when paired with a high contrast projector of any screen, but the screen surface's showing was annoying to me, and although it got much better moving back just a few feet, I like to sit close.


----------



## WOLVERNOLE

QUOTE=millerwill;14783712]The HP doesn't have those 'sparklies', and is thus much better in this regards. The HP will be a better choice if the viewers are all not too far away from the pj--i.e., inside the L and R edges of the screen, and if the pj is not too far (within a ft or 2) from eye level. The main advantage of the SS is a very wide viewing angle if you do have viewers outside the sides of the screen. (At least this is my short take.)[/quote]


Thanks for the great feedback. So it sounds as if the only advantage of the SS is the wider viewing area. The HiPower sounds like what I want- no "sparklies" and a willingness to give up a consistently wide viewing area (which I do not need due to my tight sitting area).

OK, my question and/or conclusion is that the HiPower almost necessitates that the front projector be "placed" in a central stand or box next to or between the viewers. Wouldn't this make it of paramount importance to have a relatively QUIET front projector (as compared to mounting one behind me, on the ceiling or on the top of the wall/ceiling ??? Do most owners of this type of screen utilize their front projector from a stand or "box" located between the viewers' seats?


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WOLVERNOLE* /forum/post/14786018
> 
> 
> QUOTE=millerwill;14783712]The HP doesn't have those 'sparklies', and is thus much better in this regards. The HP will be a better choice if the viewers are all not too far away from the pj--i.e., inside the L and R edges of the screen, and if the pj is not too far (within a ft or 2) from eye level. The main advantage of the SS is a very wide viewing angle if you do have viewers outside the sides of the screen. (At least this is my short take.)



"Thanks for the great feedback. So it sounds as if the only advantage of the SS is the wider viewing area. The HiPower sounds like what I want- no "sparklies" and a willingness to give up a consistently wide viewing area (which I do not need due to my tight sitting area).

OK, my question and/or conclusion is that the HiPower almost necessitates that the front projector be "placed" in a central stand or box next to or between the viewers. Wouldn't this make it of paramount importance to have a relatively QUIET front projector (as compared to mounting one behind me, on the ceiling or on the top of the wall/ceiling ??? Do most owners of this type of screen utilize their front projector from a stand or "box" located between the viewers' seats?[/quote]"


Yes, having a quiet pj is certainly relevant for an HP optimally located. Mine is on a ~ 4ft high (narrow) table between and just behind my and my wife's recliners; it's only about 2 ft from our heads. In low (normal) lamp the RS1 is no problem, and I think the Sony SXRD's are even quieter. DLP's are not so quiet and could be a problem. The new JVC's are significantly quieter still, and I'm very pleased about that.


But note: some people with HP's have their pj on a shelf at the back of the room, still 'low', but further from ones ears. I think this also works very well.


----------



## WOLVERNOLE

Millerwill-


Thanks again for the relevant info. Hmmm...that new JVC750 in combo with the HP may be a winner. Size may be critical if I'd put it on a shelf.


----------



## FLBoy

WOLVERNOLE- It would be best if you don't place the PJ more than a few (e.g., 3-4) feet behind the viewers. Two reasons: (1) At a longer throw setting, the zoom lens will reduce the light output of the PJ; and (2) the side-to-side image brightness uniformity for off-center seating will degrade with increased distance between the viewing row and the PJ. (To quantify the latter effect, feel free to use the screen gain calculator linked in my signature. Setup values for the HP are in post #2 of the linked thread.)


----------



## millerwill

FLBoy is certainly right; best location for the pj is just above and behind viewers heads. The super quiet RS20 will thus be perfect in this regard (and many others*, too).


E.g., the RS20 is quite bright, so with the HP one will have tons of brightness. But you can dial it down if you like with the adjustable aperture of the RS20, getting increased CR in the process. And then you can gradually dial it up as the lamp ages, to keep the ftL coming off the screen just where you like it.


----------



## WOLVERNOLE

Yea, this is great information- very practical for me. I was looking into the Marantz DLP's which seemed to spec out very nicely and with quite positive comments from fellow AVS'ers, but I fear that they may crank out several more "db's" than either Sony (for sure) or JVC (LCOS technology). Marantz apparently has an admirable COMBINATION of sharpness AND blacks.


Any are going to look great on the Hi-Power I suspect. I wonder if a dark-walled room would still be particularly advantageous even with the Hi-Power ?


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WOLVERNOLE* /forum/post/14790075
> 
> 
> Yea, this is great information- very practical for me. I was looking into the Marantz DLP's which seemed to spec out very nicely and with quite positive comments from fellow AVS'ers, but I fear that they may crank out several more "db's" than either Sony (for sure) or JVC (LCOS technology). Marantz apparently has an admirable COMBINATION of sharpness AND blacks.
> 
> 
> Any are going to look great on the Hi-Power I suspect. I wonder if a dark-walled room would still be particularly advantageous even with the Hi-Power ?



Definitely for ANSI contrast. Not so much for on/off.


----------



## hrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/14786331
> 
> 
> "Thanks for the great feedback. So it sounds as if the only advantage of the SS is the wider viewing area.



Better image is what I found. The Silverstar will do blacks better, being a silver fabric compared to the High Power's white fabric. That gives it better contrast overall, especially noticeable with the RS1/RS2/RS20.


----------



## webbs24

i would like to know if the projector has to be behind you or is it ok if it is 3 ft. in front at about 20 in. above.proj. is 12ft. from screen and i am 15 ft. from screen?please help if you can


----------



## FLBoy

Three feet in front of your viewing row is OK. Twenty inches above viewer eye level will cost you some gain. To get a feel for this you can use my screen gain calculator linked below to try some "what ifs."


----------



## webbs24

thank you FLBoy. You have been very helpful


----------



## Telynau

One of the most important things you can do to help achieve the High Power's potential is to put a black triple velvet curtain behind the projector. Although my home theatre room was already a medium brown color, the black velvet curtain behind the projector made a MAJOR improvement in color, contrast and image impact. Well worth the $500 or so cost. Regards, James


----------



## tebbens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Telynau* /forum/post/14829199
> 
> 
> One of the most important things you can do to help achieve the High Power's potential is to put a black triple velvet curtain behind the projector. Although my home theatre room was already a medium brown color, the black velvet curtain behind the projector made a MAJOR improvement in color, contrast and image impact. Well worth the $500 or so cost. Regards, James



Do you mean behind the screen ?

Why does it make a difference ?


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tebbens* /forum/post/14829446
> 
> 
> Do you mean behind the screen ?
> 
> Why does it make a difference ?



No... he means "behind the projector". It cuts reflections back to the screen


----------



## mystery

Yes, I can attest to this. In my previous home, my wife and I had the projector wall painted a flat black. It truly made a difference.


Wayne


----------



## WOLVERNOLE

Checking the website information for the two companies of VuTec (SilverStar) and then DaLite (HiPower), I noted that they have rated gains of 6.0 and 3.0 respectively.

Does the SilverStar actually look about TWICE as bright as the HiPower ? I wonder what the difference is in terms of all things being relatively the same, what the perceived difference in not only brightness would be, but CONTRAST and BLACKS ?


----------



## Joseph Clark

No, it isn't twice as bright. I don't know how Vutec figures that number, but it definitely doesn't have twice the gain, at least not with the sample they sent me.


----------



## mdputnam




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WOLVERNOLE* /forum/post/14830935
> 
> 
> Does the SilverStar actually look about TWICE as bright as the HiPower ? I wonder what the difference is in terms of all things being relatively the same, what the perceived difference in not only brightness would be, but CONTRAST and BLACKS ?



Have you read Tryg's exotic screen review?


----------



## jhunt17

Question guys, I have a sanyo z2000 and it is 11ft back ceiling mounted. I believe it makes my projector about 7 ft above the ground. My screen is a painted 103 in. What I have found is I would love for it to be brighter, but I don't want color problems. With this setup would this screen help even though I have it ceiling mounted? How does it affect the black levels? I basically have the projector as wide as possible so I can get as much light as I can, but I keep looking at my plasma in the other room and wishing my screen was brighter. My back wall is painted black as well. My room is also only 10.5 ft wide and I sit from 10 to 17 ft away. My room is completely light controlled with lighter color beige paint and carpet except for the black wall where the screen is. I would appreciate your help here. Thanks


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jhunt17* /forum/post/14861491
> 
> 
> Question guys, I have a sanyo z2000 and it is 11ft back ceiling mounted. I believe it makes my projector about 7 ft above the ground. My screen is a painted 103 in. What I have found is I would love for it to be brighter, but I don't want color problems. With this setup would this screen help even though I have it ceiling mounted? How does it affect the black levels? I basically have the projector as wide as possible so I can get as much light as I can, but I keep looking at my plasma in the other room and wishing my screen was brighter. My back wall is painted black as well. My room is also only 10.5 ft wide and I sit from 10 to 17 ft away. My room is completely light controlled with lighter color beige paint and carpet except for the black wall where the screen is. I would appreciate your help here. Thanks



To get the most gain from the HP screen, your PJ needs to be as near viewer eye level as possible. You can still use a ceiling mount, but you will need an extension pole to lower the PJ. The catch-22 for you is that your forward-mounted PJ must remain high enough to leave a clear view of the top of the screen's viewing area for your back-row viewers.


The HP screen is retro-reflective and will reflect most of the light back towards the PJ from whence it came. With a high mount and lots of light-colored ceiling to the rear of the PJ, you can expect the bright areas of the image to light up your ceiling, which probably will not help your black level. This problem can be fixed by painting your ceiling a dark color, WAF permitting. The same goes for the wall behind the viewers.


If you have access to Excel or MS Works Spreadsheet, you can use my screen gain calculator (linked below) to evaluate gain for different PJ positions and seats.


----------



## jhunt17

can you side mount it and use the lens shift to put it at eye level or do I still have the same problem? If I drop it down a foot, that would put it about 3 ft from eye level. How bad would that be? Would I be creating a glowing light on my ceiling?


----------



## Joseph Clark

Same problem, basically. Think of it more in terms of the projector and the viewer's head needing to be in the same line with the screen. Maximum gain will be achieved when the point from the lens and the point from your eyes form the narrowest angle to a point on the screen. The greater that distance, the lower the gain.


----------



## jhunt17

So the only way to really benifit from this is to put the projector next to your head? So I would have to take my projector down move it back to 17ft away then put it on a table. If I do that I loose a lot of the brightness of the projector. Does the gain in the screen make up for the loss from moving the projector back. Is there anyone here that has this used in a ceiling mount that is a few feet above their head? How does it work for you?


----------



## Joseph Clark

You get maximum brightness if your head is close to the "line" from the lens to the screen, not necessarily right next to the lens itself. My projector is a few feet behind my head, but only about a foot and a half from the line, so my brightness is really good. If your projector is bright enough, you can still benefit from the other HP qualities - good color and brightness uniformity, no sparkles or sheen, no screen pattern interference with 1080p sources. Some people are using the HP in a ceiling mount configuration and love it. If your projector is bright enough, it could work. My Sharp XV-Z20000 is just not bright enough for me to use a ceiling mount. Believe me, I tried it.


----------



## FLBoy

Jhunt- I just ran my screen gain calculator for your PJ mounted 3 feet above eye level and 11 feet back. It looks as if you would be able to see a gain of around 1.5--at least for the center seats. You would still need to darken your ceiling and wall behind the viewers for best results, IMO. I agree with Joe about the other advantages of the HP. I also think you are right about moving the PJ back to 17 feet. It would be pretty much a wash, brightness wise.


----------



## jhunt17

I measured my lens from the ground and it is about ft 7 in off the ground. I have my screen centered at eye level and my eyes are at about 4ft. So I am looking at a difference of around 3 ft or so. I will measure more precise later today. So from this do you think it is worth the gain or would I just be wasting my money in this situation? Again my room is not that wide only 10. 5 feet so I really only have seats inside the cone I think. I could be wrong.


----------



## FLBoy

Only you can decide whether the gain is worth the money. If I were you, I would request a sample of the HP material from Da-Lite. You can then tape it to your existing screen and see what you think.


----------



## jhunt17

how big are the samples and how much does it cost?


----------



## FLBoy

As I recall, they're about 9 x 12 inches, and I think they're free. Just go to the Da-Lite website here, and click on Live Chat. They can give you the details and take your request at the same time. Easy-peasy.


----------



## Joseph Clark

The samples I got from Vutec (SS) and DaLite (HP) were what swayed me so strongly toward the HP. I could see the sheen easily on the Vutec, but there was absolutely none on the HP. Also, when I got my head close to the lens, the HP just exploded with light compared to the Stewart Firehawk I was using before. Remember, the Firehawk is angular reflective, so it's designed for ceiling mount installations. But the 1.3 gain of the Firehawk really was inadequate with my ceiling mounted Sharp projector. It was simply too dim.


I used a string and dangled the HP and the Vutec samples in front of the Firehawk. IMO, there was no comparison. The HP won hands down over both the Vutec SS and the Stewart Firehawk. Of course, to be fair, you have to move your position relative to the screen samples, since the Vutec and Firehawk work best when you ceiling mount the projector, while the HP works best when you're eyes are close to the lens. I could actually see the relative changes in brightness as I moved around the room (and up and down). For instance, I could see the HP dim as I moved down from having my head close to the projector lens, while the Vutec got brighter. Or, the HP image dimmed as I moved side to side relative to lens, while the SS changed a lot less. I loved the Vutec's ability to give strong gain with the projector ceiling mounted, but I thought its sheen was worse than the sparkles I had with the Firehawk. The Firehawk also suffered from brightness and color non-uniformity from side to side much more than the HP.


----------



## mbroder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/14864006
> 
> 
> As I recall, they're about 9 x 12 inches, and I think they're free. Just go to the Da-Lite website here, and click on Live Chat. They can give you the details and take your request at the same time. Easy-peasy.



They sent me a 6" square swatch







. It's tiny!! But... it was still enough for me to see the properties of the HP material. Even though my Sharp 12kmkII is ceiling mounted at about 65" above the floor, it had ton's more brightness than my current DIY screen. I had my model B HP screen delivered last week. Unfortunately, I haven't had time to hang it yet. The wife doesn't want me to temporarily hang it. I'm cutting out the material and tacking it to the wall, then I'm building a frame around it. I'm hoping to do it this weekend and then I'll post a review.


----------



## jhunt17

where is your projector? Is it table mounted or ceiling mounted? I just sent off for some samples myself. The guy I talked to recommended the mat white, but I am looking forward to seeing it work.


----------



## noah katz

"Does the SilverStar actually look about TWICE as bright as the HiPower ?"


It's actually about the same gain as the HP.


----------



## Mike W

FLBOY:


Thanks for developing your awesome screen gain calculator. I'm just starting the process of trying to figure out whether an RS20/High Power setup would work well in my room and, assuming I've used it correctly, it has been most helpful in suggesting initially that the HP is a viable option (whether it's the best option, that I haven't figured out yet).


The following question is purely out of curiosity. Earlier today as I started looking over this thread (from the beginning...but didn't make it through all 40 pages!) I came across a viewing angle calculator that was posted almost a couple of years ago by Marshall F (post #97), and which was followed up by this question in post #107 by rto:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rto* /forum/post/9293322
> 
> 
> In the calculator above, isn't "A" correctly measured as the distance from the lens of the projector to the level of a seated viewers' *eyes*, and *not* necessarily the center of the screen ( unless a viewer's eyes are exactly perpendicular to this point? ) If the term "retro-reflective" refers to a literal phenomenon, then in a "High Power" application, the greatest quantity of light is reflected back along the axis of projection, or area within close proximity to the point of origin, ie: the lens.



After scrolling through more pages...but not the entire lot...and trying a couple of searches, I didn't see any explicit answer to rto's post. But, other posts in this thread did emphasize that for a retro-reflective screen it was important to place the PJ relatively close to eye level, so in terms of the calculator that Marshall F posted it would seem that it's the vertical distance between the eyes and pj lens -- rather than the vertical distance between eye level and the screen's center -- that would be the more appropriate of the two measures...if it came down to an either/or choice.


If that's generally the idea, then I began to wonder, when a projector is placed several feet behind the seating position and the lens has to project an image upward to center it on the screen, wouldn't it be more precise to calculate the vertical viewing angle by measuring the distance between eye level and the center of the axis of projection at the point where the axis of projection passes over the viewer's head--i.e., at the seating distance? Then I saw your calculator, which asks for the center height of the screen, height of center of the pj lens, height of eye level, and various distances. So, with all that data...is that in effect what your calculator is using to determine the "error angle", namely, the difference in height between eye level and the center of the axis of projection at the precise seating distance...or is it even more complex than that?


Hope the question is clear.


Thanks much.

Mike W


----------



## millerwill

Mike, The relevant angle is that formed by a line from the lens to a point on the screen, and from that point on the screen to your eye. There will thus in general be different angles--and different gains--from different points on the screen. But if your eye is not very far from the lens, the angles will all be very close to one another (if your eye were at the lens, they would all be 0).


But you can get a good idea of how much variation there is by taking several points on the screen, e.g., the center, and ones to the right and left edges of the screen. With reasonable pj locations, you'll be surprised how little they vary.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mike W* /forum/post/14867634
> 
> 
> FLBOY:
> 
> 
> Thanks for developing your awesome screen gain calculator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I saw your calculator, which asks for the center height of the screen, height of center of the pj lens, height of eye level, and various distances. So, with all that data...is that in effect what your calculator is using to determine the "error angle", namely, the difference in height between eye level and the center of the axis of projection at the precise seating distance...or is it even more complex than that?
> 
> 
> Hope the question is clear.
> 
> 
> Thanks much.
> 
> Mike W



Thanks for the compliment, Mike.


It's more complex. From the input data, my calculator determines a three-dimensional line segment, or "PJ vector," from the PJ lens front to a point on the screen, e.g., the center of the screen. Then it determines a "viewer vector" from a viewer's eyes to the same point on the screen. The calculator then uses vector math to calculate the precise "error angle" between the two vectors. The screen gain is then estimated using a mix of linear and exponential interpolation designed to approximate a graph of High Power gain versus viewing angle, which I obtained from Da-Lite.


A more detailed explanation can be found in Post #6 of the All Screen Gain Calculator thread linked below. If you really want a thorough understanding of the vector math techniques I am using, please see Chapters 1-10 of the vector math tutorial linked at the end of Post #6.


Hope this helps.


----------



## mbroder












So I was able to hang my model B HP last night. It took about 10 minutes to remove the old screen and set up the new one. I haven't had time to recalibrate my projector yet. I'll go into more detail after I do.


Initial thoughts...







... I was surprised at how uniform the brightness is. Although you definitely lose brightness when you're out of the cone, it still looks very good. Whites are significantly better than my DIY Behr Silverscreen/Parkland screen.


The downside is that you see too much detail (if the iris on my xvz12000mkII is opened).Meaning that the source material really needs to be great or you will see many artifacts that you never noticed before. I see a lot more grain in certain shows. The good news is that I will probably never have to watch with iris opened anymore.


I'll go into a little more detail after calibration with the DVE bluray. Overall, I'm very pleased. Especially for the price of the model B. I'm cutting out the material this weekend I hope and building a nice beveled frame for it.


By the way, Chad was correct. The 96x72 is considered "square" and therefore it really measures only 92"+ in viewable width. Go figure







..


----------



## Mike W

Millerwill, FLBoy: Thanks very much for your feedback.


FLBoy: I've now read your Post #6 in the All Screen Gain Calculator thread. Detailed and clearly explained. You certainly have put a lot of work into this. Once upon a time, in a galaxy far far away, I was a math club tutor in high school. Seems like a lot of rust has built up on some of my neural circuits.









Mike W


----------



## WOLVERNOLE




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mbroder* /forum/post/14869891
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I was able to hang my model B HP last night. It took about 10 minutes to remove the old screen and set up the new one. I haven't had time to recalibrate my projector yet. I'll go into more detail after I do.
> 
> 
> Initial thoughts...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... I was surprised at how uniform the brightness is. Although you definitely lose brightness when you're out of the cone, it still looks very good. Whites are significantly better than my DIY Behr Silverscreen/Parkland screen.
> 
> 
> The downside is that you see too much detail (if the iris on my xvz12000mkII is opened).Meaning that the source material really needs to be great or you will see many artifacts that you never noticed before. I see a lot more grain in certain shows. The good news is that I will probably never have to watch with iris opened anymore.
> 
> 
> I'll go into a little more detail after calibration with the DVE bluray. Overall, I'm very pleased. Especially for the price of the model B. I'm cutting out the material this weekend I hope and building a nice beveled frame for it.
> 
> 
> By the way, Chad was correct. The 96x72 is considered "square" and therefore it really measures only 92"+ in viewable width. Go figure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..



MBRODER-

Thanks for your initial observations ! I hope that you will give us further thoughts on this upon calibration. Were you using Blu-Ray material when you made your early observations and noted artifacts? How would you say the SHARPNESS is with this screen ? Thanks for a reply.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mike W* /forum/post/14871038
> 
> 
> FLBoy: I've now read your Post #6 in the All Screen Gain Calculator thread. Detailed and clearly explained. You certainly have put a lot of work into this. Once upon a time, in a galaxy far far away, I was a math club tutor in high school. Seems like a lot of rust has built up on some of my neural circuits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mike W



Thanks again for your kind comments, Mike. I must admit that this project became the proverbial "labor of love" for me. It was fun, though, and I learned a lot while doing it.


----------



## mbroder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WOLVERNOLE* /forum/post/14872154
> 
> 
> MBRODER-
> 
> Thanks for your initial observations ! I hope that you will give us further thoughts on this upon calibration. Were you using Blu-Ray material when you made your early observations and noted artifacts? How would you say the SHARPNESS is with this screen ? Thanks for a reply.



I haven't looked at any blu ray yet. Probably this weekend. I just watched a few programs on directtv. All in HD of course. The baseball game looked spectacular. I watched Fringe on Fox, and it was really inconsistent. Some scenes had ridiculous amounts of grain and artifacts (in the dark scenes) and others were spot on. I know what it's capabilities are now, so my expectations are very high. I wish all source material was regulated so it always looks the best it can on any given display, but that is a pipe dream.


My projector has extremely good optics and I get a razor sharp image on just about any surface, but I would say the combination of the extra brightness and sharpness may contribute to the noticable artifacts and film grain.


What I really like is the 3-D pop. Everything feels a little more dimensional.


----------



## Mike W

Many members have commented on the (surprisingly) good brightness uniformity of the HP. In my planned seating configuration for a relatively narrow room (4-seat "couch" centered to the screen; screen width approx 86" for 16x9 and 102" for 2.35), I've come up with the following tentative screen gain figures (for a "102" wide screen) using FLBoy's screen gain calculator, for the interior and exterior seating positions (the values below are for seats on the right side).

*Interior seat:*

RETRO REFLECTIVE

SCREEN SCREEN SCREEN

LEFT CENTER RIGHT

Calculated Error Angle (Degrees): 9.64 7.09 5.38

Estimated Screen Gain: 1.90 2.14 2.30


*Exterior seat*


RETRO REFLECTIVE

SCREEN SCREEN SCREEN

LEFT CENTER RIGHT

Calculated Error Angle (Degrees): 15.57 13.54 9.50

Estimated Screen Gain: 1.37 1.54 1.91



I'm wondering how differences in screen gain across the width of the screen translate into perceived differences in brightness. IF I'm interpreting the numbers correctly, if I'm in the far right seat, then there's an estimated .54 difference in gain between the far right and far left of the screen. From an interior seat, the gain difference shrinks to .40.


I have no viewing experience with high gain screens for front projectors (the a/v stores around here tend to use FireHawks or similar screens). Are such differences in gain across the screen a) too small to translate into perceived differences in brightness when viewing actual content, b) noticeable, if you really look hard to find them, or c) clearly visible as a brighter image on one side of the screen? I assume that people will vary in whether the same perceived difference is "annoying" or "no problem," but I'm wondering at a more basic level, how much of a difference in within-screen gain is needed be noticeable (e.g., to produce a jnd) when viewing real content?


Mike W.


----------



## scottyb

Mike,

the differences in gain are noticable. I have a Highpower and when I'm off to the side in my 13' room I can tell it's not as bright. Saying that however, when seated and watching a movie or sporting event it is perfectly acceptable as the gain is even across the screen from any given seating position. ie: I'm sitting off to the left the screen has the same brightness from one side of the pic to the other. Now it's not as bright as when I sit in the center, but it's still plenty bright.


Hope that helps,

Scott


----------



## FLBoy

Mike, I think you are asking about on-screen brightness uniformity. You question is answered in this article from Da-Lite's _Angles of View_ series. The following paragraph is quoted from the article.

"Why we care about determining a screen's half-angle rather than, say, its quarter-angle or its two-thirds angle, results from the physiology of our own visual systems. It turns out that as long as a diminution in perceived brightness across a display screen is fairly smooth and not discontinuous, our eye:brain interfaces will not really take notice. Past the threshold where the perceived brightness is reduced by more than 50% , however, we can (and will) see those portions of the image as being dimmer. The calculation of each screen surface's half-angle, then, is what underlies the issuance of manufacturers' recommended viewing angle or viewing cone specifications.Why we care about determining a screen's half-angle rather than, say, its quarter-angle or its two-thirds angle, results from the physiology of our own visual systems. It turns out that as long as a diminution in perceived brightness across a display screen is fairly smooth and not discontinuous, our eye:brain interfaces will not really take notice. Past the threshold where the perceived brightness is reduced by more than 50% , however, we can (and will) see those portions of the image as being dimmer. The calculation of each screen surface's half-angle, then, is what underlies the issuance of manufacturers' recommended viewing angle or viewing cone specifications."


The answer then is that as long as the brightness changes gradually, you will not perceive a brightness change unless it is greater than 2:1. You are well below that limit, so you should perceive excellent brightness uniformity. Ask any of us who own the HP, and we will tell you its brightness uniformity is exceptional.


----------



## FLBoy

Mike, one other thing I forgot to mention is that brightness uniformity for off-center seating is highly sensitive to the PJ throw distance. Your gain values indicate that your PJ is fairly far behind your viewing positions. Try changing the PJ distance from the screen to a few values around 6-12 inches greater than your viewing distance from the screen. Often there is a "sweet spot" where the brightness uniformity is near perfect for any one of the off-center seats. Perhaps in your case you might try to find the sweet spot for a viewer halfway between your inner and outer seats. Happy hunting!


----------



## R Harkness

Having recently checked out my friend's HP screen, while the brightness seemed fairly (but not completely) uniform from any position, I found the changes in brightness with my position very noticeable. Almost any movement on my part and I notice brightness changes. I'll probably check it out again before I make my screen choice but my first encounter led me to think this screen is not for me since I've always valued a stable looking image from a variety of viewing angles.


----------



## WOLVERNOLE

Hey Mike-

One thing about your calculations that is particularly impressive to me is that at your WORST seating position/scenario, you are still getting an estimated 1.37 gain ! That still beats the Stewart Studiotek 130 (1.3 gain) or one of the Firehawks at 1.35 (at their BEST gain possible).

You will probably have some "room to wiggle" with the HiPower, with some extra brightness so that you can allow for bulb dimming.

Good luck to you.


----------



## WOLVERNOLE




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/14876983
> 
> 
> Having recently checked out my friend's HP screen, while the brightness seemed fairly (but not completely) uniform from any position, I found the changes in brightness with my position very noticeable. Almost any movement on my part and I notice brightness changes. I'll probably check it out again before I make my screen choice but my first encounter led me to think this screen is not for me since I've always valued a stable looking image from a variety of viewing angles.



RICH-

I have only had one viewing experience with a DaLite HiPower screen. It was under (no fault of the screen particularly) less than ideal conditions in that the gentleman was using a Sony VW-60 on a 135" 2:35:1 screen, and had the PJ ceiling mounted (albeit down to about 6'5" from ceiling,but not close to screen center) and back a few feet from seating. Even though the screen was "OK" from the best seating, I noticed a significant dropoff on each succeeding seating position...BUT, I cannot say that I noticed any noticable change from within my seat (yawning, scratching







), so I just do not understand your experience in perceptible change of brightness within your seating. Makes me wonder if you are doing calestenics (sp?)...exercising...while watching a movie ?







But seriously, I just did not notice a change within a reasonable-sized seating. My problem with aforementioned theater was trying to get a bright screen w/ a 135" screen w/PJ set up wrong for a retro screen.

BTW, Rich, I continue to appreciate your entries. You always offer a well-thought out and detailed analysis of a situation.


----------



## Mike W

Thanks for all your comments. I do realize, as Scott and Rich H note, that brightness will vary significantly with different seating positions -- or just moving around the "HT" room -- and I think that will take some getting used to. It always struck me as a bit odd how the brightness of RPTVs (with their very high gain screens, correct?) would change so dramatically with changes in viewing position. But of course, once you're seated, that's what counts. Sounds from the overall feedback that on-screen brightness uniformity for my setup won't be a major factor.


Wolvernole, yes, I did take notice as I was doing the calculations (well, as the calculator was doing the calculations) that I was in good shape even at the exterior seats compared to the 130 or FireHawk at their optimal rated gains (which I don't think I'd come close to achieving, though I haven't done those calcs yet).


FLBoy, the paragraph you quoted was right on target. I'll read the article tonight. Interesting how the interstimulus difference threshold for brightness under lab conditions is (as I understand it) about 1/60 for nonextreme values, yet it takes such a large difference in the on-screen brightness ratio to be noticeable. It's nice that our visual system is wired that way.


----------



## R Harkness

Since I still want quite a large screen the Da Lite HP is still a possibility. I figure I'll bring my current projector (a Panasonic Ae900 that I'm using for now) to my friend's house to check out the HP again.


I would _love_ to be able to decide the HP was for me because there are quite a number of benefits. It's just really tough that it happens to also exhibit one of the characteristics that drove me most nuts about RPTVs. But I'm going to do another "can I live with this" test, I think.


----------



## mystery

Rich,


If you're ever going to be out my way let me know and I'll show you my 106" High Power screen. I have it paired with HD DVD and BD players and the BenQ w5000 1080p projector. I also have the Scientific Atlanta Rogers cable HD PVR. I could do hand puppets for you as well but they'd only be in SD.










I doubt if I'll ever change screen types again.


Wayne


----------



## R Harkness

Well I demoed the Pioneer Kuro projector again today (re-badged JVC RS2 with 30,000:1 contrast). Again I was left thinking I wanted "more" from the image overall, mainly some more convincing brightness - it felt just a tad dull - and contrast for day scenes. Whereas I had my jaw on the floor seeing an Epson powerlight projecter right after. It was on a much bigger screen than the Pioneer projector, but seemed significantly brighter, richer and more consistantly satisfying and vivid.


It's hard to figure out if it was sheer light output I was liking from the Epson, or if there is something else the projector is doing that makes the image so attractive. But my experience today is making me want to re-visit the HP screen just in case...


----------



## Mike W




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/14876934
> 
> 
> Mike, one other thing I forgot to mention is that brightness uniformity for off-center seating is highly sensitive to the PJ throw distance. Your gain values indicate that your PJ is fairly far behinThd your viewing positions. Try changing the PJ distance from the screen to a few values around 6-12 inches greater than your viewing distance from the screen. Often there is a "sweet spot" where the brightness uniformity is near perfect for any one of the off-center seats. Perhaps in your case you might try to find the sweet spot for a viewer halfway between your inner and outer seats. Happy hunting!



Yes, you're correct: I've currently set values for the pj at approx 4 ft behind the viewing position, and +15 vertical. This is where my current pj is located. My room is relatively small (19'2 x 12'5), with the main seating position 154" from the screen. The floor depth isn't truly 19'2 however, as along the rear wall there is a 7' wide 24" deep built-in desk flanked by a closet on each side. This gives me just over 3 feet behind the back of the couch and the built in desk as an access area to the desk, a pathway to the far closet, and a space to place a couple of extra chairs (one on each side of the projector) whenever we need seating for 6 rather than 4 people.


If I move the pj to only 12" behind the viewing distance, I do indeed get much tighter brightness uniformity across the left center right screen positions:2.14/2.16/2.25. [Thanks for the tip] But unfortunately, it would leave me with room for only 1 seat behind the couch, as the other seat would be right next to the heat exhaust from the side of the RS20. And it would block the only feasible access to the far closet. Personally, I'd remove both closets and the desk, but let's just say that it isn't meant to be. There may be some wiggle room, however, to move the pj forward by a little bit: I'll have to play around with it when the time comes.


By the way, it has been interesting and instructive to enter different values into the various parameters of the screen calculator and see how this affects gain. A very good educational tool!


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mike W* /forum/post/14883301
> 
> 
> By the way, it has been interesting and instructive to enter different values into the various parameters of the screen calculator and see how this affects gain. A very good educational tool!



Yes, I too learned a few unexpected things when I was testing the screen calculator before release. The sensitivity of brightness uniformity to PJ throw was one of them. The possibility of near-perfect brightness uniformity for up to 3 seating positions in one row was another.


But, alas, there seem always to be constraints. In my own setup, fan noise and hot air blast along with a pathway made it seem prudent to locate my PJ 3.5 feet behind my viewing positions. Honestly, I can't perceive the brightness nonuniformity--but it bugs me a little, knowing it is there. HT is nothing if not compromise.


----------



## noah katz

Rich,


If possible, see if you can get your friend to rearrange things so that you can see a "scale model" of what your setup would be.


----------



## R Harkness

Noah,


Yes, I plan to, next week.


One of my complaints was how "unbalanced" the image looked at my friend's house, when I was in the position to see close to maximum gain from the screen. That is: the high-light areas really blazed away an popped "out" of the image. I realised while watching that my dissatisfaction could have been due to the very low contrast of his projector: it couldn't do anything close to a decent black level and therefore may not have been able to provide the deeper hues and contrast that would have made the image look more balanced. I found I had to choose a sitting position were the gain was much lower in order for his projector to look smoother and more balanced, less over-hyped in one area.


My Panasonic AE900 projector has better contrast and black levels, so I'm hoping it won't have quite the same effect and I'll like the higher gain seats better.


You have an HP don't you?


----------



## noah katz

Yes, 133". I had a Pan 900 before the RS1 and it didn't do anything like that.


I wonder if it was a pj setting; you may remember that Don Giberson brought over an Infocus 777, and we all thought that the whites had unnaturally bright highlights.


Someone said it has a white peak setting that's on by default, but I never heard back from Don about it.


----------



## Fartnokker

Just thought I'd throw this out for all the fence-sitters out there. I've been living with my High Power for awhile now, long enough for the initial "wow" factor to have worn off.


Problem is, it hasn't.


It really is as good as they say. The entire spectrum of watching my projector (daytime TV watching, sports, movies, etc.) has just been way more engaging. It seriously just pops like a humongous plasma; this is my repleacement TV for my 50" plasma, so I think I have an idea of what I'm saying. The crisp brightness compared to a matte white screen is downright spooky.


And for all the folks who keep asking over and over again, there is a viewing cone within which you'll get the max gain and most dramatic viewing experience. Outside the cone the brightness is reduced in a fairly linear fashion, but even at an extreme viewing angle, it is never as dim or washy as the matte white screen surface it replaced. Period.


If your projector is mounted more than a couple of feet IN ANY DIRECTION that increases your eye-to-projector angle from the screen, you will get a drop in overall brightness. If your projector is mounted 3 feet above your head while seated in viewing position, you'll get the same effect as if it were mounted at eye level a few feet to the side of your viewing position. Get the projector as close to eye level as possible, period. A ceiling-mounted projector 4 or 5 feet over your head is gonna lose out on a big portion of the potential of this screen. Doesn't matter what else you do. Doesn't mean it won't be good, which it will. You'll probably get more gain than you did on the screen it replaces, though, so don't shy away too much.


Another thing: No sparklies, none whatsoever. People keep asking about them, but the nature of the screen material does not lend itself to sparklies at all. Pay 10 times as much for similar gain in a Silverstar, and you'll get the sparklies. Nature of the beast.


I really, seriously, can't understand getting any other screen type, unless circumstances dictate that you mount your projector at a fairly extreme angle from the viewing surface, which means angular-reflective is your only option. Otherwise, make some adjustments & enjoy the hell out of the High Power. At less than 300 bones for a 106" 16:9 pulldown delivered to your door, how can you possibly go wrong?


I know people will continue to ask if it sparkles, if their setup geometry is "acceptable" for the High Power, etc. If just a few people read this and quit waffling about it, we've accomplished something good. It isn't the magical perfect screen for all occasions, but it kicks major a$$ in a large percentage of applications.


Just my humble opinion. Your mileage may vary according to use. Please follow manufacturer's safety instructions. Not to be removed, except by consumer...


----------



## mystery

Great post!! I totally agree 100%! I can't see myself ever changing the screen. I can watch sports with a little daylight coming through the blinds or a light on in the room.


Wayne


----------



## Mike W

Now that I've figured out that the HP screen geometry works in my room, could current HP owners comment on whether you see sparklies?

Thanks.

Mike W.

P.S.














Thanks for the info Danny.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mike W* /forum/post/14893872
> 
> 
> Now that I've figured out that the HP screen geometry works in my room, could current HP owners comment on whether you see sparklies?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Mike W.
> 
> P.S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the info Danny.




No, not in 2 yrs with my HP.


----------



## WOLVERNOLE




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mike W* /forum/post/14893872
> 
> 
> Now that I've figured out that the HP screen geometry works in my room, could current HP owners comment on whether you see sparklies?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Mike W.
> 
> .



Ummm...that was a J-O-K-E.


----------



## Mike W




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WOLVERNOLE* /forum/post/14894512
> 
> 
> Ummm...that was a J-O-K-E.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/14894244
> 
> 
> No, not in 2 yrs with my HP.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fartnokker* /forum/post/14892960
> 
> 
> Otherwise, make some adjustments & enjoy the hell out of the High Power. At less than 300 bones for a 106" 16:9 pulldown delivered to your door, how can you possibly go wrong?



Yup...it was a sunny Saturday joke, but thanks as always for your current and past ernest replies millerwill. Actually, from reading through this thread and well as many projector threads (especially JVC RS# threads) that eventually morph into screen discussions, sparklies aren't something I'm concerned about at all with the HP.


On a more serious note, what does concern me is the potential for seeing the screen pattern: again, from this and other threads I know that the overwhelming majority of posters have said it's absolutely no issue...but as I recall there have been a small number of posters who have stated that they do see a pattern with the HP. I'm not soliciting feedback on this -- no need to recycle what's already been said -- but I'm sensitive to (and really dislike) screen pattern. So once I get my new projector I'll ask Da-Lite for an HP sample (yes, tiny, but hopefully it will allow for a valid pre-test) and if I can't detect the pattern, then it'll be time to order the screen.


Danny, your comment about the price of an HP 106" diag pulldown floored me. So I just checked on Da-Lite's website...I don't know if the Model B's are the least expensive Da-Lites (if so, a 106" diag 16x9 is listed at $406, so either prices have gone up or the actual prices get discounted...or there's a cheaper model--I assume it's OK to post this since it's MSRP), but the bottom line is that your point is correct: the manual pull downs are inexpensive. The fixed frames, alas, such as Da-Snap and Cinema Contour, are roughly 4 to 5 times that price, and that's probably what we'll be going with. I'm sure Da-Lite sets its prices to be as competitive as possible, but wow, that seems like quite a "parts and labor" jump for a fixed frame. (Still a bargain, I know, compared to some other manufacturers.)


Mike W


----------



## FLBoy

Mike-

Let's just say you would have to be *insane* to pay list price for a Da-Lite screen. Check out thefinalclick.com for a hint of the street prices, and be sure to get a quote from AV Science (link at the top of this page) before you commit.


----------



## Joseph Clark

You know, we spend so much time here talking about how great the HP image is that we often forget to mention that it's a great bargain, too. Some people think that "You get what you pay for" is a good reason always to spend more than you have to. When I got my fixed frame Firehawk (about 6 years ago), it was about 50% more than a comparable HP is now. Last time I checked prices, the present-day Firehawk was about 3 times as much. Honestly, I'd buy the HP if the prices were reversed.


Gak!!! Don't tell Da-Lite I just said that.


----------



## Joseph Clark

As for screen pattern, I was reading an issue of Widescreen Review a year or two ago and ran across 2 articles. One was by Joe Kane and the other by another staff writer. Joe Kane (for whom I have a great deal of respect, BTW) spent some time talking about the negatives of high gain screens. The other staff writer had just performed a review of a projector on the HP, which he said had ample ability to resolve its 1920x1080 pixels. One article was a sweeping condemnation of high gain screens, while the other made passing reference to the HP's lack of screen pattern. Personally, after reading Joe Kane's article, I felt that none of the negatives he attributed to high gain screens in general applied to the HP. Had I read his article before I saw the HP, I might have thought twice about even sending for a sample.


Bottom line, send for samples and see for yourself. If you have a problem with screen pattern or grain, I'll eat my hat. (Of course, my hat is made of that cherry-filled chocolate, so I really hope you do see a problem. I've been meaning to eat that hat.)


----------



## Hughman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/14896524
> 
> 
> As for screen pattern, I was reading an issue of Widescreen Review a year or two ago and ran across 2 articles. One was by Joe Kane and the other by another staff writer. Joe Kane (for whom I have a great deal of respect, BTW) spent some time talking about the negatives of high gain screens. The other staff writer had just performed a review of a projector on the HP, which he said had ample ability to resolve its 1920x1080 pixels. One article was a sweeping condemnation of high gain screens, while the other made passing reference to the HP's lack of screen pattern. Personally, after reading Joe Kane's article, I felt that none of the negatives he attributed to high gain screens in general applied to the HP. Had I read his article before I saw the HP, I might have thought twice about even sending for a sample.
> 
> 
> Bottom line, send for samples and see for yourself. If you have a problem with screen pattern or grain, I'll eat my hat. (Of course, my hat is made of that cherry-filled chocolate, so I really hope you do see a problem. I've been meaning to eat that hat.)



I remember reading that Joe Kane article as well and it was readily apparant he was blatantly attempting to misinform by not explicitly excluding the HP with his large brush stroke condemnation with gain screens. He was marketing the ST130 in the article and it showed, with respect to visible artifacts (pattern) the HP screen is in another league compared to the ST130 G3 but of course that fact wouldn't bode well with the marketing intent of the article.


----------



## Chad T

I *do* see my HP's screen surface especially in bright, panning scenes. But I was using an Elite Powergain before and it is nowhere NEAR as bad as that screen was concerning surface visibility. I wish it wasn't visible, but it is slight, and something I'm willing to trade off for all of the HP's other positive attributes. Overall, it really is an awesome screen.


----------



## Hughman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chad T* /forum/post/14900301
> 
> 
> I *do* see my HP's screen surface especially in bright, panning scenes. But I was using an Elite Powergain before and it is nowhere NEAR as bad as that screen was concerning surface visibility. I wish it wasn't visible, but it is slight, and something I'm willing to trade off for all of the HP's other positive attributes. Overall, it really is an awesome screen.



Ye haw, I think that's makes it about 4 people on this site who can see this screen out of a population of about 300,000. In response to those who maintain the screen is completely texture free I've been posting about this visible texture since I purchased one close to two years ago (brand new HP installed last week shows same) and I always feel like the wacko cousin no one likes to talk about because of it.


My sentiments of this screen are exactly as you have described and beside that I'll also state the HP is the most transparent gained screen on the market.


----------



## Joseph Clark

How would you describe the texture you see, and do you see it at different distances from the screen?


----------



## Hughman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/14901418
> 
> 
> How would you describe the texture you see, and do you see it at different distances from the screen?



It's difficult to describe but would characterize it as the opposite of the typical "sparklies" type screen texture normally associated with gain screens. I'll call it "dullies" which one would think would create the same net effect/result as sparklies but doesn't appear to, the signature of the HP screen is different looking and is far more subtle. I can see the screen at different distances but am not sure at what distance it disappears and would be irrelevant anyway, there would not be one answer for all.


----------



## Joseph Clark

So, it's areas of "duller" sections of the screen? The sparklies of my Firehawk were evident as areas of snowy glistening in brighter parts of a frame. I know such things can be hard to describe, but I'm trying to get a handle on what it is you're seeing. Do you see it in the brighter areas of a shot?


----------



## WOLVERNOLE




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughman* /forum/post/14901615
> 
> 
> It's difficult to describe but would characterize it as the opposite of the typical "sparklies" type screen texture normally associated with gain screens. I'll call it "dullies" which one would think would create the same net effect/result as sparklies but doesn't appear to, the signature of the HP screen is different looking and is far more subtle. I can see the screen at different distances but am not sure at what distance it disappears and would be irrelevant anyway, there would not be one answer for all.



Perhaps the more germane point here might be to COMPARE screens in relation to whatever the observable "nasties" that are seen by folks. For instance, in comparison to Firehawk, Studiotek 130, Carada, etc. Do THESE screens all "show" MORE or LESS texture or observable markings than the HiPower ??? Many of us are trying to decide on what to choose, and for me, I am wanting to purchase a screen that is AS FAR from the SilverStar "sparklies" as I can get. Great gain, but extreme screen response "sparklies" like that would bug me. As nice as the Stewart StudioTek "the gold standard" is, I have read that it too has some "sparklies", so maybe it is not IF the HiPower has a low level of texture, but what is significantly better ? I have almost decided on the HiPower because not enough folks (well, actually, NONE) have said that texture or "sparklies" was ENOUGH of an issue to dissuade then from going to HiPower (compare that to SS). Comments?


----------



## andy133

If I understand the difference between sparkles and texture, texture then is a big deal breaker for me. To me it looks like very thin and short horizontal lines of dark area, so I concur with the dullies description. I can mainly see them at panning, not steady scenes.


I have seen this "texture" in all gained screens I tested. From Greywolf (obviously) to Video Spectra, to Pearlescent, and even in Cinema Vision. The CV was the least pronounced, but still I preferred the texture-less (though color-inaccurate) wall! Heck a piece of white paper was better in that!


The problem is I have not seen the HP. Can someone from those we have seen its texture compare it with the CV or any of the above textures?


Thanks

Andy


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WOLVERNOLE* /forum/post/14902298
> 
> 
> Perhaps the more germane point here might be to COMPARE screens in relation to whatever the observable "nasties" that are seen by folks. For instance, in comparison to Firehawk, Studiotek 130, Carada, etc. Do THESE screens all "show" MORE or LESS texture or observable markings than the HiPower ??? Many of us are trying to decide on what to choose, and for me, I am wanting to purchase a screen that is AS FAR from the SilverStar "sparklies" as I can get. Great gain, but extreme screen response "sparklies" like that would bug me. As nice as the Stewart StudioTek "the gold standard" is, I have read that it too has some "sparklies", so maybe it is not IF the HiPower has a low level of texture, but what is significantly better ? I have almost decided on the HiPower because not enough folks (well, actually, NONE) have said that texture or "sparklies" was ENOUGH of an issue to dissuade then from going to HiPower (compare that to SS). Comments?



A good neutral gain screen will offer the most featurless texture.


But if you need some gain, then the two screens with gain that I read over and over as exhibiting the least texture are the HP and the Carada Brilliant White material (which has some gain, but obviously lower than the HP).


I was seeing _something_ on the HP at my friend's house, but I attributed it to some poor processing of some SD signals we were watching.

However it looks like I'll have a chance to view some HP screen material in my home soon.


Right now I have the Carada samples and I can not see any bothersome screen structure on the Brilliant White material. It seems to "disappear" with a projected image as most people say it does.


----------



## Hughman

Ok, for comparative purposes I'll very, and I'll stress, crudely rank gained screens I've either owned or sampled in my system on a scale from 1-10. Ten being the worst, one being the barely noticeable, let's assume zero would be completely transparent to me. The rankings between 5 and 10 are from memory and individual scores could easily move up or down so I but is best I can recall. Generally I would consider the gain signature of the ST130 G3 about half as apparent than most above it, the HP screen again about twice as transparent as the ST130 and really not an issue with most viewing.


2- High Power

4- ST130 G3

5- ST130

5- Carada Brilliant White

6/8- Cinema Vision

6/8- High Contrast Cinema Vision

6/8- Pearlescent

6/8- Firehawk

9/10- Video Spectra


----------



## Tryg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughman* /forum/post/14902924
> 
> 
> 
> 2- High Power
> 
> 4- ST130 G3
> 
> 5- ST130
> 
> 5- Carada Brilliant White
> 
> 6/8- Cinema Vision
> 
> 6/8- High Contrast Cinema Vision
> 
> 6/8- Pearlescent
> 
> 6/8- Firehawk
> 
> 9/10- Video Spectra




I agree with this assessment. The High Power is the most transparent material I have seen to date by a long shot. The surface absolutely disappears. All other materials I can see the surface


I would actually put the HP at 1


----------



## thrang




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/14904565
> 
> 
> I agree with this assessment. The High Power is the most transparent material I have seen to date by a long shot. The surface absolutely disappears. All other materials I can see the surface
> 
> 
> I would actually put the HP at 1



I do love my high power screen, but I'm on my third one from Da-Lite - perhaps a bad run, but I've had faint horizontal banding on mine. This latest is the best of the three, and it's something I can ignore in most instances, but it's there. Da-Lite sent a rep out to see it, and confirmed it, but could never tell me what it was.


While it's a poor way of showing it, I put up a video that, if you look carefully, you can see the issue. It's noticeable in lighter, more solid areas, and is confirmed not projector or reflection related

http://gallery.me.com/gbastug#100236


----------



## WOLVERNOLE

This has been very helpful to me. Thanks so much to ya guys !


----------



## Hughman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/14904565
> 
> 
> I agree with this assessment. The High Power is the most transparent material I have seen to date by a long shot. The surface absolutely disappears. All other materials I can see the surface
> 
> 
> I would actually put the HP at 1



Good to hear, I was teetering on assigning "1" to the HP but am confident if the HP signature were reduced by half again I'd still be able to see it, reducing by half again the the signature most definitely would be crawling into the alleys of obscurity..... therefore the rating of 2.










Wolvernole, you're welcome.


----------



## Mike W




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mike W* /forum/post/14895697
> 
> 
> ...On a more serious note, what does concern me is the potential for seeing the screen pattern: again, from this and other threads I know that the overwhelming majority of posters have said it's absolutely no issue...but as I recall there have been a small number of posters who have stated that they do see a pattern with the HP. I'm not soliciting feedback on this -- no need to recycle what's already been said --
> 
> Mike W



Wow. Just imagine if I had asked for feedback!

So, as long as the screen pattern worms are out of the can, for me, I've noticed it most on large RPTVs during, say, NHL games (the ice rink) or movie scenes with icefields or snowfields. It's as if someone mixed a sugary, syrupy concoction that didn't fully dissolve the sugar and smeared it over the screen. Then, after the LSD wears off....


OK, at least on RPTVs it literally becomes impossible not to notice when there's a lot of white background. My brother and I were over at a friend's place once and both of us saw plainly saw this "pattern" while our friend didn't. So maybe there's a hereditary component to this, like some folks being affected by RBE. I haven't seen pattern on screens when I've gone to AV dealers, but I've yet to see a truly high gain screen at any dealer's showroom: almost always FireHawks or similar screens from other manufacturers. In any event, when people say they don't see a pattern on the HP, what would be particularly relevant is knowing that they do see it on ... for example, RPTVs or other screens ... but not on the HP. So, the recent posts have been useful in this regard.


Mike W.


----------



## Joseph Clark

RPTVs, to me, exhibit more grain in general than front projectors - a more granular texture to solid areas of a frame. The only time I see a "sugary concoction" on RPTVs is if there's something physically on the screen.


Last night I went looking for the "dullies" on my HP screen. I froze my Dish 622 on part of an Apple Nano commercial - where most of the screen was white. If I want to do a really thorough examination, I bring up Windows and a solid white field in Photoshop. Then, I go around looking for flaws. That's a better test, because it has no MPEG compression artifacts to get in the way, even up close.


The first thing I noticed was a spot about 2 inches around that I caused when I killed a mosquito the other day. I wiped the screen quickly with a damp cloth that must have had a little soapy residue on it. It looked a little like an undissolved sugary concoction (seriously).


So, I got out my Diamond Glaze - it's an eyeglass cleaner available here in the St. Louis area and is designed to be safe for AR (anti-reflective) coated lenses. It comes with a small, extremely soft, lint free cloth. I cleaned the spot from the screen and moved back to observe.


It was obvious how much brighter that newly cleaned part of the screen looked, so I got out my synthetic feather duster. It does a good job of snagging dust off the screen and doesn't run the risk of scratching it. I then watched part of "Road Trip," the American travelogue show with Steven Lee and Tina Madigan that's on Discovery Theater. Wow, huge difference. I hadn't done that for a few months and the dust had really accumulated. However, when I went back to an Apple commercial (they're everywhere, aren't they?) it also made it even easier to spot little smudges and spots on the screen. I started going after those and spent probably 45 mintues cleaning it up.


Then I watched several shows. Sarah Connor and Chuck really popped off the screen. I made a resolution to break out the feather duster a lot more often.


Still no "dullies." Another thing I remembered, though, was that when I got the screen, its surface was not really clean (and I also dirtied it up with sweat trying to get the screen snapped to the frame). When a shot panned across, I could see a couple of broad vertical areas at the top of the frame that looked duller than the rest of the surface. I cleaned that area and the problem went away. That's why, recently, I asked if some of the problems people were seeing might be some sort of factory residue left on the screen from being handled or packaged by DaLite.


It's easy to test for, if you can do any sort of freeze frame - either from a DVR or a computer. Put up a white field and then go back close to the lens. Spots or areas will be easy to see. Use an extremely clean, lint free cloth and maybe eye glass cleaner. (DaLite has a recommended cleaner - Naphtha, I think, for really tough spots - but check to be sure on their web site. I've never had a really tough spot.) I use a circular motion. The clean area will stand out from the rest of the screen. (BTW, moist areas stay wet looking for a long time unless I gently buff them out.)


That was a really long story, wasn't it? Point is, I still don't see the "dullies," but I'm masochist enough to want to continue to try. Could those of you who see screen pattern add any descriptions that might help me destroy my impression of the HP?


How sick is that?


----------



## Redskin

I am sure it is in this thread somewhere, but where is a good place to purchase one of these screens. From what I am reading here, this might be perfect for my situation. I have a Marantz 8600 projector, which is not a light canon. It will be 16' back, wall mounted, not too far above (actually, it might be very close) to the viewers heads.


----------



## R Harkness

I was at a store some months ago and they had an Optima DLP projector and a gray screen that was popular at some time (I think it was the Graywolf).


That screen had such an intrusive, overlaying screen texture it literally made watching most images frustrating to the point of me not enjoying the experience at all. To be sure, other screens exhibit this issue to a more minor degree, but I can't fathom how some people could put up with the screen I saw.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by ********* /forum/post/14911302
> 
> 
> I am sure it is in this thread somewhere, but where is a good place to purchase one of these screens. From what I am reading here, this might be perfect for my situation. I have a Marantz 8600 projector, which is not a light canon. It will be 16' back, wall mounted, not too far above (actually, it might be very close) to the viewers heads.



Got mine from AVS (link at the top of the page). Not only do they run this Forum, they're a great company to buy from.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/14911700
> 
> 
> Got mine from AVS (link at the top of the page). Not only do they run this Forum, they're a great company to buy from.



+1. I got my HP screen from Jason, AVS. Great service and price!


----------



## hitechnice

What an amazing review, thanks for posting.


----------



## cyyy1

Quite: Originally Posted by thrang

I do love my high power screen, but I'm on my third one from Da-Lite - perhaps a bad run, but I've had faint horizontal banding on mine. This latest is the best of the three, and it's something I can ignore in most instances, but it's there. Da-Lite sent a rep out to see it, and confirmed it, but could never tell me what it was.


While it's a poor way of showing it, I put up a video that, if you look carefully, you can see the issue. It's noticeable in lighter, more solid areas, and is confirmed not projector or reflection related


I've similar problem. My HP is 106" manual pull-down and it is my second one. Da-lite had replaced one for me and this 2nd one still got a dimmer band on the upper top of the screen. Is it the native defect of the screen? Is there any solution ?


----------



## Mike W




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/14896115
> 
> 
> Mike-
> 
> Let's just say you would have to be *insane* to pay list price for a Da-Lite screen. Check out thefinalclick.com for a hint of the street prices, and be sure to get a quote from AV Science (link at the top of this page) before you commit.



I see your point. That's very good news.

Crazy Mike











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cyyy1* /forum/post/14915189
> 
> 
> Quite: Originally Posted by thrang
> 
> I do love my high power screen, but I'm on my third one from Da-Lite - perhaps a bad run, but I've had faint horizontal banding on mine. This latest is the best of the three, and it's something I can ignore in most instances, but it's there. Da-Lite sent a rep out to see it, and confirmed it, but could never tell me what it was.
> 
> 
> While it's a poor way of showing it, I put up a video that, if you look carefully, you can see the issue. It's noticeable in lighter, more solid areas, and is confirmed not projector or reflection related
> 
> 
> I've similar problem. My HP is 106" manual pull-down and it is my second one. Da-lite had replaced one for me and this 2nd one still got a dimmer band on the upper top of the screen. Is it the native defect of the screen? Is there any solution ?



Thrang, cyyy: Alas, the video wouldn't download for me, but in any event, what an odd defect. Are your screens fixed frame, or another type?


----------



## thrang




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cyyy1* /forum/post/14915189
> 
> 
> Quite: Originally Posted by thrang
> 
> I do love my high power screen, but I'm on my third one from Da-Lite - perhaps a bad run, but I've had faint horizontal banding on mine. This latest is the best of the three, and it's something I can ignore in most instances, but it's there. Da-Lite sent a rep out to see it, and confirmed it, but could never tell me what it was.
> 
> 
> While it's a poor way of showing it, I put up a video that, if you look carefully, you can see the issue. It's noticeable in lighter, more solid areas, and is confirmed not projector or reflection related
> 
> 
> I've similar problem. My HP is 106" manual pull-down and it is my second one. Da-lite had replaced one for me and this 2nd one still got a dimmer band on the upper top of the screen. Is it the native defect of the screen? Is there any solution ?



There was no solution from Da-Lite - they kept inferring their engineers and "Chemists" would look into the matter, and while Da-Lite has been extremely helpful, I never got full resolution. The two "worse" screens are still here, and are going back this week once I get call tags. Perhaps they can ascertain the issue upon inspection.


The only change in condition seems to be that over time, the issue is slowly lessening - perhaps, since I have a fixed frame, there is a certain stretching of the material (though we know that stretch and High Power are two phrases that seem to be impossible to use in the same sentence)...


----------



## thrang




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mike W* /forum/post/14915701
> 
> 
> I see your point. That's very good news.
> 
> Crazy Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thrang, cyyy: Alas, the video wouldn't download for me, but in any event, what an odd defect. Are your screens fixed frame, or another type?



You will need Quicktime (I'm a Mac guy - but QT is a free download for Windows as well)


My screen as a 120" 16:9 fixed frame Cinema Contour


----------



## Mike W

OK, time to get educated a little more...I hope.


Suppose you have a projector where the default vertical offset is zero to project an image centered on an HP screen (e.g., such as the JVC RS series, as I understand it).


Suppose as well that the center of the screen is 58" high (distance from floor) and that the eyeball viewing level from 13 feet away is 36". With the PJ placed a few feet behind the viewer (or even right behind the viewer, hypothetically), as you progressively lower the placement of the PJ -- from 58" to eye level) you take better advantage of the retro reflective screen and get more gain. BUT, as you lower the PJ placement, you have to use more of the PJ's vertical lens shift to center the image. Does this decrease lumen output, or is it "lumen-neutral"?


Secondly, as you need to use more vertical lens shift, doesn't this increase the need to use the keystone adjustment? I've read that one should try to avoid using a PJ's keystone adjustment (is this because it affects lumen output)? So, bottom line, as you try to line up the PJ closer to eye level, would you be giving up some of the gain benefits due to greater v. lens shift and, possibly, keystone adjustments?


Mike W.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mike W* /forum/post/14923626
> 
> 
> OK, time to get educated a little more...I hope.
> 
> 
> Suppose you have a projector where the default vertical offset is zero to project an image centered on an HP screen (e.g., such as the JVC RS series, as I understand it).
> 
> 
> Suppose as well that the center of the screen is 58" high (distance from floor) and that the eyeball viewing level from 13 feet away is 36". With the PJ placed a few feet behind the viewer (or even right behind the viewer, hypothetically), as you progressively lower the placement of the PJ -- from 58" to eye level) you take better advantage of the retro reflective screen and get more gain. BUT, as you lower the PJ placement, you have to use more of the PJ's vertical lens shift to center the image. Does this decrease lumen output, or is it "lumen-neutral"?
> 
> 
> Secondly, as you need to use more vertical lens shift, doesn't this increase the need to use the keystone adjustment? I've read that one should try to avoid using a PJ's keystone adjustment (is this because it affects lumen output)? So, bottom line, as you try to line up the PJ closer to eye level, would you be giving up some of the gain benefits due to greater v. lens shift and, possibly, keystone adjustments?
> 
> 
> Mike W.



Lens shift is not keystone. The former does not degrade the pq, while the latter does (and should be avoided). That's why the large lens shift of lcos pj's is so convenient.


----------



## rsamos




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/14924000
> 
> 
> Lens shift is not keystone. The former does not degrade the pq, while the latter does (and should be avoided). That's why the large lens shift of lcos pj's is so convenient.



Exactly.


Lens shift is exactly that - it shifts the lens, it doesn't tilt it.


Keystone is the type of distortion you get when you tilt the projector up or down to aim at the screen. While most projectors have ways to compensate for that distortion, it is done through interpolation and will degrade picture quality.


----------



## FLBoy

 This article explains keystone effect and keystone correction about as well as any I have seen.


Mike W: While the article advises against using large amounts of either optical (lens shift) or digital keystone correction, the amount of correction you will be using is small enough that you probably will not be able to see any PQ difference compared to a centered, zero-offset position.


----------



## Mike W

millerwill, rsamos, FLboy: Thanks for all the comments, and the for article reference (which I've read). So, the conclusion is that lens shift is lumens-neutral, while keystone adjustment is not.


P.S. FLBoy: Is FL for Florida, or...given your dedication to issues concerning screen brightness, does it stand for Foot Lambert boy?


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mike W* /forum/post/14926652
> 
> 
> So, the conclusion is that lens shift is lumens-neutral, while keystone adjustment is not.



Not exactly. It's a scaling/resolution issue. 1-to-1 pixel mapping is always best. Keystoning does not allow this. Lens shift does.


----------



## Mike W




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/14926861
> 
> 
> Not exactly. It's a scaling/resolution issue. 1-to-1 pixel mapping is always best. Keystoning does not allow this. Lens shift does.



erkq: Just to clarify, are you saying that a) the reason why lens shift does not impair lumen output is because it retains 1-to-1 pixel mapping, or b) that my conclusion that lens shift does not impair lumen output is incorrect?

Thanks


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mike W* /forum/post/14926652
> 
> 
> P.S. FLBoy: Is FL for Florida, or...given your dedication to issues concerning screen brightness, does it stand for Foot Lambert boy?



LOL. Take your choice.







Some members even see a "y" that isn't there and refer to me as "FlyBoy".


Actually though, when I first joined these forums, I didn't know much about foot-lamberts, but I knew I was glad to be back in Florida, so the FL is for Florida.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mike W* /forum/post/14927111
> 
> 
> erkq: Just to clarify, are you saying that a) the reason why lens shift does not impair lumen output is because it retains 1-to-1 pixel mapping, or b) that my conclusion that lens shift does not impair lumen output is incorrect?
> 
> Thanks



Ans to a): No, I'm saying lens shift does not impare resolution... well... much anyway. (There is some CA introduced, depending on the lens.) But doing something other than 1-to-1 pixel mapping does.


Ans to b): Yes, you are right. Lens shift does not impare lumen output in any meaningful way.


Reduced lumen output is not an issue I've ever heard associated with keystoning before. The keystoning compromise has always been one of resolution/scaling.


That article is the first mention of dimming as a negative to keystoning that I've seen. I don't know why there would have to be any dimming.


----------



## FLBoy

If you tilt your PJ upwards, for example, keystone effect turns the rectangular image into a trapezoidal image in which the top is wider than the bottom. Digital keystone correction can fix this by squeezing the image into a trapezoidal area of the display panel that is the inverse of the keystone effect, i.e., a trapezoidal area in which the bottom is wider than the top. The combined result is the desired rectangular image.


Note that with digital keystone correction the PJ is using less than the full display panel. In the above example, the less-wide top end of the trapezoidal area uses a fraction of the total width of the panel and thus a fraction of the available pixels corresponding to the top line of the image, while the bottom of the trapezoidal area uses all of the pixels available for the bottom line.


At the very least, in this example, the top of the picture will lose some resolution compared to the bottom. The top will also lose some brightness (because fewer pixels are driving the same screen area), unless some kind of line-by-line brightness compensation is performed. (These issues are small, unless the PJ is tilted outrageously.) In addition, if the squeezing is not done correctly, video artifacts can be introduced.


Lens shift, on the other hand, uses the full display panel in a normal manner. The PJ stays level, and the lens is mechanically shifted within the PJ housing to move the image up, for example, while simultaneously optically correcting for keystoning. This avoids the aforementioned issues with digital keystone correction.


Lens shift has a negligible effect on image brightness and resolution, but it does require the projected image to be moved away from the center of the lens and towards its outer portions. Taken too far, this can cause undesirable optical aberrations. This is why manufacturers advise owners to use lens shift as sparingly as possible.


----------



## Mike W

Thanks erkq and FLBoy for the elaborations. As a former, very amateur photographer, I can appreciate the concept that using too much v lens shift in a pj would increase the risk of optical aberrations.


As for "FLyBoy", there used to be store in a famous downtown Seattle market (Pike's Place Market) that was called The Bead Store. Apparently, lots of consumers read the store's sign as The Bread Store (after all, it's a farmer's/food market...or at least used to be). So the store owners, tired of hearing thousands of would-be customers come in and ask "Where's the bread?", eventually had to put up a sign saying "We sell beads, not bread", or something like that. It's always interesting how mental sets affect our perceptions.


----------



## Redskin

I am not sure if this was covered, but here it goes. I think a HP screen will be perfect in my situation. I currently have a piece of BOC tacked up to the wall. I have a dedicated room, and really would like a fixed screen, but best I can tell, they are a ton more money than a pulldown screen. Money is a little tight right now. Does Da-Lite sell just the screen material? If they do, do you think it would work to tack one up to the wall, like I do now, and build a frame to attach to the wall on top of it? If not, would it be crazy to buy one of the pull down screens and cut the screen fabric off and do what I am describing above?


----------



## hrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by ********* /forum/post/14934384
> 
> 
> I am not sure if this was covered, but here it goes. I think a HP screen will be perfect in my situation. I currently have a piece of BOC tacked up to the wall. I have a dedicated room, and really would like a fixed screen, but best I can tell, they are a ton more money than a pulldown screen. Money is a little tight right now. Does Da-Lite sell just the screen material? If they do, do you think it would work to tack one up to the wall, like I do now, and build a frame to attach to the wall on top of it? If not, would it be crazy to buy one of the pull down screens and cut the screen fabric off and do what I am describing above?



Some forum members have bought the inexpensive Model B pulldown and removed the fabric and fashioned their own fixed frame. It can be done.


Look into the Da-Lite Perm-Wall first, though. It has a rudimentary frame that is basic enough that you have to attach the frame to the wall, instead of just hanging it like a painting. The Perm-Wall is a lot less expensive than the fixed frame screens with the Da-Snap and the Cinema Contour frames.


You could buy the fabric alone, but it's been reported here that Da-Lite wants more money for it than for a Model A pulldown screen.


----------



## tjayl

I got my 1080UB on Thursday and now have to order my screen. I wanted to hold off on ordering till I got it so I knew exactly what size screen I wanted. I had planned on a High Power Model C.


I put up a sheet to project onto to figure it out. I was shocked at how bright the image was, and how much it lit up the room. Is this going to be even worse with a high gain screen? I have dark walls, but light carpet and white ceiling. I can not change these. I know my black levels will suffer a bit, but I'm just concerned it's going to be uncomfortably bright. Is there such a thing? The projector is about 16 ft back, behind my second row, just high enough to clear heads.


Thanks!


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tjayl* /forum/post/14939927
> 
> 
> I was shocked at how bright the image was, and how much it lit up the room. Is this going to be even worse with a high gain screen? I have dark walls, but light carpet and white ceiling.



The high gain screen will throw less light on the ceiling, side walls and floor and more on the back wall. So, in your case, I'd think that would be a good thing. Too bright? That's what ND filters are for!


----------



## Joseph Clark

Yeah, no such thing as too bright a screen with a lamp-based projector. The bulb is going to age and dim (usually sooner than later). If it's too bright, filter it, then remove the filter when it ages. It's the best possible scenario with a bulb. I can't do that, since my Sharp XV-Z20000 is too dim when new. I had to shift to high brightness when my last lamp got to about 1100 hours. The first lamp lasted to the end in low lamp mode. I think different lamps must age differently.


----------



## Joseph Clark

If you've had your HP up for a few months (especially in a fairly dusty environment like mine), you really ought to dust the screen. I'm amazed at how much more vibrant everything is since I took a feather duster to mine the other day.


I still haven't run into any "dullies," and I can't see any screen texture, no matter how far from the screen I stand. I wanted to thank those who talked about screen texture or anomalies, though, because those comments are what prompted me to examine it more closely and dust it. Huge difference!!! Dust like that accumulates slowly, so the change is hard to perceive over time. My rule of thumb from now on is to dust the screen once a month. It takes about 60 seconds.


----------



## pottscb

I live in central Texas (Austin) and would like to demo an HP before I buy (and a swatch won't cut it) and their website doesn't seem to address this. I also travel for a living and these are the cities I will be visiting in the new few months, if you know of an HP display in one of these areas, pls. PM me the locations, much appreciated.


-San Antonio, Dallas

-New Orleans

-Kansas City

-St. Louis

-Chicago

-West Palm Beach FL

-Shreveport LA


----------



## Jeff Smith

I posted this in another thread too, so its not deja vu.


I just spent quite a bit of time on the "all screen gain calculator", and noted some weird things, is this right?


At 0 degrees, of course everything's great. but at distances still within the 15 degree (or even less) off axis cone, the brightness is still there, but the variation from one side of the screen was large (ie. on an 11' wide HP screen, sitting 11' back, even moving 15" off center produced a range of gain from 1.83 to 2.41 on the 2 sides of the screen)...wouldn't this be major hot-spotting even well within the "best" viewing cone?


OTOH, sitting 55" off center, the gain was only ranging 1.10 to 1.29...obviously dimmer but much more uniform. Is this part of the retro reflective property?


90% of the time, we will sit in the sweet spot (but that means each head is 15" off center), 10% of the time we'll have guests who get the sweet spot and I'm at the edge 50" off center=...I could live with some of this, I think.


1 time every year we have a Super Bowl party where lots of people are all around, but still all within the widest out area I spoke of above. I was worried this would be a big deal with sports, but maybe not since everyone usually stays in their same seat, so their "gain" would remain constant. Anyone ever use a huge HP screen for a party and have words of wisdom? Light control is good, the screen lights up the room enough.


It just freaked me out that the people at the edges could move their heads with less hot-spotting than those in the sweet spot...even though the sweet spot is much brighter all around, it seems moving a foot in either direction makes major brightness variations (side to side).


Help me understand this?



__________________


----------



## Jack Gilvey

Hey all,


I'm running OpenOffice on this backup laptop and it will only open that cool spreadsheet in read mode, so I wonder if someone wouldn't mind running these numbers for me. I've already decided on, and am taking delivery of, a 92" Model B next week, and am curious as to how much gain I can expect in my situation.


The projector (an AE900, iris on/low lamp/1700 hrs on the bulb) is 12' back, and the lens is 46" off the floor. Eyes will be 8.5' back, 36" off the floor. The furthest we'll get from center will be ~24" to the left or right (loveseat), and well within the 80" width of the screen. The bottom of the 45" high screen will be 30" from the floor.

The walls/ceiling of the room are white, which I can't change, so I'm hoping to direct as much light as possible to the back wall where I'd have a better chance of dealing with it. As it is with my matte white DIY, the place lights up on any bright/mixed scene and the blacks go to pot. That's the primary goal...if I can get a brighter/punchier picture from the projector in the process it'll be a bonus.










Thanks!


----------



## FLBoy

Jack: I ran your numbers and got the following gains for the left, center, and right screen positions.


middle seat: 2.02 2.19 2.02

right seat: 1.29 1.44 1.94

left seat: 1.94 1.44 1.29


The slight amount of gain nonuniformity is because your seating is 3.5 feet in front of the lens. You probably won't notice any brightness change of less than 2 to1, but if it bothers you ...


Moving the PJ forward to 108.5 inches from the screen produces the following gains:


middle seat: 2.29 2.26 2.29

right seat: 1.62 1.47 1.62

left seat: 1.62 1.47 1.62


----------



## Jack Gilvey

Thank you! The pj's on a shelf in a bookcase with the room's main walkway in front of it, so it'll have to stay put if it's going to be at that height.

The 24" to the sides is truly the extreme case, though, and we're only there if we're fighting.







More typical would be 12-18", so it looks like I'll be in pretty good shape.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jeff Smith* /forum/post/14965863
> 
> 
> 
> At 0 degrees, of course everything's great. but at distances still within the 15 degree (or even less) off axis cone, the brightness is still there, but the variation from one side of the screen was large (ie. on an 11' wide HP screen, sitting 11' back, even moving 15" off center produced a range of gain from 1.83 to 2.41 on the 2 sides of the screen)...wouldn't this be major hot-spotting even well within the "best" viewing cone?



This is actually an issue I'm having with a 92" x 50" Da lite High Power screen I'm testing out. The projector is about 13' from the screen, I'm sitting about 11 feet from the screen. The viewing cone to me is very, very noticeable, especially near the center and then when you get a bit further out to the sides. The image has a "shifty" quality and whether it is hot-spotting or not in the strict sense, it is giving the impression of hotspotting, just by they way the luminance so visibly shifts around parts of the screen as I move. The brightness is impressive to be sure....but this screen ain't for everyone, as is often pointed out.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jack Gilvey* /forum/post/14985502
> 
> 
> Thank you! The pj's on a shelf in a bookcase with the room's main walkway in front of it, so it'll have to stay put if it's going to be at that height.
> 
> The 24" to the sides is truly the extreme case, though, and we're only there if we're fighting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More typical would be 12-18", so it looks like I'll be in pretty good shape.



You're welcome. You should be fine. My setup is similar to yours--right down to the main walkway between the PJ and the seating. I don't _see_ any brightness nonuniformity, although the gain computer shows there is some. Best of all, your arrangement gives you yet another good reason not to fight!


----------



## FremontRich




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/14985857
> 
> 
> This is actually an issue I'm having with a 92" x 50" Da lite High Power screen I'm testing out. The projector is about 13' from the screen, I'm sitting about 11 feet from the screen. The viewing cone to me is very, very noticeable, especially near the center and then when you get a bit further out to the sides. The image has a "shifty" quality and whether it is hot-spotting or not in the strict sense, it is giving the impression of hotspotting, just by they way the luminance so visibly shifts around parts of the screen as I move. The brightness is impressive to be sure....but this screen ain't for everyone, as is often pointed out.




Isn't the definition of hotspotting is if from where one is sitting there is a portion of the screen which is brighter than other parts? If from one's sitting position the entire screen is uniformly bright there is no hotspotting. If my mythical buddy Joe is sitting a little further from the ideal location his image will be less bright due to the HP's cone but his image will be uniform nonetheless.


----------



## WOLVERNOLE




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FremontRich* /forum/post/14986833
> 
> 
> Isn't the definition of hotspotting is if from where one is sitting there is a portion of the screen which is brighter than other parts? If from one's sitting position the entire screen is uniformly bright there is no hotspotting. If my mythical buddy Joe is sitting a little further from the ideal location his image will be less bright due to the HP's cone but his image will be uniform nonetheless.





R Harkness said:


> giving the impression of hotspotting, just by they way the luminance so visibly shifts around parts of the screen as I move. /QUOTE]
> 
> 
> Fremont Rich-
> 
> To my understanding after many, many entries by others on this, you are exactly correct.
> 
> 
> Rich H. has noted above that he "moves," but other than jumping to the next chair, my experience with viewing the Hi-Power is that WHEREVER I sit, the screen is uniform !


----------



## Tryg

If your screen is uniformly bright, there is no hotspotting. The High Power, because of its retroreflective nature, is the most uniform material I have ever seen.


Yes the whole image can get dimmer when sitting off axis but this happens with angular reflective screens too...and usually even dimmer than the HP. The HP is a wonderful screen material


----------



## mystery

That's right.


Wayne


----------



## Jack Gilvey

Would a bias light behind the screen show through?


----------



## Rudy81




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jack Gilvey* /forum/post/14991703
> 
> 
> Would a bias light behind the screen show through?



I seriously doubt it. The screen material is pretty thick and the back is black.


----------



## mystery

I used to have rope lights near the top and bottom of the screen without them showing through.


Wayne


----------



## Jack Gilvey

Cool...thanks guys.


----------



## Mike W

Thanks to a gracious invitation from Danny (aka Fartnokker) to join him for several hours of home theater viewing, I had my first opportunity to see a High Power screen in action this Saturday.


Pleez xcuse mi if I make a few tipos, becawse Iym still parsially blinded from Danny's combo uf HP + Optoma HD65. Freakin' amazing.


As I recall -- and Danny correct me if I'm misremembering -- the screen was

about 96" wide but the actual image was about 7' due to throw restrictions of the room/Optoma. The pj was perfectly placed for a retro-reflective screen: right behind the couch, at just about eye level. We sat about 10' from the screen.


To those who claim that the HP can -- with certain projectors -- look like a giant plasma, chalk me up as a believer. We spent about 5 hours viewing various types of content, including a bit of HD college football, various scenes from movies, and the entire Indiana Jones/Crystal Skull on BD. So, here are a few impressions, and of course others have said most of this before.


On-screen brightness uniformity: Absolutely a non-issue. With four seating positions centered to the pj and screen, brightness uniformity was excellent regardless of whether I watched from the interior or exterior position. I perceived no hotspotting.


Viewing cone: Yes, of course, but actually less of a dropoff than I anticipated. From the outside edge of the exterior sitting position, as I recall, I was roughly lined up with the right edge of the image. The image was still bright. As I stood up and walked a few feet to the right of the screen, it certainly was dimmer, but still watchable.


Ambient light viewing: Very impressive. The first few hours of viewing occurred with ambient nautral light but no room lights. With vertical blinds drawn to cover a large window to the left of the screen, there was enough filtered light to read by if one wanted to. The image still popped, big time. With the blinds drawn back fully exposing the window, the image was still easily watchable.


Evening viewing/dark room: Break out the sunglasses, yet white detail" (e.g., clouds, Indiana's white hair) remained good.


Screen Pattern: This is the only performance criterion about which I still am unsure. There were a few times when I believe I was seeing the screen pattern while viewing light colored content. It may have been film grain (this occurred less with HDTV), but I think at least a few times it was the screen pattern--that seemed to "float" above or independently of the image. I realize this would put me among the minority of HP viewers. It was not a major issue -- certainly much less noticeable than I've seen with RPTVs -- and of course "I was looking for it." Perhaps with a pj (RS-20 preorder) that is less bright, it will be a non-issue for me.


Bottom line: I was very impressed by the screen and think it will be a good choice for my RS20 setup, which will be at moderate to long throw, will involve only 1 or 2 viewers 90% of the time (so zero viewing cone issues), and thus can use a boost from the HP's gain.


Danny, it was great to meet you and many thanks again for having me over!!

Michael


----------



## WOLVERNOLE

Michael-


This was very, very helpful to me. It reinforces what others have said. As a non-owner, you are as objective as anyone, and you viewed with a critical eye. I'm now sold on this screen, and like you, I'm planning to match it up with the JVC RS-20 (unless Jason or WSR blows it out of the water). I'm looking at 16' throw onto a 100" (diag.) screen, in a two-seat room, with viewing about 18 inches from the projector beam, and essentially eye-level with the lens. From your account, a temporary seat/folding chair to the side (right back from the left or right side of the screen would be acceptable as well ! )


This is encouraging. Bring on the " 100" plasma."


----------



## Fartnokker

De nada, Mike. Was a pleasure.


As stated, we viewed a pretty fair variety of content, under varying lighting conditions. As I've always said, the HP isn't a magic bullet that works best in every situation, but it does work pretty well in quite a few of them.


Always fun to geek out & watch a bunch of different material. One can never get too much of a really, really big picture!










And so, once again, the High Power sells itself in person...


(Disclaimer: The author received no monetary or other consideration from Da-Lite for this advertisement)


----------



## millerwill

You guys are certainly right--the best way to be convinced is to see for yourself! I'm certainly grateful to several AVS'ers who let me see their HP setups, and it sold me, too.


----------



## Chad T




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WOLVERNOLE* /forum/post/14995496
> 
> 
> Michael-
> 
> 
> This was very, very helpful to me. It reinforces what others have said. As a non-owner, you are as objective as anyone, and you viewed with a critical eye. I'm now sold on this screen, and like you, I'm planning to match it up with the JVC RS-20 (unless Jason or WSR blows it out of the water). I'm looking at 16' throw onto a 100" (diag.) screen, in a two-seat room, with viewing about 18 inches from the projector beam, and essentially eye-level with the lens. From your account, a temporary seat/folding chair to the side (right back from the left or right side of the screen would be acceptable as well ! )
> 
> 
> This is encouraging. Bring on the " 100" plasma."



Excellent! Not to get too OT, but the only potential problem I see is screen size. If I'm understanding correctly, it sounds like seating distance is about 14.5'? If your room allows for it, I'd definitely try to go bigger. Or at least project different screen sizes on the wall before committing on buying a High Power. Once the initial "wow, that's big" wears off, I think you'd find yourself longing for a larger screen. It's subjective, but at that distance I'd probably want a bare minimum 120" 16:9 and ideally (for my eyes) probably 140" to 150".


----------



## pottscb

Hey guys,

I'm thinking about buying a 106" HP in a model B (because its the cheapest way to get the fabric) and maybe later removing it for a DIY fixed frame and I want to know if I'm going to have significant "sagging" or wave issues? If so, would I be better off with the Deluxe (with the tensioning bar) or not?


I'd really like to see one of these in person before I buy...if you have a good setup in or around Austin TX, pls. PM me...I make a mean home brew and will bring you a care pkg in exchange for a short HP demo (or I'll bring you a 6 of whatever you'd like).










Thanks,

Cory


----------



## hrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pottscb* /forum/post/14997460
> 
> 
> Hey guys,
> 
> I'm thinking about buying a 106" HP in a model B (because its the cheapest way to get the fabric) and maybe later removing it for a DIY fixed frame and I want to know if I'm going to have significant "sagging" or wave issues? If so, would I be better off with the Deluxe (with the tensioning bar) or not?
> 
> 
> I'd really like to see one of these in person before I buy...if you have a good setup in or around Austin TX, pls. PM me...I make a mean home brew and will bring you a care pkg in exchange for a short HP demo (or I'll bring you a 6 of whatever you'd like).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Cory



I'm not familar with the Deluxe, but realize the HP is not available in any of the tensioned screens Da-Lite sells.


----------



## WOLVERNOLE




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chad T* /forum/post/14996548
> 
> 
> Excellent! Not to get too OT, but the only potential problem I see is screen size. If I'm understanding correctly, it sounds like seating distance is about 14.5'? If your room allows for it, I'd definitely try to go bigger. Or at least project different screen sizes on the wall before committing on buying a High Power. Once the initial "wow, that's big" wears off, I think you'd find yourself longing for a larger screen. It's subjective, but at that distance I'd probably want a bare minimum 120" 16:9 and ideally (for my eyes) probably 140" to 150".



Chad: Thanks for the input...you are essentially correct in that I'd LIKE to go bigger except that (a) I'm sitting ~13' from screen with the 16' throw, and more importantly (b) as noted I'm stuck with only a two-seat "theater"/viewing room because the room is only 10'10" wide on the screen wall and I need just a liiiiittle room for speakers to breathe, so even 100" diagonal is pushing it some. I wonder if the 100" diag Hi-Power screen with say...a JVC RS-20 @16' will be














bright-like-the-sun. The RS-20 apparently has a 16-step iris on it that I can click down as needed.


----------



## Rudy81




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pottscb* /forum/post/14997460
> 
> 
> Hey guys,
> 
> I'm thinking about buying a 106" HP in a model B (because its the cheapest way to get the fabric) and maybe later removing it for a DIY fixed frame and I want to know if I'm going to have significant "sagging" or wave issues? If so, would I be better off with the Deluxe (with the tensioning bar) or not?
> 
> 
> I'd really like to see one of these in person before I buy...if you have a good setup in or around Austin TX, pls. PM me...I make a mean home brew and will bring you a care pkg in exchange for a short HP demo (or I'll bring you a 6 of whatever you'd like).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Cory



Cory: I have a 120" model B (originally). I cut the material off and put it on a frame I made. No problems with sagging if you tension the material properly. I found framing materials used in the art world. These frame pieces can be cut to your spec and are a combination of aluminum rails and wood. I stapled the material on the wood and the frame goes together very easily. My projector is a Sharp Z12000.


----------



## R Harkness

Yep the HP can do some amazing things. I was watching The Hulk HD DVD on the HP last night and (excepting the failings in the black levels that occur at least with my projector with this screen) it looked for all the world like a giant plasma in it's vividness, clarity and color richness. (That is, within the sweet spot).


It's probably the screen I would choose as a default "impress your friends" experience.


Not sure I personally want the plasma-look for all movies, but neato nonetheless to see it in action.


----------



## pottscb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hrd* /forum/post/14997733
> 
> 
> I'm not familar with the Deluxe, but realize the HP is not available in any of the tensioned screens Da-Lite sells.



The Model B Deluxe is supposed to be identical to the Model B except that it has a metal bar that swivels down from the screen case and hooks to the metal bar on the bottom, giving a sort of "psuedo-tension."


----------



## Mike W




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WOLVERNOLE* /forum/post/14995496
> 
> 
> Michael-
> 
> 
> This was very, very helpful to me. It reinforces what others have said. As a non-owner, you are as objective as anyone, and you viewed with a critical eye. I'm now sold on this screen, and like you, I'm planning to match it up with the JVC RS-20 (unless Jason or WSR blows it out of the water). I'm looking at 16' throw onto a 100" (diag.) screen, in a two-seat room, with viewing about 18 inches from the projector beam, and essentially eye-level with the lens. From your account, a temporary seat/folding chair to the side (right back from the left or right side of the screen would be acceptable as well ! )
> 
> 
> This is encouraging. Bring on the " 100" plasma."



Glad the feedback was helpful. Keep in mind that Fartnokker's Optoma puts out a lot of lumens and the throw distance was short, so in your setup and mine, mileage will vary. With the RS20 and 100" diag screen for 16x9 at a throw distance of 16 to 17' feet (seating distance of 13 feet), I'm not expecting a plasma-like experience for, say, occasional ambient light sports viewing, certainly not with bulb-aging. But after seeing a couple of JVC RS series (1,2) in various showrooms on FireHawks, for me, the images were too dim and I'm hoping that the HP + whatever extra lumens the RS20 production units will be able to generate, will help me at least cross a "sufficient brightness--make me smile" threshold.


As for temporary/folding exterior seats to accommodate a 3rd and or 4th viewer in a single row (I assume), based on my viewing experience I think that this would work; especially if it's two couples, so each couple can snuggle together and thus the exterior folks gain those few extra inches toward the center of the viewing cone!







Hmm, then again, snuggling may not be so easy with two people seated on opposite sides of the arm from the interior chair.


----------



## Mike W




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/14997842
> 
> 
> 
> ...Not sure I personally want the plasma-look for all movies...



I'd go along with that. What I'm hoping for is that a higher gain screen will allow me to dial back the RS20's brightness to best suit the viewing situation (ambient light, nighttime) and the viewing content. My concern is the opposite: that with a longer throw and with bulb-aging, that this type of flexibility may not last long enough with the RS20 (i.e., that I'll be at 0 iris sooner than you know it, at least for ambient light viewing). But I sure hope I'm wrong.


And of course, if you didn't want to fiddle with changing the pj settings, all you have to do to avoid the plasma look with an HP or other high gain screen is change your seating position







!


Mike W


----------



## sajakh

What is the cheapest 100" portable/fold out high power screen?


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mike W* /forum/post/14999208
> 
> 
> I'd go along with that. What I'm hoping for is that a higher gain screen will allow me to dial back the RS20's brightness to best suit the viewing situation (ambient light, nighttime) and the viewing content. My concern is the opposite: that with a longer throw and with bulb-aging, that this type of flexibility may not last long enough with the RS20 (i.e., that I'll be at 0 iris sooner than you know it, at least for ambient light viewing). But I sure hope I'm wrong.
> 
> 
> And of course, if you didn't want to fiddle with changing the pj settings, all you have to do to avoid the plasma look with an HP or other high gain screen is change your seating position
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> !
> 
> 
> Mike W



I'll look forward to your review of the RS20/HP when you get it.


----------



## Mike W




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/14999815
> 
> 
> I'll look forward to your review of the RS20/HP when you get it.



Joe:


Thanks. I'm slated for the second (or maybe later) round of RS20 shipments, currently ballparked for some time in January. I believe that millerwill and maybe Darinp2 are among the HP users who will be receiving their RS20s sooner. I'd expect that they, along with Jason Turk, will be posting extensive and technically savvy reviews, far beyond what I could ever do. By then, Art(projectorreviews.com) and other reviewers (GregR) probably will have thorough reviews posted as well. But I'll certainly post my impressions when the time comes, and since I'm temporarily without a pj, it can't come soon enough.










Mike W


----------



## Mike W




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sajakh* /forum/post/14999647
> 
> 
> What is the cheapest 100" portable/fold out high power screen?



I'm not familiar with Da-Lite portable screens or pricing, but if you go to this website:

http://www.dalite.com/products/index.php?cID=19 


it will give you a list of the various models of portable/tripod screens. For each one you can then click the Product Information link to find out what screen surfaces and sizes are available, and you can click the Parts Number & Pricing link to see the list prices. Depending on the model/surface you want, you'll likely find actual street prices on the web to be lower. Here's a weblink that FLBoy passed on to me a while ago, which will give you an idea about this: .


----------



## millerwill

Yes, I'll be getting a RS20 to go with my HP screen, but unfortunately I'm not a technically savvy and experienced videophile. Darin, now that's another story!


----------



## Fartnokker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sajakh* /forum/post/14999647
> 
> 
> What is the cheapest 100" portable/fold out high power screen?



Da-Lite Model B 106" (part number 78672).


Frighteningly cheap!


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/15000846
> 
> 
> Yes, I'll be getting a RS20 to go with my HP screen, but unfortunately I'm not a technically savvy and experienced videophile. Darin, now that's another story!



Any info from HP users will be much appreciated. (I know Darin is in another league than most of us when it comes to this sort of evaluation.







) I'm really happy with my HP/Sharp XV-Z20000 combo, but I'm always curious about any new projectors.


----------



## Jack Gilvey

Set up my 92" Model B this evening and have been playing a bit. I've got it as close to optimal as I can, with the pj shooting from a shelf 3.5' back and about 10" above eye level between the main seats (both of which are ~12" to either side). Wow...very nice. Truly makes the 1800 hr. bulb in my AE900 come alive. I'm 9' back from an 80" wide screen, so ~1.35 screen widths, and there's absolutely no "hotspotting" at all. There's also no brightness non-uniformity I can detect from side to side. Sure, it gets dimmer as I move off-center, but it appears to do so evenly across the screen. Screen texture would take better eyes than mine to see.









I can see that black levels are somewhat elevated on full black screens, but the increased brightness in the whites is so much more evident in mixed scenes than the lighter blacks that the overall impression is one of appreciably greater contrast.


Very cool stuff, this HP! Certainly beats the heck out the DIY stuff I've made/used.


----------



## antonaki1

Bought a 12' high power to go with my Sony 1292Q 9" CRT and i've got to say that the picture is absolutely stunning. Now the 1292Q is only rated as under 1000 lumens but i have teamed it with a lumagen processer and raised that. I tried using a special creen paint for a couple years and it was mostly adequate on a small 6' screen but at 12' it was very dim. Well this high power has allolwed me to go 12' and still get all the brightness i need. High definition movies and sport are simply breathtaking when you witness them for the first time. To those who say crt's screens should not be gigger than 80", you can have your tiny little screens, to me it's big or go home, big raises the viewing pleasure to a whole other level. You actually feel like your on the court with Lebron when he drives to the basket. You live it rather than just watch it. To go big you need something with as much punch as the highpower. The amazing thing is how ridiculously inexpensive it is!


----------



## Jeff Smith

Do you get color shifts or hot spots since you are using 3 light sources in a CRT rather than 1?


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *antonaki1* /forum/post/15035446
> 
> 
> Bought a 12' high power to go with my Sony 1292Q 9" CRT and i've got to say that the picture is absolutely stunning. Now the 1292Q is only rated as under 1000 lumens but i have teamed it with a lumagen processer and raised that. I tried using a special creen paint for a couple years and it was mostly adequate on a small 6' screen but at 12' it was very dim. Well this high power has allolwed me to go 12' and still get all the brightness i need. High definition movies and sport are simply breathtaking when you witness them for the first time. To those who say crt's screens should not be gigger than 80", you can have your tiny little screens, to me it's big or go home, big raises the viewing pleasure to a whole other level. You actually feel like your on the court with Lebron when he drives to the basket. You live it rather than just watch it. To go big you need something with as much punch as the highpower. The amazing thing is how ridiculously inexpensive it is!



What's your viewing distance from the 12' HP? And is it 16x9?


----------



## rabident




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jeff Smith* /forum/post/14965863
> 
> 
> 90% of the time, we will sit in the sweet spot (but that means each head is 15" off center), 10% of the time we'll have guests who get the sweet spot and I'm at the edge 50" off center=...I could live with some of this, I think.
> 
> 
> 1 time every year we have a Super Bowl party where lots of people are all around, but still all within the widest out area I spoke of above. I was worried this would be a big deal with sports, but maybe not since everyone usually stays in their same seat, so their "gain" would remain constant. Anyone ever use a huge HP screen for a party and have words of wisdom? Light control is good, the screen lights up the room enough.
> 
> 
> It just freaked me out that the people at the edges could move their heads with less hot-spotting than those in the sweet spot...even though the sweet spot is much brighter all around, it seems moving a foot in either direction makes major brightness variations (side to side).
> 
> 
> Help me understand this?



That wasn't my experience with the HP. The drop off in off axis performance was noticeable in the vertical direction, but not so much in the horizontal. I was 14' back from a 10' wide screen. It didn't matter which seat I sat in on the couch - all three looked the same. Further out than that and there was drop off, but everyone I had over was way more impressed by the "10 foot TV screen" than they were to notice things like brightness roll off while sitting on the floor. Maybe your friends are more discerning than mine. I also wanted to optimize viewing for my wife and I since we're the ones using it 99% of the time. The HP definitely trades off axis performance for better on axis, but for me that was desirable.


I had hot spotting on my SilverStar under the same conditions. I went wider with the HP and hot spotting wasn't an issue. The HP is a nice upgrade over a lot of what's out there as long as you can mount the PJ close to your head. For me that was more of an issue when I had people over... the low flying beam in the room. People would walk through and disrupt the image, or blind themselves on the way to bathroom.


----------



## Redskin

I have a calibration HP theory question. If you calibrate a HP screen to proper levels, would it still appear brighter than a regular gain screen that is also calibrated to the same levels?


----------



## smithfarmer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rabident* /forum/post/15037713
> 
> 
> I had hot spotting on my SilverStar under the same conditions. I went wider with the HP and hot spotting wasn't an issue. The HP is a nice upgrade over a lot of what's out there as long as you can mount the PJ close to your head. For me that was more of an issue when I had people over... the low flying beam in the room. People would walk through and disrupt the image, or blind themselves on the way to bathroom.



I've have had my 9' wide SS for close to 4 years, the first 3 with an Infocus 4805 and the past year with an Infocus 7210 and haven't had a hint of a hot spot. Both pj's were/are flush mounted(4" clearance) to the ceiling at 18'. I've conversed with many SS owners, some with 10' wide 2.35:1 AR's and the one thing everyone agrees on is that it doesn't hotspot. Sparklies? Yes, on occasion. Hot spotting? Definitely not.


I'm not doubting what you saw but I've read many, many posts where the SS is concerned and yours is the first I've ever read of someone saying they had hot spotting with theirs. I've been considering going to an even larger SS. Could you please elaborate on the exact conditions that caused this, including what pj were you using? Thanks.


----------



## antonaki1

It's kind of strange but i could not notice any colour shift whatsoever on the highpower from straight on, i had to go well to the side of the screen to pick up any hint of a blueish tone on the other side. Average person would never notice it. You really have to be looking for it. Defintely 16-9 way to go but i go slightly wider at 1.85 aspect ratio. As far as how far do i sit from my 12' screen, well, i'm probably a freak but my favourite spot is only 10" away. I've tried every distance but that one captivates me the most, everything seems to jump off the screen. I feel like i'm at the game or at the theatre. For those with LCD lamp type projectors i would think you could turn down brightness if your projector puts out too many lumens, lamplife will love you. You could buy a video processor which i can't imagine anyone with a big screen not having one and you can do anything you want to picture. The money you save in lamps would pay for it and the processor would last through several projectors. Lumagen makes the best at very resonable price points. Lumagen.com


----------



## FremontRich




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *antonaki1* /forum/post/15049250
> 
> 
> It's kind of strange but i could not notice any colour shift whatsoever on the highpower from straight on, i had to go well to the side of the screen to pick up any hint of a blueish tone on the other side. Average person would never notice it. You really have to be looking for it. Defintely 16-9 way to go but i go slightly wider at 1.85 aspect ratio. As far as how far do i sit from my 12' screen, well, i'm probably a freak but my favourite spot is only 10" away. I've tried every distance but that one captivates me the most, everything seems to jump off the screen. I feel like i'm at the game or at the theatre. For those with LCD lamp type projectors i would think you could turn down brightness if your projector puts out too many lumens, lamplife will love you. You could buy a video processor which i can't imagine anyone with a big screen not having one and you can do anything you want to picture. The money you save in lamps would pay for it and the processor would last through several projectors. Lumagen makes the best at very resonable price points. Lumagen.com




I think you meant 10' away...


----------



## antonaki1

Yes, 10', my bad. Thx


----------



## Jack Gilvey

Couple observations after further use:


It's very good with ambient light. It's merely "ok" with light coming from the direction of the seats/pj, as you'd expect, but is quite watchable with light coming in from the windows behind the screen (which only hits the screen obliquely after hitting the side walls).

This same side-lighting reveals some V-shaped waves in the screen with the projector off, but these disappear completely in regular room light or when the projector is on. It was a few days before I even noticed them.

The white wall behind us really lights up when viewing, so I know that some kind of treatment there will help contrast. I think I can get away with that.

Brightly-lit animation like the Tinkerbell BD is simply stunning, a true 92" plasma.










Now a couple questions:


My model B pull-down has an extra 2" or so of masking at the top of the screen, 4" total up there. I can only seem to get it to "stop" at 2" though. Is there some trick to getting it to stop with the full 4" exposed (I'm assuming it's there for a reason)? Not a big deal, but the bottom of the screen is _exactly_ where I want it, so the extra 2" drop would allow me to clear the top of the window better with the case.


I've long been a fan and user of 2.35:1 screens. We're really digging the convenience and utility of this pull-down screen, though, and the wife loves the idea that the windows in the room are still usable.

Has anyone successfully masked their Model B to a 2.35:1 ratio while maintaining its pull-down functionality?


Thanks!


----------



## ryoohki

I'am looking into buying a HP screen (106inch hopefully) with the Permwall option. I got my 2 samples from Dalite the HCCV and High Power. Ins't it me or the HP show better detail and virtually no texture if any? I got the beautyful Sleeping Beauty Bluray running in the Background with my old screen and those 2 samples than the HP is a sight to behold!


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ryoohki* /forum/post/15093031
> 
> 
> I'am looking into buying a HP screen (106inch hopefully) with the Permwall option. I got my 2 samples from Dalite the HCCV and High Power. Ins't it me or the HP show better detail and virtually no texture if any? I got the beautyful Sleeping Beauty Bluray running in the Background with my old screen and those 2 samples than the HP is a sight to behold!



You're seeing what many of us have who are HP devotees.


----------



## R Harkness

Yep, I find the HP gives more color detail and enhances the perception of image sharpness.


----------



## WOLVERNOLE




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/15093282
> 
> 
> Yep, I find the HP gives more color detail and enhances the perception of image sharpness.



Yes, no doubt. The whole issue for me is a potential loss of "perceived" black, in comparison to an angular-style 1.3ish white screen.

Brightness dropoff/cone is a non-factor for my wife and me due to the reasons I've noted previously.


----------



## Joseph Clark

We come back to this idea of a perceived elevation of the black level using an HP screen. For me, it's a non-issue. First of all, my Sharp XV-Z20000 is a pretty dim projector. I use the HP because at 110", my old Stewart Firehawk (at 1.3 gain) was just too dim. The HP is a little bright when my bulb is new, but I like bright, so that's OK. It's still acceptable when the bulb ages, even though I had to shift to high lamp mode when it got to about 1200 hours. The first lamp I kept in low lamp mode for close to 3000 hours.


If your projector is too bright, filter it. When the lamp ages, take the filter off. Problem solved. Since the HP rejects ambient light better than most screens, the contrast should be better than many designs out there if you have reflected light landing back on the screen.


I haven't seen all the screens out there. I've owned a Draper, a Stewart Firehawk and the HP. I've previewed the Vutec SS (small sample, so not a totally fair test), and I've seen the screens of several friends and in showrooms. I haven't seen a screen technology that I like more than the HP.


I can imagine one - maybe using something like digital ink technology. It would look for all the world like the deepest, most non-reflective black wall. When the lights went down, pixels sitting behind the black wall would be revealed as the image sprang to life - no screen door, no light being emitted at all except when the image called for it. Contrast ratio - infinite and immeasurable, since division by 0 (true black) is not allowed in our mathematics.


I'm working on this in my lab right now. I have it all but perfected. Problematically, the emulsion layer for the screen material has the unfortunate side effect of dissolving human flesh. I intend to solve that problem just as soon as I've finished my new robotic hands.


----------



## d james

Is there a standard for determining if a screen size will be to big? I want to upgrade to one of these HP screens and am torn with size. I am watching on a 135 diagonal screen right now and the next size up is 159. I thought 150 would be great, but it doesn't seem to be available. Is there a way to figure out if the 159 will be to big? I've got 8foot ceilings and with my current screen hanging from ceiling its about 20 inches from the floor to the bottom edge of the white portion of the screen. The 159 would be another foot lower only leaving 8 inches from the floor. Will this cause to much eye strain?

It seems about perfect from the floor right now, but the screen still seems still to small.


----------



## hrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *d james* /forum/post/15093736
> 
> 
> Is there a standard for determining if a screen size will be to big? I want to upgrade to one of these HP screens and am torn with size. I am watching on a 135 diagonal screen right now and the next size up is 159. I thought 150 would be great, but it doesn't seem to be available. Is there a way to figure out if the 159 will be to big? I've got 8foot ceilings and with my current screen hanging from ceiling its about 20 inches from the floor to the bottom edge of the white portion of the screen. The 159 would be another foot lower only leaving 8 inches from the floor. Will this cause to much eye strain?
> 
> It seems about perfect from the floor right now, but the screen still seems still to small.



You can get a 150", because Da-Lite will make a custom size for you. The largest fixed frame screen available with the HP fabric is 74" high, which works out to about 131.5" wide and 151" diagonal. If you want a bit smaller, like 150" diagonal, you can get that. As for electric and manual screens, you can buy a 159" or you can get a custom size at 150". The 159" will cost less, because for a 150" you will have to pay the price of the 159", plus an extra $50 or $60 for the cost of a custom sized roller mechanism.


Can't you just move or adjust the zoom on your projector so you can see what a 159" image will look like in your room?


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *d james* /forum/post/15093736
> 
> 
> Is there a standard for determining if a screen size will be to big? I want to upgrade to one of these HP screens and am torn with size. I am watching on a 135 diagonal screen right now and the next size up is 159. I thought 150 would be great, but it doesn't seem to be available. Is there a way to figure out if the 159 will be to big? I've got 8foot ceilings and with my current screen hanging from ceiling its about 20 inches from the floor to the bottom edge of the white portion of the screen. The 159 would be another foot lower only leaving 8 inches from the floor. Will this cause to much eye strain?
> 
> It seems about perfect from the floor right now, but the screen still seems still to small.



The question can't be answered with the information you've provided. It's all about image brightness and angle of view. So you have to know what pj you're using, what the gain of the screen is and how far back you're sitting.


EDIT: Duh... it's an HP. But still have to know how far back you're sitting.


----------



## d james




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/15093855
> 
> 
> The question can't be answered with the information you've provided. It's all about image brightness and angle of view. So you have to know what pj you're using, what the gain of the screen is and how far back you're sitting.
> 
> 
> EDIT: Duh... it's an HP. But still have to know how far back you're sitting.



I sit from my 135 13ft away, but can move back to 16-18ft. I'm using the HD70 at the moment, but am looking to upgrade to the something brighter with better blacks, such as the Epson 6100, or 6500ub, waiting for some reviews. The pj is about 8 inches behind my head and 6 inches above it. I can adjust it even lower if need be. I'm just worried my eyes will get stressed from the screen being to big having to look around it and of course screen brightness, adding that much screen may be to much even for the brightest of the 1080p pjs.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *d james* /forum/post/15094005
> 
> 
> I sit from my 135 13ft away, but can move back to 16-18ft. I'm using the HD70 at the moment, but am looking to upgrade to the something brighter with better blacks, such as the Epson 6100, or 6500ub, waiting for some reviews. The pj is about 8 inches behind my head and 6 inches above it. I can adjust it even lower if need be. I'm just worried my eyes will get stressed from the screen being to big having to look around it and of course screen brightness, adding that much screen may be to much even for the brightest of the 1080p pjs.



The relevant parameter is the ratio of (viewing distance)/(screen width); assuming your screen is 16x9, it is 118" W, so your present ratio is ~ 1.3, a pretty typical value for 1080p pj's. But you can experiment with your present screen simply by varying where you sit. Some people like the ratio to be as small as 1.0, and not too many like it > 1.5 or so.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *d james* /forum/post/15094005
> 
> 
> I sit from my 135 13ft away, but can move back to 16-18ft. I'm using the HD70 at the moment, but am looking to upgrade to the something brighter with better blacks, such as the Epson 6100, or 6500ub, waiting for some reviews. The pj is about 8 inches behind my head and 6 inches above it. I can adjust it even lower if need be. I'm just worried my eyes will get stressed from the screen being to big having to look around it and of course screen brightness, adding that much screen may be to much even for the brightest of the 1080p pjs.



Don't worry about your eyes. Nobody I've heard complains about that. I'm one of the ones millerwill's talking about who sit at 1x screen width for 2.35 movies. Your pj's in a good location for the HP too.


----------



## mjg100




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jack Gilvey* /forum/post/15077636
> 
> 
> Couple observations after further use:
> 
> 
> It's very good with ambient light. It's merely "ok" with light coming from the direction of the seats/pj, as you'd expect, but is quite watchable with light coming in from the windows behind the screen (which only hits the screen obliquely after hitting the side walls).
> 
> This same side-lighting reveals some V-shaped waves in the screen with the projector off, but these disappear completely in regular room light or when the projector is on. It was a few days before I even noticed them.
> 
> The white wall behind us really lights up when viewing, so I know that some kind of treatment there will help contrast. I think I can get away with that.
> 
> Brightly-lit animation like the Tinkerbell BD is simply stunning, a true 92" plasma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now a couple questions:
> 
> 
> My model B pull-down has an extra 2" or so of masking at the top of the screen, 4" total up there. I can only seem to get it to "stop" at 2" though. Is there some trick to getting it to stop with the full 4" exposed (I'm assuming it's there for a reason)? Not a big deal, but the bottom of the screen is _exactly_ where I want it, so the extra 2" drop would allow me to clear the top of the window better with the case.
> 
> 
> I've long been a fan and user of 2.35:1 screens. We're really digging the convenience and utility of this pull-down screen, though, and the wife loves the idea that the windows in the room are still usable.
> *Has anyone successfully masked their Model B to a 2.35:1 ratio while maintaining its pull-down functionality?
> *
> 
> Thanks!



I picked up a Planar PD7130 and I also would like to know a good way to mask a 106" HP pull down. With my other projector (Marantz VP12S4) it is not a problem. You can set the blanking (three different memories) where ever you want it so that you do not have grey bars, but the Planar does not have this feature. Since the Planar is in a dedicated room I do not have to be able to roll up the screen, but it would be nice to be able to do that.


----------



## ryoohki




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/15093151
> 
> 
> You're seeing what many of us have who are HP devotees.



Nice! Tought i only have a small 11x11 sample and not a whole screen










What do you guys use to clean it. On the side it's written that i can be cleaned but not what to use (only water???)


----------



## jackmay




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ryoohki* /forum/post/15099767
> 
> 
> Nice! Tought i only have a small 11x11 sample and not a whole screen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you guys use to clean it. On the side it's written that i can be cleaned but not what to use (only water???)



I use a feather duster first to knock off any dust. That will probably be enough to return the screen to full brightness.


If more cleaning is needed for example when my electric screen smashes a flying insect onto the screen, then I use normal tap water typically on a paper towel to clean off the flattened flying insect.


----------



## mjg100

I have had mine a year and I have not had to do any cleaning, yet. My kids have been very good about not touching the screen. My youngest is a very mature eight year old. When I was his age I would have had hand prints all over it.


----------



## Joseph Clark

You might want to take a look at my post earlier on cleaning - not too far back, I think.


Feather dusting is a simple, effective means of keeping the screen at its brightest. Normal dust build up will keep it from looking its best. My rule of thumb now is dust once a month.


I think I remember that you can use Naphtha if you have really stubborn stains, but don't bet the screen on that. Check the Da-Lite web site. Naphtha is some pretty strong stuff, and it smells, so I use my eyeglass cleaner and a very soft, nonabrasive cloth for anything more than simple dust.


----------



## quietmouse

I have a Da-Lite High Power screen... the size is 133 inches...


how do I make it smaller? (106 inches?) I can roll the screen up just a bit,

but that will create white columns on the left and right... does Da-Lite

sell the black material used on the High Power screen so I can cover up the

left/right sides?


thanks!


----------



## suboptimal

I spent a couple weekends of agonizing over the HP screen and obsessively reading this entire thread. I hate sparklies, and I hate visible screen texture, and I hate hot spots. Therefore, I has more or less ruled out positive gain screens. With the HP, I was very concerned that screen with such a high gain would have sparklies and/or hotspots. I was also concerned that it would be too bright in my small light-controlled room. (I sit about 9.5 feet back from a 92" screen, with the projector a couple feet over my head.) I was also very tempted by Elunevision fixed frames for about the same cost as the Model B. But I was encouraged by the reports of no visible screen texture in the HP, and eventually this thread convinced me.


I finally pulled the trigger a week ago and ordered a Model B, planning to make my own fixed frame for it. The screen arrived today, and I hung it with zip ties from my current (DIY) screen until I can assemble my own fixed frame. And all I have to say is: WOW! I got the thing up and no sparklies, no visible texture, no hot spots, even with the brightest scenes, and my AE900 has never looked better.


I moved the PJ mounting shelf down about a foot, so it is now 1-1.5 feet over my head when seated, re-calibrated the AE900 with GetGray, and the picture is absolutely gorgeous. Before, when the PJ was over 2' above my head, the picture was very very nice, but the picture when I elevated my head a foot or so was so good that I had to move the PJ down.


Previously I used BOC, and several different DIY screens painted with various esoteric mixtures from the DIY guys. But I am now absolutely convinced that buying a model B HP screen is actually the best DIY approach.


Anyway, thank all of you on this thread for pushing me into purchasing the right screen. To all you fence-sitters out there agonizing like I was, get yourself a model B HP--you'll be glad you did.


Chad


----------



## Jack Gilvey

Funny, Chad, your experience mirrors mine very closely down to screen size, viewing distance, and projector. I've also tried a couple DIY approaches and was researching yet another when a HT re-do placed the screen right in front of the room's only windows...leading me to look into pull-downs. A used Model B showed up and I took a shot after deciding my setup would play nicely to its strengths. Wow...has it ever!


----------



## d james




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *quietmouse* /forum/post/15101829
> 
> 
> I have a Da-Lite High Power screen... the size is 133 inches...
> 
> 
> how do I make it smaller? (106 inches?) I can roll the screen up just a bit,
> 
> but that will create white columns on the left and right... does Da-Lite
> 
> sell the black material used on the High Power screen so I can cover up the
> 
> left/right sides?
> 
> 
> thanks!



Why do you want to decrease the size so much? Anyway if Da lite doesn't sell anything you could go and buy some stiff material from jo-ann fabric, like vynl and put a couple black strips of velcor on the black frame part of the screen and velcro the material to the side. This is what I do when I watch 2.35 movies, but for the black bar at the top. You'll obviously have to take the material down when you roll it up, but this method allows you to go back to 133.


----------



## jhunt17

Ok I have the sanyo z2000, love it, but compared to the saturation and brightness of my plasma in the other room i wanted it brighter. My screen will be 106in. 103 after I make a fixed screen out of it, but at 9'8" away. My projector right now is ceiling mounted around 7 ft off the ground. How much benifit am I going to get at that range and how much better will it be if I bring it down 6 inches.


Thanks


----------



## FremontRich




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jhunt17* /forum/post/15116356
> 
> 
> Ok I have the sanyo z2000, love it, but compared to the saturation and brightness of my plasma in the other room i wanted it brighter. My screen will be 106in. 103 after I make a fixed screen out of it, but at 9'8" away. My projector right now is ceiling mounted around 7 ft off the ground. How much benifit am I going to get at that range and how much better will it be if I bring it down 6 inches.
> 
> 
> Thanks




Too many variables to determine the results. If you already have the HP screen you should mount it then get a step ladder and move up and down the ladder to determine how much brightness you will achieve when you relocate your head relative to your projector.


----------



## jhunt17

I have the test square and notice a big enough difference to want to go ahead and buy it. I have stood up and can see a huge difference. I just don't know how big a difference it will be until I actually have the screen to see it. I don't think that little square is enough to really get a good idea of what it does in my opinion. How many people have this and have their projector ceiling mounted?


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jhunt17* /forum/post/15116949
> 
> 
> I have the test square and notice a big enough difference to want to go ahead and buy it. I have stood up and can see a huge difference. I just don't know how big a difference it will be until I actually have the screen to see it. I don't think that little square is enough to really get a good idea of what it does in my opinion. How many people have this and have their projector ceiling mounted?



A ceiling mount will steal a lot of the gain. Be creative if at all possible. I was able to lower my projector, even though at first glance it might have seemed unlikely I would be able to do so. A stand in the back, a long pole for your ceiling mount, a table mount - there are lots of possibilities.


----------



## jhunt17

I am just hoping that lowering it just a bit will give me the pop I want. If not I might pull it down and table mount it, but then I have to worry about knocking it over or having to reset it becuase of movement. I kinda hope I can just lower it about 6 or 7 inches and leave it on the ceiling.


----------



## mystery

If you can wall mount it as close as possible to eye level, that is another way to improve brightness. I did just that behind my couch and had the pj's lens at 6' 3" up from the floor. That's lower than most installations and it helped a lot. I couldn't go any lower because of the offset but if I had a pj with a good vertical lens shift I'd mount it as close to eye level as possible.


Wayne


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jhunt17* /forum/post/15117049
> 
> 
> I am just hoping that lowering it just a bit will give me the pop I want. If not I might pull it down and table mount it, but then I have to worry about knocking it over or having to reset it becuase of movement. I kinda hope I can just lower it about 6 or 7 inches and leave it on the ceiling.



If you want an exact answer, use my screen gain calculator linked below.


----------



## jhunt17

I don't see the link? Is my computer blocking it or something? I want to use it, but I don't see it?


----------



## jhunt17

ok, finally was able to use the calculator. With my present setup that will not give me much gain at all, but I can play around with it a little. I think it being able to shun ambient light will make a big difference on its own. Right now I am using a painted wall that I found in the diy section. It works, just looking for a brighter picture. If I have to rearrange the room I will.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jhunt17* /forum/post/15125501
> 
> 
> I think it being able to shun ambient light will make a big difference on its own.



I use the HP successfully in a family room with white walls. I found that darkening the wall behind the viewers improved the contrast noticeably. I used dark drapes, but dark paint would work too.


----------



## Jack Gilvey

I'm considering the drape route myself. It's pretty amazing how much brighter the back wall gets compared to the (considerably closer) side walls.


----------



## pelly

I have yet to purchase a screen or projector, but am trying to figure out how to design my room in preparation for the projector. My basement is fairly long (26'), so I don't think I can shelf mount at the back. Also, the ceiling is low (6' 6"), but I was planning on ceiling mounting above a half wall/bar counter that I will be putting in the middle of the room.


According to the screen calculator it would result in a gain of about 1.8. Alternatively I could build some sort of shelf into my counter that would make it much closer to eye level. This would not be as convenient and would involve some creative running of cables, but would result in a gain closer to the 2.8. Would I notice a substantially better image from this height? The 1.8 gain does not sound bad to me since I was originally thinking about a 1.0 gain to begin with, but what do I know. I am totally new to this projector idea.


Any advice?


----------



## jostenmeat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/15127199
> 
> 
> I use the HP successfully in a family room with white walls. I found that darkening the wall behind the viewers improved the contrast noticeably. I used dark drapes, but dark paint would work too.



Really? I've been wondering about this... even with the back wall at a significant distance away, with a raised second row and bookshelf.


I mounted a signed movie poster, an auction I won at a charity event. I was so paranoid of the reflective glass, that I used a flashlight to see if I could see the reflection on the screen. I could, but when I fired the flashlight at the screen itself, I could not make any visible "secondary reflection".


newayz... I don't think I'll do anything about it...







Most of the room is well treated for light, except the ceiling.


----------



## FLBoy

Pelly- You can always add an extension pole to your ceiling mount to lower the PJ closer to eye level. Having said that, 1.8 gain is not bad. It all boils down to how bright is your PJ, how big is the viewing area of your screen, and how bright do you want your picture to be? Just remember that after calibrating the PJ for best color balance, a typical PJ will lose about 50-60% of its "rated" lumens. Also keep in mind that as the PJ's lamp ages, it will lose another 50% (or so). You can always use a neutral density (ND) filter to tone down an over-bright picture; going in the other direction is not so easy.










One useful formula is:


Brightness in foot-Lamberts = Screen Gain x PJ Lumens / Viewing Area in sq ft.


Most folk seem to think 15-18 fL is about right. Some prefer brighter or dimmer--it's a personal preference thing. Hope this helps.


Jostenmeat- Your room sounds like one in which darkening the rear wall might be optional but not absolutely necessary.


----------



## Wazzey

I got my patch in yesterday and unfortunately the screen won't work for me. I got really excited at the brightness of the patch while sitting in the back row on the riser but sitting in my front seats that are closer and lower totally destroyed any gain of the screen. I guess thats why you get test patches... my setup seems to be all wrong because of the angles.... was hoping somehow it might not fall off as much from the front... oh welll.... will try something else


----------



## Jerrym303

Hi Wazzey,


What is your set-up? specifically:


!. throw distance

2. ceiling to eye level in front seats

3. ceiling to lens

4. ceiling to screen center

5. front row seating distance


I am interested in where the prolems start. flboy's worksheet give me consistent 1.9 gain for my proposed set-up:


18' throw

56" ceiling to eye level

26" ceiling to lens

41" ceiling to screen center

14.5" seating distance


Thanks,


jerry


----------



## Wazzey

1. throw distance

2. ceiling to eye level in front seats

3. ceiling to lens

4. ceiling to screen center

5. front row seating distance


1. 17'

3. 3" I have it right under the ceiling... the projector sits in the soffit

4. 48"


front seats

2. 60"

5. 11.5'


rear seats

2. 46"

5. 17'


Something like that.... My rear seats I think would look great... My setups a little odd I guess.


----------



## Jerrym303

Ahh,


I see the problem. I had to guess at your screen size ( I guessed 110" wide) and got less than 1.25 gain on flyboy's worksheet. for the front row. The high projector position is killing you.


My set-up calcs to about 1.9 gain.


I see your challenge - you can't really move your back row forward and pj is right above the back row. Sounds like you would need to split the back row and bring the pj down to 60" or so to make it work.


----------



## Rudy81

I took this picture of my HT with a flash and all the room lights on full bright. The effect of the flash on the HP material shows just how bright it is when light strikes it from a perpendicular angle. I love this screen. No hot spotting and a fantastic bright picture. I purchased a B model roll up, removed the material and put it on my DIY frame.


----------



## chambers1517

What is the best way to get a 5'x12' scope screen. Is the 78"x139" model C going to be the cheapest way. It seems this would be a lot of wasted material. I have a limit of 60" high, this is why I am going scope to get the biggest image possible.


----------



## ResOGlas

Just placed my order for a 1.78:1 133" diagonal model C HP.


----------



## sajakh

When I calibrate my Panasonic ae3000 using the avia disc for brightness and contrast, my setting are very different than other people are getting for a 1.0 gain screen. I have to put contrast at +8-10 and brightness at -6 to -8 using the HP screen. Is this what others are doing with high gain screens?


----------



## jrbatche

So, a questions for all you owners of the HP out there...


I just put my first projector on pre-order (6500UB) and now have to make a decision soon on a screen. Ambient light is a must for the WAF, and she loves the punch from our plasma, which is why I'm looking at the high power material.


The room is only 10 feet wide, but 20 or so feet long. The walls and ceiling are painted a flat dark green and the floor is dark-ish carpet. The screen will take up most of the 10' wide wall and I'm planning on a 90" or so wide screen if I go for the HP (I need room for my floor standing speakers on either side of the screen). for comparison, I'm also looking at acoustically transparent screens (specifically SeymourAV) so I could go as wide as the room will allow, but cost could become an issue for me there as i'm trying to keep my total budget below $4K and i already spent about $500 for a receiver and center channel to match my fronts.


The problem I see is I won't be able to mount my PJ ideally. It will most likely have to be ceiling mounted above seats about 12' back. On the plus side, the ceiling is only 80" tall (6'8") and I would be able to use an extension pole for the mount (preferably adjustable).


Running the numbers through the screen gain calculator, if i can mount the PJ 60" off the ground with eye level at 36", i would still get about a 2 gain in the center of the sweet spot, but those sitting on the periphery of the row (up to 50" on either side) would get considerably less but still be about 1.1 gain. I could probably mount it a bit lower, but there will be a small bar-type space behind the seating for people to mill around during sporting events and such (ambient light again, and actually, maybe lower is better then to keep the body of the PJ out of the way of people in the back).


All factors considered, would this be acceptable to you guys here? would I be better off with a lower gain angular reflective screen (dalite has a 1.5, or the acoustically transparent which is about 1.2)? I'm relatively new at this, and I planned on getting a handful of samples sent out but aren't sure if that will really be a good representation, and as you can see i have lots of questions/concerns. Thanks for any help.


----------



## ryoohki




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sajakh* /forum/post/15208161
> 
> 
> When I calibrate my Panasonic ae3000 using the avia disc for brightness and contrast, my setting are very different than other people are getting for a 1.0 gain screen. I have to put contrast at +8-10 and brightness at -6 to -8 using the HP screen. Is this what others are doing with high gain screens?



All screen are different. You can't use the Color/Tint/Contrast/Brithness from other because you don't know their screens. Even 1.0 gain screen from different manifacturers are differents...


----------



## circumstances

i'm about to start auditioning screen materials. i'd like to include the Da-Lite High Power but i have a question.


my projector will be shelf-mounted behind the seating area, the shelf will be approximately 48" high (putting the lens somewhere in the low to mid 50" area).


because of the room, the screen will be mounted somewhat high, so the lens will be in the bottom third of the screen area.


i'm not concerned with the viewing angles left and right of center, i am concerned with the viewing angle below center.


if our heads are on the couch directly below the lens and about even with (or a little bit below) the bottom of the screen from a viewing distance of about 12', how badly will the image suffer? should i rule out the High Power because of this configuration?


i'll be using the 119" diagonal, 104" x 58" screen.


thanks for any input on this.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *circumstances* /forum/post/15247628
> 
> 
> i'm about to start auditioning screen materials. i'd like to include the Da-Lite High Power but i have a question.
> 
> 
> my projector will be shelf-mounted behind the seating area, the shelf will be approximately 48" high (putting the lens somewhere in the low to mid 50" area).
> 
> 
> because of the room, the screen will be mounted somewhat high, so the lens will be in the bottom third of the screen area.
> 
> 
> i'm not concerned with the viewing angles left and right of center, i am concerned with the viewing angle below center.
> 
> 
> if our heads are on the couch directly below the lens and about even with (or a little bit below) the bottom of the screen from a viewing distance of about 12', how badly will the image suffer? should i rule out the High Power because of this configuration?
> 
> 
> i'll be using the 119" diagonal, 104" x 58" screen.
> 
> 
> thanks for any input on this.



You should be in great shape for a HP. The relevant angle for the HP is that between a line from your eye to a point on the screen, and a line from the lens of the pj to that same point on the screen. Of course the angle between these two lines will vary somewhat depending on what point on the screen you choose, but the variation is actually not large in most cases. Make a sketch and do a little geometry to see what this angle is. If it's


----------



## circumstances

thanks! i'm horrible at geometry, but if i have to shift the lens up to fit the screen (since the lens is below the mid-point of top and bottom), where would i measure the acceptable < 15 degrees from?


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *circumstances* /forum/post/15248372
> 
> 
> thanks! i'm horrible at geometry, but if i have to shift the lens up to fit the screen (since the lens is below the mid-point of top and bottom), where would i measure the acceptable
> 
> 
> To keep the geometry simple, just pick a couple of points on the screen. E.g., the point that is directly straight out from the pj; it's angle is thus 0. Then determine the angle from that point on the screen to your eye. That is the relevant angle for that point on the screen. Then maybe take the point that is at the top of the screen (but lined up horizontally): determine the angle of it to the lens, and to your eye; the difference is the relevant angle. Etc.


----------



## Chad T

Just use FLBoy's caluclator. It is wonderful in helping to figure this stuff out. Just plug in your setup numbers and see what your gain is.


----------



## circumstances




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/15248459
> 
> 
> To keep the geometry simple, just pick a couple of points on the screen. E.g., the point that is directly straight out from the pj; it's angle is thus 0. Then determine the angle from that point on the screen to your eye. That is the relevant angle for that point on the screen. Then maybe take the point that is at the top of the screen (but lined up horizontally): determine the angle of it to the lens, and to your eye; the difference is the relevant angle. Etc.



and here i thought english was my native language


----------



## WOLVERNOLE




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chad T* /forum/post/15249219
> 
> 
> Just use FLBoy's caluclator. It is wonderful in helping to figure this stuff out. Just plug in your setup numbers and see what your gain is.



Yes, but I think more in terms of...I believe, ft. lamberts...and I think the "gold standard" is about 12-14 ft.L. I do not know what gain on a screen "looks like," but brightness is what the bottom line is. Having said that, I think that what I have seen and enjoyed is a bit brighter than that.


----------



## Chad T




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WOLVERNOLE* /forum/post/15249334
> 
> 
> Yes, but I think more in terms of...I believe, ft. lamberts...and I think the "gold standard" is about 12-14 ft.L. I do not know what gain on a screen "looks like," but brightness is what the bottom line is. Having said that, I think that what I have seen and enjoyed is a bit brighter than that.



Me too. That's why I use FLBoy's calculator to calculate gain, then I go to Projector Central and enter the gain in their calculator, then I have an idea of brightness. Of course, the PC calculator is assuming 75% of bulb life, which is only a point in time in a projector bulb's life. Actually, with my HP screen and Epson HC720 with over 1,000 hours on it, I'd guess I'm getting very close to the same brightness as I would have with a 1.1 gain screen when the bulb was brand new. I really ought to get a light meter and figure my actual fL.


----------



## dgaspar

Hi guys:


I have been reading this forum for some time and have learned a ton of information. I recently purchased a Highpower screen (mostly due to what I have read here) and absolutely love it. However, my dog licked the bottom of the screen last night leaving a small but seemingly permanent "wet mark". According to Da Lite's cleaning instructions, the spot can be cleaned with water but says that it is very difficult to eliminate streaking. Anyone have any ideas how (or whether) I can remove the spot? Thanks for your help.


----------



## scottyb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dgaspar* /forum/post/15255917
> 
> 
> Anyone have any ideas how (or whether) I can remove the spot?



You could always donate him to the humane society.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dgaspar* /forum/post/15255917
> 
> 
> Hi guys:
> 
> 
> I have been reading this forum for some time and have learned a ton of information. I recently purchased a Highpower screen (mostly due to what I have read here) and absolutely love it. However, my dog licked the bottom of the screen last night leaving a small but seemingly permanent "wet mark". According to Da Lite's cleaning instructions, the spot can be cleaned with water but says that it is very difficult to eliminate streaking. Anyone have any ideas how (or whether) I can remove the spot? Thanks for your help.



I use eyeglass cleaner, the kind for anti-reflective coatings. I'd wager you it will remove your spot. (It got rid of a smashed mosquito for me.) The thing about "water" stains is that seem to want to stay for a long time. I spray the eyeglass cleaner directly onto the smudge, then gently buff it out with the extremely soft, clean cloth that came with the cleaner. Buff it until the wet look disappears - takes just a few seconds. It's important not to use anything abrasive on the screen. Once a speck or flake on the screen surface is dislodged, it's a goner. I tried different methods with the HP sample Da-Lite sent me. That piece developed a spot where the screen coating came off. There was no fixing it.


Residue from anything but a clean cloth will probably stay on the screen. Soapy residue from a wash cloth I first used on the mosquito's grave was immediately visible. No amount of letting it dry would erase it.


As I've said before, using a feather duster on the screen once a month adds brightness and contrast to the surface.


----------



## WOLVERNOLE

Joe-

Read your comments about water stains on the HP being a problem. Would I need to be ""paranoid" about finger prints on the screen (e.g. setting it up, etc.?) Thanks for your response.

PS. I guess I could issue "white gloves" to my friends in the install period !


----------



## FLBoy

White gloves would not be a bad idea. After I first installed my HP, there was a dark blotch about 2" square on the screen surface. To this day I do not know whether it was caused during manufacture or during my installation, e.g., from a sticky tape contacting the screen. Water would not remove it, so I escalated to denatured alcohol. After three scrubbings in straight line directions with a soft cotton cloth, as recommended by Da-Lite, the blotch was removed. Whew, that was close! The screen is fine now, after 18 months.


----------



## Mike W




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/15258117
> 
> 
> White gloves would not be a bad idea. After I first installed my HP, there was a dark blotch about 2" square on the screen surface. To this day I do not know whether it was caused during manufacture or during my installation, e.g., from a sticky tape contacting the screen. Water would not remove it, so I escalated to denatured alcohol. After three scrubbings in straight line directions with a soft cotton cloth, as recommended by Da-Lite, the blotch was removed. Whew, that was close! The screen is fine now, after 18 months.



Seeing that blotch must have caused an "Aw Sh....." moment (that would be, "Aw Shucks," of course). Good to know those kind of blemishes can be cleaned without affecting the surface finish.


Good idea Wolvernole about using white gloves...good for any screen. Though I can just see my friends giving me a huge eye roll were I to ask them to put them on.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WOLVERNOLE* /forum/post/15258020
> 
> 
> Joe-
> 
> Read your comments about water stains on the HP being a problem. Would I need to be ""paranoid" about finger prints on the screen (e.g. setting it up, etc.?) Thanks for your response.
> 
> PS. I guess I could issue "white gloves" to my friends in the install period !



Hope I didn't leave the impression the HP fabric is "delicate." It's not. As a matter of fact, it's really quite tough. I had to exert a lot of pressure with a fairly rough cloth to get the HP sample finally to develop a flaw. Guess you could say I wanted to test it to the point of failure. As for water stains being a problem, it's more that they can appear to take a long time to dry, and that any soapy residue in a cloth shows up easily on the surface. I use a full white screen in Photoshop, so I can see the entire screen at once. Buffing with a clean, smooth cloth gets that excess water "stain" out with just a little effort. Left to dry on its own, it takes a lot longer.


Truth is, I feel very comfortable using a LOT more pressure on the HP screen than I ever would have on my Firehawk. It kinda reminds me of those heavy plastic table cloths you see in old diners. You know - the red and white checkerboard patterned things that you'd be able to roll up a body in to dump in the ocean. The sharks would have a tough time slicing their way through it.


Not that I've ever done anything like that. 'Scuse me. Hey, Vinnie, bring me a meatball sanwich, willya?


What was I saying? Oh, yeah, the HP is one tough screen. Just exercise a little common sense when you're cleaning it and you won't have a problem.


----------



## ryoohki




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WOLVERNOLE* /forum/post/15258020
> 
> 
> Joe-
> 
> Read your comments about water stains on the HP being a problem. Would I need to be ""paranoid" about finger prints on the screen (e.g. setting it up, etc.?) Thanks for your response.
> 
> PS. I guess I could issue "white gloves" to my friends in the install period !



If you are paranoid about finger prints during the installation. Just buy 'chirurgical type' of handglove. They are plastic and don't leave mark.


----------



## keithishere

This will be my first PJ so i hope the expert here could help me make an intelligent decision. the screen will be in a living room with a wall of 10ft high and 115 inch wide. The sony vpl-vw100 will be ceiling mount(with extension columns) back at 17ft to 18ft. I don't want to go anymore back b/c the pj will need 4 ft to 5ft to vent...

I'm thinking of going with Hp, SS or BW screen with the masquerade masking system. If i was going with the hp screen...then should i buy the Cinema Contour, Da-Snap, Perm-Wall. But I like the ideal of buying all the product from 1 company b/c it will fix together perfectly. that why i was considering the BW but the gain is too low for that throw distance. I was thing that the screen size might be 60"X107" (2.35:1) Thanks in advance. sorry for your trouble.



keith


----------



## jhunt17

I have a sanyo plv z 2000 and I bought this screen to help brighten up the picture in my room. I am about ready to buy an eye one to calibrate it. It seems everytime I try using just the HD basics things just don't look right. So I am wondering if the high power screen has anything to do with messing up a gamma curve or gray scale? I am an absolute noobi when it comes to this so all help would be wonderful. I wasn't sure to post this here or in the calibration thread so I decided to post it here.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jhunt17* /forum/post/15496092
> 
> 
> I have a sanyo plv z 2000 and I bought this screen to help brighten up the picture in my room. I am about ready to buy an eye one to calibrate it. It seems everytime I try using just the HD basics things just don't look right. So I am wondering if the high power screen has anything to do with messing up a gamma curve or gray scale? I am an absolute noobi when it comes to this so all help would be wonderful. I wasn't sure to post this here or in the calibration thread so I decided to post it here.



I don't think the HP is having any appreciable effect on the gamma. It's one of the most "transparent" screen technologies you're going to find.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/15496439
> 
> 
> I don't think the HP is having any appreciable effect on the gamma. It's one of the most "transparent" screen technologies you're going to find.



I'd suspect the eye 1 before I'd suspect the screen. Especially with gamma stuff. A screen will never effect the gamma because it's passive and gamma is a gain curve that needs active participation. Someone correct me if I'm wrong about that.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *keithishere* /forum/post/15443033
> 
> 
> This will be my first PJ so i hope the expert here could help me make an intelligent decision. the screen will be in a living room with a wall of 10ft high and 115 inch wide. The sony vpl-vw100 will be ceiling mount(with extension columns) back at 17ft to 18ft. I don't want to go anymore back b/c the pj will need 4 ft to 5ft to vent...
> 
> I'm thinking of going with Hp, SS or BW screen with the masquerade masking system. If i was going with the hp screen...then should i buy the Cinema Contour, Da-Snap, Perm-Wall. But I like the ideal of buying all the product from 1 company b/c it will fix together perfectly. that why i was considering the BW but the gain is too low for that throw distance. I was thing that the screen size might be 60"X107" (2.35:1) Thanks in advance. sorry for your trouble.



That's a very large screen for that PJ. You will definitely need plenty of screen gain. If your living room has white walls and ceiling, I believe the best screen for your application is the HP, *BUT* ... You will have to mount the PJ near viewer eye level (just high enough for the beam to clear the viewers' heads) to get enough gain out of the HP. (See the Screen Gain Calculator in my signature below.)


If you must mount your PJ high, then you will be better off with the SS from a gain point of view. The SS, however, will not reject reflected light from the walls and ceiling as well as the HP does. It's surface also is more visible than that of the HP.


As to which Da-Lite frame to buy, I would suggest you discuss that with Carada, because they should know which will work best with Masquerade. You would also be wise to ask them about SS if you decide you want to go that way, as it is unusually thick.


BTW, the screen dimensions you gave are for a 1.78:1 (16x9) aspect ratio, not 2.35:1.


----------



## keithishere

I decided to go with the Hp after reading all the post







Also will go with The Masquerade Horizontal system . Now the hardest part is waiting and the paying the bill


----------



## mdmaclean

My HP screen is now the only piece of HT gear I have not upgraded... It has seen a Z1, Z4, and now a AE3000.


The only reason I could see changing it is to get a powered one,,, but still with HP fabric. I have seen gray screens but they don't have the pop/contrast of my HP.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mdmaclean* /forum/post/15689400
> 
> 
> My HP screen is now the only piece of HT gear I have not upgraded... It has seen a Z1, Z4, and now a AE3000.
> 
> 
> The only reason I could see changing it is to get a powered one,,, but still with HP fabric. I have seen gray screens but they don't have the pop/contrast of my HP.



I've upgraded a lot since I got into this home theater world. I've had 4 front projectors, several bedroom LCDs, several AVRs and 3 screens. The one item I don't have the slightest inclination to upgrade now is my HP screen.


----------



## Fragster

Hi Guys


I'm considering this screen (Model C 119" manual) and I was wondering if due to higher brightness, will this actually make screendoor even more visible? I have a 720p DLP projector and can sometimes see the SDE from 10 feet away on my current 120" WilsonArt laminate DIY screen.


Will a brighter screen such as HP make the SDE even worse? This would be a deal-breaker for me if such the case.


Thanks


----------



## luptong

I just setup one of these High Power screens in my home theatre today, geez what a great screen this is, greatly improved my picture quality all round. I should have bought one 12 months ago.


Fragster, I think you'll find that sde is more noticeable the brighter the image, whether it bothers you more is hard to say though. I'm using a Mits 720p dlp and at close viewing distance sde did seem more pronounced on the HP screen vs my neutral gain screen. I always sit atleast 2X screen width so it's not an issue for me. If I was sitting closer or going bigger than I would be looking to upgrade to 1080.


----------



## R Harkness

Yep, no doubt about it: SDE becomes more visible along with all the other image details when you have a brighter image. In playing with screen samples I've found even an increase in .2 gain can make the difference between my noticing or not noticing SDE on my Panasonic 720p.


----------



## mdmaclean




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/15723256
> 
> 
> Yep, no doubt about it: SDE becomes more visible along with all the other image details when you have a brighter image. In playing with screen samples I've found even an increase in .2 gain can make the difference between my noticing or not noticing SDE on my Panasonic 720p.



I am looking forward to getting my HP set up with my AE3000. Does your Panny have the smoothscreen tech? I was kind of expecting no screen door based on seeing the AE3000 with another screen.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mdmaclean* /forum/post/15723937
> 
> 
> I am looking forward to getting my HP set up with my AE3000. Does your Panny have the smoothscreen tech? I was kind of expecting no screen door based on seeing the AE3000 with another screen.



The 3000 is a 1080p projector. You shouldn't see any screendoor unless you're right on top of it.


----------



## Fragster

Thanks guys......I have no desire for a 1080p upgrade right now so I guess I'll stick to my DIY for now...bummer.


----------



## frankie_v




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fragster* /forum/post/15724657
> 
> 
> Thanks guys......I have no desire for a 1080p upgrade right now so I guess I'll stick to my DIY for now...bummer.



Why not just get a sample sent to you? It's free from Da-Lite. I'm having mine sent and I may just stick to 720p as well.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mdmaclean* /forum/post/15723937
> 
> 
> I am looking forward to getting my HP set up with my AE3000. Does your Panny have the smoothscreen tech? I was kind of expecting no screen door based on seeing the AE3000 with another screen.



Yes it has smoothscreen but it's an older 720p model, which is no doubt why

I can still see screen door.


----------



## mdmaclean

I have been using a Z4 with mine for a couple of years and never been bothered by the screen door. Probably depends a bit on how close you are to the screen, and how sensitive you are to SD.


----------



## Fragster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *frankie_v* /forum/post/15724814
> 
> 
> Why not just get a sample sent to you? It's free from Da-Lite. I'm having mine sent and I may just stick to 720p as well.



Actually I did that and DaLite did respond to my e-mail asking me for a shipping address....now to wait for the sample to show up. I'm sitting about 10-12 feet from a 120" screen and I think that may account for the slight SDE that I notice sometimes as my sitting distance/screen size screams for a 1080p PJ but apart from the slight SDE, I'm very pleased with the overall picture my VP4001 720p PJ puts out. At one point, I tried defocusing my PJ to decrease the SDE (similar to what Panny does on their PJ's) but that kills the sharpness which the VP4001 does a good job job of and the fact that my primary device is a HTPC (with BR drive) so I need the sharpness for text/desktop.


On the same note, how big is the sample that Dalite typically sends out? Is it usually big enough to illustrate a clear difference between that and a existing screen?


----------



## Joseph Clark

I think it would be a good idea to look for the best screen, not one that's going to mask SDE with its own set of problems. If you upgrade to 1080p one day, you won't have to worry about trying to find a new screen that will allow you to see all the new projector's resolution without compromise.


----------



## Sisyphus




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fragster* /forum/post/15729502
> 
> 
> On the same note, how big is the sample that Dalite typically sends out? Is it usually big enough to illustrate a clear difference between that and a existing screen?



When I ordered my HP sample a couple years ago it took about 3-4 weeks to show up. It was about the size of a 8.5"x11" sheet of paper. The additional brightness is not subtle at all.


----------



## frankie_v

I asked for a sample yesterday from their live chat feature. Damien said the High Power would be sent the next day.


----------



## hrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fragster* /forum/post/15729502
> 
> 
> Actually I did that and DaLite did respond to my e-mail asking me for a shipping address....now to wait for the sample to show up. I'm sitting about 10-12 feet from a 120" screen and I think that may account for the slight SDE that I notice sometimes as my sitting distance/screen size screams for a 1080p PJ but apart from the slight SDE, I'm very pleased with the overall picture my VP4001 720p PJ puts out. At one point, I tried defocusing my PJ to decrease the SDE (similar to what Panny does on their PJ's) but that kills the sharpness which the VP4001 does a good job job of and the fact that my primary device is a HTPC (with BR drive) so I need the sharpness for text/desktop.
> 
> 
> On the same note, how big is the sample that Dalite typically sends out? Is it usually big enough to illustrate a clear difference between that and a existing screen?



It's a bit under 7" by 7".


----------



## Fragster

^ Thanks.....here's another question for the manual drop down ( Model C 119") ....instead of ripping out the material and trying to get it framed, isn't it possible to simply use double-sided velcro or glue, etc and then stick the bottom part of the screen to the wall itself, making the screen 'permanent' and the fact it would then be tensioned if the bottom part is secured? Any one try this?


It's just that I've never owned a pull-down screen before and I've already read horror stories of 'waves', 'ripples', etc that's associated with pulldown screens.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fragster* /forum/post/15734423
> 
> 
> ^ Thanks.....here's another question for the manual drop down ( Model C 119") ....instead of ripping out the material and trying to get it framed, isn't it possible to simply use double-sided velcro or glue, etc and then stick the bottom part of the screen to the wall itself, making the screen 'permanent' and the fact it would then be tensioned if the bottom part is secured? Any one try this?
> 
> 
> It's just that I've never owned a pull-down screen before and I've already read horror stories of 'waves', 'ripples', etc that's associated with pulldown screens.



A friend of mine has a 119" pull down HP. He keeps it up most of the time, because he prefers his 58" plasma for casual viewing. I've seen several hours of material with his HP and Sony Pearl. I've never, ever noticed a wave. That's another great thing about the HP. You may see some waves when the projector is off, but pull down the screen and turn on the projector, and all that disappears.


----------



## hrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fragster* /forum/post/15734423
> 
> 
> ^ Thanks.....here's another question for the manual drop down ( Model C 119") ....instead of ripping out the material and trying to get it framed, isn't it possible to simply use double-sided velcro or glue, etc and then stick the bottom part of the screen to the wall itself, making the screen 'permanent' and the fact it would then be tensioned if the bottom part is secured? Any one try this?
> 
> 
> It's just that I've never owned a pull-down screen before and I've already read horror stories of 'waves', 'ripples', etc that's associated with pulldown screens.



Look into the Da-Lite Perm-Wall. It has a very basic frame and has to be mounted permanently to the wall, but those concessions make it the most economical version of the Da-Lite fixed frame screens.


----------



## luptong

I have an 8ft wide pull down and yes the fabric does have waves in it but I can confirm also that they are invisible when in use. My initial intention was to cut the fabric off and diy frame it but I don't think I will bother now, it looks and performs fine the way it is. I might try to tension it out with something if it's easy enough to do but otherwise I'm not concerned. This screen is cheap and kicks ass, I highly recommend it.


----------



## chambers1517

This is a great thread and has answered all my questions except one. I have ordered a 139x78 and I am going to do a scope screen with it. I have a large center speaker ( Klipsch Lascala) and scope is the only way a large screen will fit. The room is 22x18 and I am wanting two rows of seating. I want 4 recliners on the first row and 4 on the second row with the projector between the back two center seats shooting over head level of the front row. The second row will be raised. Should I try to mount it centered between the first and second row or back even with the second row. I am also wondering how to hide the projector. It vents hot air out the side and has several bright lights on it. I am thinking first row seating about 17 feet back and second row at about 20. A larger screen allows a greater seating distance which results in better viewing cone. My problem is how to optomize projector placement without it becoming a distraction.


----------



## smithfarmer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chambers1517* /forum/post/15742617
> 
> 
> I am thinking first row seating about 17 feet back and second row at about 20.



If you're going with recliners you need 6' between the seatbacks of your first and second rows when in the upright position. My first row is at 14' and the second row is is at 20'. With all seats in the reclined position, the footrests of the second row just clear the headrests of the first row.


----------



## chambers1517

Thanks, where is your projector. I hate to put it behind the second row so I thought between the rows but how to hide it so it doesn't bother the people in the second row.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chambers1517* /forum/post/15742617
> 
> 
> I want 4 recliners on the first row and 4 on the second row with the projector between the back two center seats shooting over head level of the front row. My problem is how to optomize projector placement without it becoming a distraction.



Do you really need 8 seats? If not, you might consider dropping the first row to 3 (or even 2), as with 4 seats the outer two will see a much dimmer picture.


I think you will just about have to put the PJ behind the second row. It will need to be near eye level to maximize the HP gain. The biggest potential problem I see is that the H79 may be too dim, IMO, for the large screen you are planning--especially for 'scope movies. SDE could become a problem as well. In addition, given the height of your screen, you might want to verify whether the vertical lens shift range of the H79 is sufficient to allow placing the PJ near eye level.


If you haven't done so already, you may want to avail yourself of the two calculators in my signature below.


----------



## chambers1517

Thanks, My H79 has plenty of lens shift. It will throw the image well past the top of the wall. Also according to the calculator at Projector Central I need to have a gain of about 1.9 to maintain my current brightness. I have a 120" 16x9 screen now and find the brightness about perfect. I also have an anamorphic lens which should help. I set about 1.5x screen width now and will maintain this ratio with the new screen. I see absolutely no SDE. The H79 has a good enough image to hold me until LED projectors become an option. I am trying to maintain uniform brightness and was worried about the projector being too far behind the front row. I have 3 kids and my wife plus they often have friends over so 8 seats is pratical. I also was re measuring my room and it is actually 21wx26L. I have large speakers and a large room so I need a large screen. Any better layout you would reccomend. I am just now beginning construction on the room. It is in a basement. I use the projector in the living room now and we drag it, a fixed frame screen and move the furniture around on movie night. This is why I went ahead and purchased a pulldown screen so I can mount it in the living room until the theater is finished. I also want to get an Idea of how best to maximize this screenes performance during construction of my room. Do you see a better layout option. The screen is on the way. I will build a frame for permanent instalation once the room is finished.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chambers1517* /forum/post/15753278
> 
> 
> I am trying to maintain uniform brightness and was worried about the projector being too far behind the front row. ... Do you see a better layout option.



With the PJ behind the back row, the gain calculator should show a fair amount of side-to-side gain nonuniformity for your front outside seats. You probably will not be able to see it unless it is more than 2 to 1. Almost everyone says they see very good uniformity with the HP, regardless of their setup. You will see brightness variation when moving seat to seat. That was why I was trying to suggest a triangular seating arrangement, narrower at the front, but I don't think it is of great concern. The picture should still look good--just dimmer for the outside seats.


My concern about brightness was because, in your CIH setup, for scope movies you will get about 79% of the brightness you will get for 16x9, less a few percent due to the A-lens loss. Still, if your room is dark, this should be tolerable.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/15754914
> 
> 
> With the PJ behind the back row, the gain calculator should show a fair amount of side-to-side gain nonuniformity for your front outside seats. You probably will not be able to see it unless it is more than 2 to 1. Almost everyone says they see very good uniformity with the HP, regardless of their setup. You will see brightness variation when moving seat to seat. That was why I was trying to suggest a triangular seating arrangement, narrower at the front, but I don't think it is of great concern. The picture should still look good--just dimmer for the outside seats.
> 
> 
> My concern about brightness was because, in your CIH setup, for scope movies you will get about 79% of the brightness you will get for 16x9, less a few percent due to the A-lens loss. Still, if your room is dark, this should be tolerable.



I have a 126" diag 16x9 HP, about 12 ft from my eyes, and the pj sits right behind/between (and slightly above) my wife's and my heads; and brightness uniformity is perfect over the whole screen.


However, a week or so ago I explored the possibility of going to a larger (132"W) 2.35 screen, and needed to move the pj back about 5 ft behind our heads, and also offset it ~ 3 ft from the horizontal center. In this setup I did notice non-uniformity in brightness from the left to right side of the screen, and it was not subtle. So there are limits to pj placement with an HP, as everyone knows; but this is the only time I've really witnessed it. (I will thus be staying with my present 16x9 screen, for this and other reasons.)


----------



## Mike W




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/15756660
> 
> 
> I have a 126" diag 16x9 HP, about 12 ft from my eyes, and the pj sits right behind/between (and slightly above) my wife's and my heads; and brightness uniformity is perfect over the whole screen.
> 
> 
> However, a week or so ago I explored the possibility of going to a larger (132"W) 2.35 screen, and needed to move the pj back about 5 ft behind our heads, and also offset it ~ 3 ft from the horizontal center. In this setup I did notice non-uniformity in brightness from the left to right side of the screen, and it was not subtle. So there are limits to pj placement with an HP, as everyone knows; but this is the only time I've really witnessed it. (I will thus be staying with my present 16x9 screen, for this and other reasons.)



Hey Bill:


If I remember correctly, didn't it seem that the main culprit in the brightness nonuniformity was the 3 ft. horizontal offset, or did I misinterpret the series of posts on the RS20 thread? I thought that when you recentered the lens (albeit, having to bring it in a little closer to the screen due to your room's layout), that good brightness uniformity returned. I do realize that in bringing it closer and recentering, you were manipulating two factors at once, so yes, you can't disentagle the effects of each parameter. But in using FLBoy's gain calculator for my own potential setup, it doesn't seem like a few feet directly behind one's head, centered, would create the clear nonuniformity problem that you experienced??


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mike W* /forum/post/15757875
> 
> 
> Hey Bill:
> 
> 
> If I remember correctly, didn't it seem that the main culprit in the brightness nonuniformity was the 3 ft. horizontal offset, or did I misinterpret the series of posts on the RS20 thread? I thought that when you recentered the lens (albeit, having to bring it in a little closer to the screen due to your room's layout), that good brightness uniformity returned. I do realize that in bringing it closer and recentering, you were manipulating two factors at once, so yes, you can't disentagle the effects of each parameter. But in using FLBoy's gain calculator for my own potential setup, it doesn't seem like a few feet directly behind one's head, centered, would create the clear nonuniformity problem that you experienced??



Partially right, Mike. To center the pj, I could not put as far back; only about 3 ft behind our heads (rather than 5 ft). And this closer distance, plus centering the pj horizontally, did reduce the non-uniformity. I must say, though, that there was still a little bit; I had been sensitized to it and thus looked very carefully. When I moved the pj back to its original (and present) position, just behind our heads, the brightness was perfectly uniform over the whole screen.


So I think I'm going to forego all the hassle, and expense, of replacing my screen with a 2.35. A 110"W 2.35 pic from 12 ft away is still pretty impressive, but with all the hype about CIH I did want to see if it was feasible for me to go this route. I could, but as noted, this would introduce this lack of brightness uniformity which I definitely did not like.


----------



## chambers1517

Hey guys this was some of my concerns. I was thinking if I placed the projector in the center of the back row slightly above the front row, I can minimize variations for either row. I just need someway to hide it between the center back row seats.


----------



## pottscb

I have a question for anyone familiar with Da-lite products. I was in Fry's in Austin yesterday and looking at their HT room which has an old Sony Ruby projecting onto a da-lite electric screen that is a white screen material but no one could tell me what the material was. I got behind the screen and noticed a thin black fabric-like backing but I also noticed that a small amount of light was coming THROUGH the screen. The 90-ish inch screen had some gain, as there were subtle but noticeable sparklies when I got 6 inches away from it, but not noticeable from 8 ft. away. What also wasn't noticeable was any gain change when I stood on a chair vs. sitting in the chair (on a ceiling mounted PJ). What was noticeable was a phenominal, 3-D, contrasty, vibrant looking image (Blu-ray Journey to the Center of the Earth) ...even with a moderate amount of canned lighting. Is it possible, by my description, that this screen was a HP? If so, I've GOT to have one as it really made my wife say "Hmmm, maybe we do need a front projector," and for me, that's what makes the difference. (I also noticed that on a full black out the screen looked bluish-grey, partially because Sony skews their blacks to blue and partially...because the screen was a HP?) Is there a definite way to tell a HP, or not a HP? I even got on Frys.com and they don't advertize ANY screens for sale.


Thanks for any help you can give.


----------



## FremontRich




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pottscb* /forum/post/15815130
> 
> 
> I have a question for anyone familiar with Da-lite products. I was in Fry's in Austin yesterday and looking at their HT room which has an old Sony Ruby projecting onto a da-lite electric screen that is a white screen material but no one could tell me what the material was. I got behind the screen and noticed a thin black fabric-like backing but I also noticed that a small amount of light was coming THROUGH the screen. The 90-ish inch screen had some gain, as there were subtle but noticeable sparklies when I got 6 inches away from it, but not noticeable from 8 ft. away. What also wasn't noticeable was any gain change when I stood on a chair vs. sitting in the chair (on a ceiling mounted PJ). What was noticeable was a phenominal, 3-D, contrasty, vibrant looking image (Blu-ray Journey to the Center of the Earth) ...even with a moderate amount of canned lighting. Is it possible, by my description, that this screen was a HP? If so, I've GOT to have one as it really made my wife say "Hmmm, maybe we do need a front projector," and for me, that's what makes the difference. (I also noticed that on a full black out the screen looked bluish-grey, partially because Sony skews their blacks to blue and partially...because the screen was a HP?) Is there a definite way to tell a HP, or not a HP? I even got on Frys.com and they don't advertize ANY screens for sale.
> 
> 
> Thanks for any help you can give.



If you can see a small amount of light coming through the screen I'd doubt it's high power. The high power material is quite thick which prevents the projector's light from going through the screen.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pottscb* /forum/post/15815130
> 
> 
> I have a question for anyone familiar with Da-lite products. I was in Fry's in Austin yesterday and looking at their HT room which has an old Sony Ruby projecting onto a da-lite electric screen that is a white screen material but no one could tell me what the material was. I got behind the screen and noticed a thin black fabric-like backing but I also noticed that a small amount of light was coming THROUGH the screen. The 90-ish inch screen had some gain, as there were subtle but noticeable sparklies when I got 6 inches away from it, but not noticeable from 8 ft. away. What also wasn't noticeable was any gain change when I stood on a chair vs. sitting in the chair (on a ceiling mounted PJ). What was noticeable was a phenominal, 3-D, contrasty, vibrant looking image (Blu-ray Journey to the Center of the Earth) ...even with a moderate amount of canned lighting. Is it possible, by my description, that this screen was a HP? If so, I've GOT to have one as it really made my wife say "Hmmm, maybe we do need a front projector," and for me, that's what makes the difference. (I also noticed that on a full black out the screen looked bluish-grey, partially because Sony skews their blacks to blue and partially...because the screen was a HP?) Is there a definite way to tell a HP, or not a HP? I even got on Frys.com and they don't advertize ANY screens for sale.
> 
> 
> Thanks for any help you can give.



I doubt it was an HP for 2 reasons. One, you could see through the black backing. Two, you saw no difference in gain as you moved up and down. With an HP, I don't think either would happen.


----------



## MickeyDora




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pottscb* /forum/post/15815130
> 
> 
> I have a question for anyone familiar with Da-lite products. I was in Fry's in Austin yesterday and looking at their HT room which has an old Sony Ruby projecting onto a da-lite electric screen that is a white screen material but no one could tell me what the material was. I got behind the screen and noticed a thin black fabric-like backing but I also noticed that a small amount of light was coming THROUGH the screen. The 90-ish inch screen had some gain, as there were subtle but noticeable sparklies when I got 6 inches away from it, but not noticeable from 8 ft. away. What also wasn't noticeable was any gain change when I stood on a chair vs. sitting in the chair (on a ceiling mounted PJ). What was noticeable was a phenominal, 3-D, contrasty, vibrant looking image (Blu-ray Journey to the Center of the Earth) ...even with a moderate amount of canned lighting. Is it possible, by my description, that this screen was a HP? If so, I've GOT to have one as it really made my wife say "Hmmm, maybe we do need a front projector," and for me, that's what makes the difference. (I also noticed that on a full black out the screen looked bluish-grey, partially because Sony skews their blacks to blue and partially...because the screen was a HP?) Is there a definite way to tell a HP, or not a HP? I even got on Frys.com and they don't advertize ANY screens for sale.
> 
> 
> Thanks for any help you can give.



If its the same screen I saw there a few months back then it is NOT a High power.


----------



## pottscb

Sorry, the end of my question should have read "If not a HP, then what is it?" I'm guessing its not the HC white as you can definitely see gain...maybe the 1.5?


----------



## deanzsyclone




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pottscb* /forum/post/15815130
> 
> 
> I have a question for anyone familiar with Da-lite products. I was in Fry's in Austin yesterday and looking at their HT room which has an old Sony Ruby projecting onto a da-lite electric screen that is a white screen material but no one could tell me what the material was. I got behind the screen and noticed a thin black fabric-like backing but I also noticed that a small amount of light was coming THROUGH the screen. The 90-ish inch screen had some gain, as there were subtle but noticeable sparklies when I got 6 inches away from it, but not noticeable from 8 ft. away. What also wasn't noticeable was any gain change when I stood on a chair vs. sitting in the chair (on a ceiling mounted PJ). What was noticeable was a phenominal, 3-D, contrasty, vibrant looking image (Blu-ray Journey to the Center of the Earth) ...even with a moderate amount of canned lighting. Is it possible, by my description, that this screen was a HP? If so, I've GOT to have one as it really made my wife say "Hmmm, maybe we do need a front projector," and for me, that's what makes the difference. (I also noticed that on a full black out the screen looked bluish-grey, partially because Sony skews their blacks to blue and partially...because the screen was a HP?) Is there a definite way to tell a HP, or not a HP? I even got on Frys.com and they don't advertize ANY screens for sale.
> 
> 
> Thanks for any help you can give.



Sounds like our fry's in Oxnard california, where was this at?


----------



## pottscb

Austin TX. That VW100 has been in there for years, and I've NEVER been that impressed with it...not sure if it was the Blu-ray, the screen, new bulb or something else?


What screen is it in your CA Fry's, maybe they're all using the same?


----------



## deanzsyclone




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pottscb* /forum/post/15818187
> 
> 
> Austin TX. That VW100 has been in there for years, and I've NEVER been that impressed with it...not sure if it was the Blu-ray, the screen, new bulb or something else?
> 
> 
> What screen is it in your CA Fry's, maybe they're all using the same?



Not sure, but it always looks way to dim to me.


----------



## Kamel407

Tryg,


I noticed your projector is basically ceiling mounted (high enough off the ground to be considered as such in a standard non-vaulted ceiling room).


Would you still suggest the High Power for ceiling mounted setups? Looking to get the Panasonic AE3000u.


----------



## pottscb

Can anyone tell me what happens to the HP image quality as you move off-axis vertically downward (for a low ceiling mount)? Obviously you lose brightness, but are there any other negative effects (colors washing out, black levels being elevated instead of decreased with brightness, etc?).


I'm just not going to be able to mount an HP optimally and I've used the gain calculator and I'll only be getting about 1.4 sitting down but I wanted to make sure it dosen't behave like a flat panel LCD (or RPTV) when you start moving off-axis.


I'm mounting the pj about 18-20ft from screen so angular reflective would be ideal, unfortunately, there are no good implementations of the technology in my budget (though I haven't viewed the video Spectra 1.5 or Elite Powergain, I hear from owners they have problems)


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pottscb* /forum/post/15900233
> 
> 
> Can anyone tell me what happens to the HP image quality as you move off-axis vertically downward (for a low ceiling mount)? Obviously you lose brightness, but are there any other negative effects (colors washing out, black levels being elevated instead of decreased with brightness, etc?).
> 
> 
> I'm just not going to be able to mount an HP optimally and I've used the gain calculator and I'll only be getting about 1.4 sitting down but I wanted to make sure it dosen't behave like a flat panel LCD (or RPTV) when you start moving off-axis.
> 
> 
> I'm mounting the pj about 18-20ft from screen so angular reflective would be ideal, unfortunately, there are no good implementations of the technology in my budget (though I haven't viewed the video Spectra 1.5 or Elite Powergain, I hear from owners they have problems)



You shouldn't experience any negatives other than a loss of brightness if you have to mount the projector up high. The HP is a GREAT screen, extremely transparent to the movie, even if the gain is lower. If you can live with 1.4 gain and the viewing cone issue, there's no reason not to use it. I wouldn't trade the HP for any other screen I've seen.


----------



## Rudy81




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/15900295
> 
> 
> You shouldn't experience any negatives other than a loss of brightness if you have to mount the projector up high. The HP is a GREAT screen, extremely transparent to the movie, even if the gain is lower. If you can live with 1.4 gain and the viewing cone issue, there's no reason not to use it. I wouldn't trade the HP for any other screen I've seen.



Exactly my experience also. I have my pj mounted high, even with the top of the screen due to room limitations. This non-optimum position gives me a tremendous picture from anywhere in the room. Sure, not as bright off axis, but there are no problems with color or distortion of any kind. This is the best screen I have owned. My room is totally light controlled and in a fully darkened room, the screen is almost too brigth as it is. It is perfect for half light and sports projections.


----------



## pottscb

Thanks, I do watch quite a lot of sports standing around with my friends (on eye level with the pj), and as my room is long and thin (along the projection axis) I think the HP is preferable to a flat white 1.1 ga.. And as many have already stated, too bright is bad for movies so when we sit the gain will be trimmed from ~2.5 to ~1.4, I don't think the viewing cone will cause us much grief as the room is narrow and couch is centered.


Thanks for the info.


----------



## WOLVERNOLE




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rudy81* /forum/post/15900460
> 
> 
> Exactly my experience also. This is the best screen I have owned. My room is totally light controlled and in a fully darkened room, the screen is almost too brigth as it is. It is perfect for half light and sports projections.



Rudy-

Good input. Could you elaborate about your screen size, PJ, and throw distance, please? Thanks.


----------



## Rudy81




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WOLVERNOLE* /forum/post/15906377
> 
> 
> Rudy-
> 
> Good input. Could you elaborate about your screen size, PJ, and throw distance, please? Thanks.



Screen is 120" diag 16x9, Sharp Z12000, with a throw distance of approx 18'.


----------



## smokhee

Great info guys. I am now debating between an Elite EZ frame with CineWhite (around $350 shipped), vs a perm-wall with HP (about $650 shipped). I have an Epson 6500ub, ceiling mount about 14' away from the screen. Seating about 14' away. 8 foot ceiling. Going for 120". I have a Do-able board screen temporarily as I am new to the projector game and I wanted to see what I wanted in a screen before buying one. Things that I am looking for:


screen transparency. I do not like to see the screen at all.


tolerance of ambient light. I like to watch a lot of sports and my kids like to play games. So some ambient light is needed at times.


a "wow" picture of course!



I realize that there may be viewing cone issues with the high mount. It sounds like this may not be a problem, going by Rudy's experience. Any other comments? Would you guys go for the Elite or the Da-lite? Thanks for the help!


----------



## phussey

I have a Cosmopolitan electric, non-tensioned 120" High Power screen. I have been using it with my Planar 7060 and love the image EXCEPT for the last couple of months. When watching films , if there is a panning shot in either direction , the image ripples and goes "wavey". This only happens on panning shots. Is this due to the "v" shaped waves I see on my screen ? The waves disappear when I put a movie on however. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks.


----------



## racer256

Tryg,


Wondering if you're contradicting yourself..? I'm trying to decide between the two screens so I'm wondering which one you give top honors.


You refer to "upgrading" from the SilverStar at the start of your post "HIGH POWER a Review! Part 1". However, years earlier you preferred the HP at the start of your post "White, Grey, or Silver - A Review!" post as stated below.


"Of course, then the High Power sheds ambient light better. This is definitely attributed to it’s obvious viewing cone and under the right conditions, like higher ambient light and watching sports, it would be an awesome product. For watching movies, I would definitely take the SilverStar. It felt like it had more depth and the screen tended to just disappear more. I’ve heard people say this same thing when going from a matte white screen to a grey screen. The SilverStar exhibits this same quality but at a gain of over 3. High gain, detail, and depth. It’s pretty awesome, and in many ways a stunning combination."


----------



## pottscb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rudy81* /forum/post/15900460
> 
> 
> Exactly my experience also. I have my pj mounted high, even with the top of the screen due to room limitations. This non-optimum position gives me a tremendous picture from anywhere in the room. Sure, not as bright off axis, but there are no problems with color or distortion of any kind. This is the best screen I have owned. My room is totally light controlled and in a fully darkened room, the screen is almost too brigth as it is. It is perfect for half light and sports projections.



Rudy, thanks for the info (and nice HT pics). I'm thinking of mounting my pj on a retractable mount so it will mount flush with 9 ft. ceiling when not operating and then I can drop it down to 6ft or so...anyone have any thoughts on this? (seating 12' from ~106" throwing 18ft.-pj either new Epson or JVCRS10, or Planar if I can find used)


----------



## phasar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/9242009
> 
> *High Power The name says it all!*
> 
> 
> Over the years I've had the privilege of reviewing dozens of screens. It started out with my personal quest to get a screen for my own home theater environment and viewing habits, to now getting the best possible image for movie viewing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you've read my original High Gain review, you would have seen how important viewing angle is when dealing with higher gain screens. The constant challenge is how to get a big bright robust image from a dim sub 1000 lumen projector. When I talk big, I'm referring to screens 9 feet wide and up. The answer: higher gain. The second part of this challenge is how to get a great image at most viewing angles. This is where things start to get tricky. As you know, the more light you reflect back in a certain direction the less light you get reflected off to the sides. A perfect lambertian screen diffuses light equally in all directions. Low gain is ideal for good brightness uniformity across the screen and the best for really wide viewing angles. This is fine if you have a high lumen projector. Unfortunately, the manufacturing trend over the last few years has kept the best image and affordable projectors in the 400-800 lumen range. If you're interested in a big bright screen you have to go with higher gain. As with any screen, there is always a tradeoff. With higher gain screens there are even more! But if you can live within these limitations you can achieve images beyond what any other screen can do.
> 
> 
> *Why high gain?*
> 
> 
> Many people discount the benefits of high gain. These are usually people that either can't look past the drawbacks of a higher gain screen, or don't want to take the time to consider how higher gain can be your friend. I love to talk about higher gain screens, because that's where the performance is! Many sit around pondering the difference between 1- 1.3 gain screens; but the reality is that hardly anyone can tell the difference between any of them at normal viewing distances. Throw up the brightness performance of a 2.8 gain screen and everyone will know there's a noticeable difference. People love brightness! It's very seductive, and like someone living with a gutless car for years and then going to a car with plenty of power, they are not going back. It's all about the power. High Power!
> 
> 
> *What are the benefits?
> 
> 
> - Higher brightness
> 
> - Increased perceived contrast
> 
> - Ambient light rejection
> 
> 
> 
> Higher brightness*
> 
> 
> Yes, higher gain screens can take a dim projector and make it a real performer on a big screen. But it's more than that. You can use a higher brightness screen to get more performance out of your image! With some projectors, longer throws yield better contrast, but at the expense of lower brightness. Problem solved with the high gain screen. Many projectors also have lower bulb setting or economy modes. The high gain screen allows you to deliver a bright robust image in economy mode, lengthening the life of your bulb and still giving you the image you like. Finally, an additional benefit of having brightness to spare is through the use of neutral density filters. You can get these at most camera shops for fairly cheap and then use them to deliver a consistent light output from your projector over the life of your bulb. Put a neutral density filter on your lens when the bulb is new, and then remove it later when your bulb has aged and you can still achieve the same light output you started with.
> 
> 
> *Increased perceived contrast*
> 
> 
> A screen does not change the contrast ratio of an image. This on/off ratio doesn't change, even with ambient light in the room. But there are many things you can do to allow your eyes and brain to think you are seeing more contrast. Masking, painting your walls darker, and backlighting are a just few of the tricks that people use to accomplish this; however, the easiest is to just use a higher gain screen. No, its not going to help your absolute black levels, but when you increase everything by a multiple of around 2.8, like with a high gain screen, the whites are so much brighter that your blacks, or grays, look even darker. Finally, this isn't just beneficial from the top end to the bottom end. If you increase this separation from the top end to the bottom end you also get larger and more noticeable separation in your gray scale increments. What can this offer? More detail. The lower the gain screen, the more detail you lose in this area because the whole gray scale is compressed together. The more gain you have the more gradation you are generally able to distinguish because it's spread out. It should all still be there, but being able to see this separation with a brighter image becomes much easier.
> 
> 
> *Ambient light rejection*
> 
> 
> The reality of front projection is that ambient light needs to be controlled. The more you can do this, the better the image. Unfortunately, a pitch-black environment isn't always the best for hanging out in, unless of course you love caves. So with even a little bit of ambient light in the room, it's important to come up with ways to minimize its effects. Often, we try to solve this problem at the screen. Unfortunately, there simply is no miracle cure. But there are screens that do a noticeably better job.
> 
> *The Da-Lite High Power*
> 
> 
> Da-Lite has come up with one heck of a solution for the most demanding environments. Originally designed for boardrooms and business environments, the High Power does an amazing job of reducing the effects of ambient light. First, it's high gain, so it reflects the light back to a controlled location. Second, it's retro reflective, so it reflects its light back to the source; thereby, reflecting other light away from the viewer. If you keep these things in mind when setting up your system, you can reap these amazing benefits. To do this, you simply focus the projected light to your viewing area, and reject the light that doesn't come from the projector. Unlike angular reflective screens, this ambient light rejection ability is only available from retro-reflective surfaces.
> 
> 
> *Angular reflective vs. Retro-reflective*
> 
> 
> Which is best? It depends on your setup and viewing environment. Most screens are angular reflective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although angular reflective screens work well in a wider variety of conditions, they generally also have less issues at lower gains. Lower gain screens are ideal, because they are very good at diffusing light uniformly. When you get into the higher gain angular reflective screens you need to start thinking not just about the reduction of viewing angle, but also uniformity issues. This is called hotspotting. Hotspotting is caused when the screen surface can't diffuse the light evenly, so you get a brighter image near the center of the screen, or where the angle of the bounce matches up directly with your eyes. The larger your screen, the more you will have to contend with this. Angular reflective screens with optical coatings have a high tendency to hotspot. The more the gain, and the bigger the screen, the more this may affect your viewing. If you're planning on going big, this is something you definitely need to consider. How can we solve this? Retro-reflection.
> 
> 
> With a retro-reflective screen, you can have a high gain, large screen and nearly eliminate all possibilities of hotspotting. Because retro-reflective screens bounce the light back toward the light source, they're able to eliminate many of the issues that surround angular reflective screens with coatings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the best properties of the retro-reflective screen are:
> 
> *- Virtually no hotspotting
> 
> - No seeing waves on the screen (if not perfectly flat)
> 
> - Great ability to shed ambient light
> 
> - Screen surface is invisible when viewing*
> 
> 
> BUTlet me caution you. You can achieve all these benefits with the retro-reflective screen, however, you must set it up properly. To achieve the maximum gain characteristics of the retro-reflective screen, you must position your projector so that the light path from the projector to the screen is near your eyes. The closer you can do this, the more gain can be realized. To achieve the maximum gain of the screen, you need to have a zero angle of incidence from this light path. Can this make setting up your system tricky? Sometimes, but it's not impossible. Either table mounting the projector in front of you or lowering the projector further from the ceiling both work very well. Some like to shelf mount their projector on the back wall closer to their equipment. When set up properly, the image from a retro-reflective screen is absolutely stunning. Okay, so who makes these screens and what's the best?
> 
> *The Da-Lite High Power*
> 
> 
> The best example of a retro-reflective screen I've seen is the Da-Lite High Power. The first time I saw this screen material I was amazed. The High Power is simply one of the best emulsions available for a screen surface and also one of the best values in home theater. This screen material was made for high ambient light and a bright image. Although this screen is not marketed by Da-Lite as a home theater screen, it has become a darling of enthusiasts for those that are willing to set up their systems to match its properties. In some cases, people don't even set it up ideally and still rave about how much they love it!
> 
> 
> The High Power is rated at 2.8 gain. Truthfully, I think its actually a bit more when viewed perfectly on axis. If using the High Power, I recommend trying to set up your system the best you can to capture its gain. If done properly, the images delivered from its surface are nothing short of spectacular. The screen surface absolutely disappears and all you see is what's coming from the projector.
> 
> 
> *The Viewing Cone*
> 
> 
> Because of its high gain, this screen also has one of the narrowest viewing cones. The properties that make this screen so good are also what make it have limitations. Don't get this screen and expect to get awesome gain when viewing at 45 degree angles. Generally, you can get 2.5 gain or greater when sitting on a moderately wide couch. The further outside of this viewing area, the less gain you should expect to achieve. As I mentioned earlier, many set up their viewing conditions, even ceiling mount their projector, and are completely happy with the lower gain they get, even though it's not optimal. In some cases you may not want the maximum gain from the screen. Here's a graph I created for the High Power's viewing cone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another benefit of the High Power material is that it's not a tensionable material. This means you don't have to bother with expensive tab tensioning setups to get a flat surface. This allows you to get a cleaner looking screen whether it's a pull down like a Da-Lite Model B or the more deluxe Model C. If you want to take it to the next level and get an electric, there are a variety of options including the very cost effective Contour Electrol. This is what I have; and for a few hundred bucks more than the Model C, you'll definitely feel like James Bond without having to be Bill Gates. The fit and finish of the Contour Electrol, like all Da-Lite screens, are absolutely top notch. I'm very pleased with this screen and the Contour Electrol. Whether you're planning a top of the line recessed electric screen, or even a Model B, the High Power material is the most performance you can pack onto a roller. If fixed frame screens are your thing, the High Power material comes seamless up to 6 feet. So if you're thinking about going big, you may be interested in a 6 foot tall 14 foot wide Cinemascope screen. Simply awesome.
> 
> 
> *How does the High Power do it?*
> 
> 
> The High Power is a glass-beaded screen. However, unlike the crunchy glass bead screens that are angular reflective, the high power uses micro beads. These micro beads are encased in an emulsion that allows it to be then be applied to a nice durable vinyl backing. The retro-reflective nature of this screen comes from these micro beads. The projected light enters through the front of the bead and gets slightly magnified and focused on the backside of the bead. The parabolic backside of the bead then reflects the light and redirects it back toward the light source. As it passes back through the front of the bead the light is then slightly diffused as it heads out toward the eyes of the happy viewer. This is the same kind of technology that is used in stop signs and road striping paint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The trick is putting it together in an emulsion with the uniformity that is ideal for projection screens. Da-Lite has does this with the High Power, and with awesome results.
> 
> 
> *Conclusions*
> 
> 
> I've been reviewing screens now for a number of years. Every professional screen I look at is very good; and I'm a big fan of companies that have the technology to develop surfaces with optical coatings and that take it to the next level of reflective performance. I personally tend to like higher gain screens and the brightness advantages you can get from them. Of all the screens I've reviewed, there's one screen material that has become my reference standard. That screen material is Da-Lite's High Power. If set up properly, this material can deliver the best images available. If you are able to set up your viewing situation properly you can expect to see an image that:
> 
> *Gives a robust high brightness image with real to life colors and whites
> 
> Provides greater perceived contrast
> 
> Has a clean uniform image so that the surface completely disappears
> 
> Has no hotspotting or visable waves
> 
> Has an amazing ability to shed ambient light*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The High Power is simply an amazing screen. When I decided to go to a 12' wide 2.40 Cinemascope aspect ratio, I knew the only screen material that could pull this off and make me happy was the High Power. After having it up for a couple weeks, I could not be happier. The image is spectacular, and if you can set it up properly, you are sure to be happy. If you are thinking of going big, and your projector puts out less than 1000 lumens, there's simply one choice. High Power.
> 
> 
> Stay tuned. *Part 2* will feature the upgrade, Cinemascope and the secrets behind the choices.
> 
> 
> A huge thanks to Blake Brubaker, the Systems Display Manager at Da-Lite for making this review possible. As another Home Theater enthusiast, he allowed me to see the light. I hope that I have been able to let you see it too!



I noticed your review says the High Power surface virtually eliminates hotspotting, when chatting with a rep from dalite he recommended the dalite high contrast matte white over the High power because of his concern that hotspotting would be a problem with the high power.


I have panasonic pt ax 200u 2000 lumens projecting from a coffee table13 ft from wall,

all white walls, and limited control of ambient lighting.


Do you think the lumen output would cause hotspotting with the high power or should I go with the high contrast matte white?


----------



## mdmaclean




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *phasar* /forum/post/16008926
> 
> 
> I noticed your review says the High Power surface virtually eliminates hotspotting, when chatting with a rep from dalite he recommended the dalite high contrast matte white over the High power because of his concern that hotspotting would be a problem with the high power.
> 
> 
> I have panasonic pt ax 200u 2000 lumens projecting from a coffee table13 ft from wall,
> 
> all white walls, and limited control of ambient lighting.
> 
> 
> Do you think the lumen output would cause hotspotting with the high power or should I go with the high contrast matte white?



The retro-reflective nature of the screen pretty much prevents hot-spotting. Reflective screens are prone to hot-spotting.


You won't have a problem.


----------



## Chad T




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *phasar* /forum/post/16008926
> 
> 
> I noticed your review says the High Power surface virtually eliminates hotspotting, when chatting with a rep from dalite he recommended the dalite high contrast matte white over the High power because of his concern that hotspotting would be a problem with the high power.
> 
> 
> I have panasonic pt ax 200u 2000 lumens projecting from a coffee table13 ft from wall,
> 
> all white walls, and limited control of ambient lighting.
> 
> 
> Do you think the lumen output would cause hotspotting with the high power or should I go with the high contrast matte white?



I had an angular reflective high gain screen before I got my HP and it DID hot spot. The High Power doesn't hot spot.....or if it does, it's so mild that I don't notice it. And I'm fairly picky.


----------



## Joseph Clark

I agree. If you have trouble with hotspotting on the HP, you're vision is a lot better than mine. My Stewart Firehawk, now *that* hotspotted.


----------



## phasar

Thanks to all of you for your advice!


----------



## luptong

This may have been discussed before, it's a big thread and I haven't read it all. Anyway I bought a High Power pull down screen several weeks ago and today I finally decided to cut and frame the fabric. I had the fabric on the floor rolled out and I was leaning over while cutting and a drop of sweat landed on it. I freaked out and try to clean it with a damp cloth, I was successful fortunately, but it left a large patch where the damp cloth was used even after it had fully dried, I could see it clearly under the ceiling lights. But after panicking a second time I realised that the patch was noticeably brighter, more retroreflective than the rest of the screen. Obviously my cleaning job did exactly that, it must have cleaned a layer of dirt off the screen and subsequently made it a good deal brighter. So it seems that this screen needs cleaning and in my case quite frequently by the looks of it, there is the possibility the screen was never clean when I bought it but it's hard to say. What do you people think of this, is dust something that effects all screens or it something about retroflective that makes it sensative to it?. I've never concerned myself with cleaning screens before but now it looks like it could be a necessity.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *luptong* /forum/post/16045581
> 
> 
> This may have been discussed before, it's a big thread and I haven't read it all. Anyway I bought a High Power pull down screen several weeks ago and today I finally decided to cut and frame the fabric. I had the fabric on the floor rolled out and I was leaning over while cutting and a drop of sweat landed on it. I freaked out and try to clean it with a damp cloth, I was successful fortunately, but it left a large patch where the damp cloth was used even after it had fully dried, I could see it clearly under the ceiling lights. But after panicking a second time I realised that the patch was noticeably brighter, more retroreflective than the rest of the screen. Obviously my cleaning job did exactly that, it must have cleaned a layer of dirt off the screen and subsequently made it a good deal brighter. So it seems that this screen needs cleaning and in my case quite frequently by the looks of it, there is the possibility the screen was never clean when I bought it but it's hard to say. What do you people think of this, is dust something that effects all screens or it something about retroflective that makes it sensative to it?. I've never concerned myself with cleaning screens before but now it looks like it could be a necessity.



Check out my posts on cleaning, #1398 and around there, for what I use to clean the HP. I got a lot of sweat on mine when I attached it to the frame. In addition, I think it had some kind of residue on it from the factory. I used eyeglass cleaner, but I'm sure there are lots of alternatives. Just be sure you don't use an abrasive cloth. Once it was clean, I started dusting it with a very soft feather duster about once a month. It's remarkable how much dust accumulates in a short time. The first time I used the duster, I was shocked at how much it helped.


----------



## luptong




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/16045815
> 
> 
> Check out my posts on cleaning, #1398 and around there, for what I use to clean the HP. I got a lot of sweat on mine when I attached it to the frame. In addition, I think it had some kind of residue on it from the factory. I used eyeglass cleaner, but I'm sure there are lots of alternatives. Just be sure you don't use an abrasive cloth. Once it was clean, I started dusting it with a very soft feather duster about once a month. It's remarkable how much dust accumulates in a short time. The first time I used the duster, I was shocked at how much it helped.



Thanks for the info.


----------



## miketyler

I have a model C I bought years ago and used in my first HT in a 4:3 format. I was pretty sure it is a high power model, but the fabric surface is smooth. Is the high power fabric surface beaded and rough to the touch?


----------



## Bronco70




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *miketyler* /forum/post/16049795
> 
> 
> I have a model C I bought years ago and used in my first HT in a 4:3 format. I was pretty sure it is a high power model, but the fabric surface is smooth. Is the high power fabric surface beaded and rough to the touch?



Not a beaded or rough surface. Pure white and smooth describes the appearance. The magic it performs is hidden from casual observation.


It is a fantastic screen material IMO.


Joe


----------



## miketyler

Thanks for confirming. Some dealers have misleading descriptions of this fabric. Have found some decent pricing on 96x96 high power manual model B units. Has anyone successfully modified a 1:1 screen by adding a black drop at the top for 16:9 format screen?


----------



## dannic

I have read this entire thread plus Tyrg's great review and I am certainly impressed with all the wonderful testimonials regarding your HP screens.


I was just about 100% sure on the HP, but now it seems the waters have been muddied for me. I am in the process of shopping around and purchasing a JVC RS 20 plus upgrading my screen to 106". Almost to a man (6 opinions-3 online and 2 B/M establishments, plus Art over at Projectorreviews.com is not a big fan of higher gain screens either) are trying to talk me out of a HP and go with a plain matte white material instead.


Their reasoning is that most people (ie referring to the people who have posted in this thread) will have no other point of reference, in other words if the HP is their first screen, they have nothing to compare it to. HP screens are brighter so most people are blown away by them but they may not know any better if they have not seen other screen materials to compare it to. They feel the most accurate colors and deepest blacks will be the best represented on a plain matte white screen material provided you have a decent amount of control over your ambient light in your room (which I do, not a batcave but in the basement ie light carpet, light ceiling tiles, medium walls)


Now it seems to me that alot of you folks out there in this thread have seen other screen materials before you got a HP and have not looked back.


I know I have heard this cry before but I am really on the fence again regarding this.


What do you guys think?


Thanks in advance


----------



## MickeyDora




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dannic* /forum/post/16057396
> 
> 
> I have read this entire thread plus Tyrg's great review and I am certainly impressed with all the wonderful testimonials regarding your HP screens.
> 
> 
> I was just about 100% sure on the HP, but now it seems the waters have been muddied for me. I am in the process of shopping around and purchasing a JVC RS 20 plus upgrading my screen to 106". Almost to a man (6 opinions-3 online and 2 B/M establishments, plus Art over at Projectorreviews.com is not a big fan of higher gain screens either) are trying to talk me out of a HP and go with a plain matte white material instead.
> 
> 
> Their reasoning is that most people (ie referring to the people who have posted in this thread) will have no other point of reference, in other words if the HP is their first screen, they have nothing to compare it to. HP screens are brighter so most people are blown away by them but they may not know any better if they have not seen other screen materials to compare it to. They feel the most accurate colors and deepest blacks will be the best represented on a plain matte white screen material provided you have a decent amount of control over your ambient light in your room (which I do, not a batcave but in the basement ie light carpet, light ceiling tiles, medium walls)
> 
> 
> Now it seems to me that alot of you folks out there in this thread have seen other screen materials before you got a HP and have not looked back.
> 
> 
> I know I have heard this cry before but I am really on the fence again regarding this.
> 
> 
> What do you guys think?
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance



The HP is my fourth screen material and I can safely say that I will not buy any other screen material for any future screens. I absolutely love it. Even the wife said that she loves this screen (the HP) better than all the others.


----------



## Joseph Clark

I've owned Draper, Stewart and now the High Power. I've seen others in showrooms and in friends' homes.


Good luck prying my HP from my dead, cold fingers.


----------



## Bronco70

I have seen a number of screens. As a temporary screen I used a BO cloth. Obtained many screen samples from different companies. Did a rather extensive test of all of them (being anal sure can be time consuming, but pj's can come and go, a screen can be used for a long time in a particular setup).


I also have a flat mat white 70" x 70" 1.0 gain screen that was thrown in the evaluation mix.


To my eyes the HP won hands down. My HT is completely light controlled with dark walls and floor coverings. The ceiling is flat white, hey can only go so far with the WAF issue.


Few front pj's are light cannons. To get reasonably close to SMPTE standards the HP material works very well for my 133" diag. screen.


Another big consideration is a complete lack of visible "waves" with my non- tensioned model.


I'm with Mr. Clark on this one.


Joe


----------



## dannic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MickeyDora* /forum/post/16057502
> 
> 
> The HP is my fourth screen material and I can safely say that I will not buy any other screen material for any future screens. I absolutely love it. Even the wife said that she loves this screen (the HP) better than all the others.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/16057890
> 
> 
> I've owned Draper, Stewart and now the High Power. I've seen others in showrooms and in friends' homes.
> 
> 
> Good luck prying my HP from my dead, cold fingers.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bronco70* /forum/post/16058828
> 
> 
> I have seen a number of screens. As a temporary screen I used a BO cloth. Obtained many screen samples from different companies. Did a rather extensive test of all of them (being anal sure can be time consuming, but pj's can come and go, a screen can be used for a long time in a particular setup).
> 
> 
> I also have a flat mat white 70" x 70" 1.0 gain screen that was thrown in the evaluation mix.
> 
> 
> To my eyes the HP won hands down. My HT is completely light controlled with dark walls and floor coverings. The ceiling is flat white, hey can only go so far with the WAF issue.
> 
> 
> Few front pj's are light cannons. To get reasonably close to SMPTE standards the HP material works very well for my 133" diag. screen.
> 
> 
> Another big consideration is a complete lack of visible "waves" with my non- tensioned model.
> 
> 
> I'm with Mr. Clark on this one.
> 
> 
> Joe



Thanks for the responses so far, I really appreciate your input.


In regards to screen size, is their a minimum diaganol that the HP should be used?


In my case, I can only go as big as 106" which is why some of my critics suggest sticking with matte white. They claim at 150" sure thing but at 106", the HP is not necessary.


I will be projecting from about 11' back with a JVC RS 20


Thanks in advance


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dannic* /forum/post/16062199
> 
> 
> Thanks for the responses so far, I really appreciate your input.
> 
> 
> In regards to screen size, is their a minimum diaganol that the HP should be used?
> 
> 
> In my case, I can only go as big as 106" which is why some of my critics suggest sticking with matte white. They claim at 150" sure thing but at 106", the HP is not necessary.
> 
> 
> I will be projecting from about 11' back with a JVC RS 20
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance



You probably don't NEED the gain of the HP screen with this size and projector; however, there's nothing like a bright pic (20 to 25 ftL) to make things dramatic, esp with the RS20 (which I have with a 126" diag HP).


The only reasons I would caution about using the HP is if you do need a very wide viewing region, e.g., with viewers outside the L and R sides of the screen, or if the pj will be place high above the top of the screen (though some people do use it in this situation). Otherwise, the HP has many things going for it: the fact that it's retro-reflective reduces the scatter light from the ceiling and side walls, the lack of screen texture is among the best, etc.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dannic* /forum/post/16062199
> 
> 
> In my case, I can only go as big as 106" which is why some of my critics suggest sticking with matte white. They claim at 150" sure thing but at 106", the HP is not necessary.
> 
> 
> I will be projecting from about 11' back with a JVC RS 20
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance



Holy cow, I'd have to give those "critics" some credence! You'll sear your eyeballs! But in the case of the RS20, you can always throttle it down with its iris and maximize the RS20's great contrast. You will get all the other benefits of the HP including its invisible surface, color neutrality and wave-free image. Just make sure you can mount the pj properly and your seating is within the limits of the HP.


Personally, with that screen size and projector, I'd consider SMX's AT screen. That's what I use with an RS1 at 120" wide. Having the speakers behind the screen really helps the experience.


Bottom line: with that projector and screen size you have many options!


----------



## FLBoy

dannic- I use a 100" HP with an Epson Home 1080 installed near seated eye level. I have never thought it was too bright--even on day one.


----------



## dannic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/16062395
> 
> 
> Holy cow, I'd have to give those "critics" some credence! You'll sear your eyeballs! But in the case of the RS20, you can always throttle it down with its iris and maximize the RS20's great contrast. You will get all the other benefits of the HP including its invisible surface, color neutrality and wave-free image. Just make sure you can mount the pj properly and your seating is within the limits of the HP.
> 
> 
> Personally, with that screen size and projector, I'd consider SMX's AT screen. That's what I use with an RS1 at 120" wide. Having the speakers behind the screen really helps the experience.
> 
> 
> Bottom line: with that projector and screen size you have many options!



Thanks ERKQ, that is exactly what I am concerned about because when I plugged in my own numbers into Projector Central's screen calculator for the JVC RS20 on a 106' HP from 11' back, it come up with 71fL brightness! I am not sure what the ideal is but I believe it is around 15-30fL.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/16063386
> 
> 
> dannic- I use a 100" HP with an Epson Home 1080 installed near seated eye level. I have never thought it was too bright--even on day one.



However, thanks to FLBoy ingenious screen gain calculator at: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=966057 


the screen gain comes down to actually half that (1.35) based on my setup which translates into about 33 fL brightness which should be acceptable. With the added benefits of the HP (smooth texture, less waves, better in ambient light etc), I am getting closer on my decision. I believe your Epson projector bests the JVC for lumen output as well so my thinking is the JVC should be OK.


The only other question is how much do you sacrifice in inky blacks with the HP vs a matte white screen?


----------



## Joseph Clark

Too many lumens - not a problem. If it's too bright, filter it, then remove the filter when the lamp ages. New lamp!


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dannic* /forum/post/16064073
> 
> 
> The only other question is how much do you sacrifice in inky blacks with the HP vs a matte white screen?



The absolute black level from the PJ will rise by the gain amount. Still, the brighter overall image will cause the iris of your eyes to close down, darkening your perceived black level. The result will be about the same perceived contrast ratio. The only time you are likely to see a difference is if you obsessively compare the black bars of a 'scope movie with a black velvet trimmed screen frame. In that comparison, the black bars will look lighter on the HP, because (of course) they are.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/16065005
> 
> 
> The absolute black level from the PJ will rise by the gain amount. Still, the brighter overall image will cause the iris of your eyes to close down, darkening your perceived black level. The result will be about the same perceived contrast ratio. The only time you are likely to see a difference is if you obsessively compare the black bars of a 'scope movie with a black velvet trimmed screen frame. In that comparison, the black bars will look lighter on the HP, because (of course) they are.



Yes, but that's true of virtually any screen. That's why some people like to mask when not using the entire screen. For me, the HP just evens the playing field, because I have a relatively dim projector. I would never think about filtering the lens of my Sharp, even though lamp aging makes the image dimmer over time.


It's worth saying again, since the topic has been raised - I have never had the urge to upgrade my HP. I can't say that about any other component I own. The Sharp XV-Z20000 comes close, when I read about the latest, greatest pj here. Thankfully, I haven't given in to that urge yet. I still love the Sharp, too.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/16065575
> 
> 
> Yes, but that's true of virtually any screen. That's why some people like to mask when not using the entire screen.



I didn't mean the black bars will be lighter than the black velvet--although of course they will be. I meant the black bars will be lighter on the HP than they will be on a matte white screen, which is the comparison dannic had asked about.


Personally, a little light in the black bars does not bother me. I concentrate on what's between them. Oh I know that in a perfect world the bars would be perfectly black. Front projection is all about compromise, and I'm willing to give up a little darkness in the black bars to get the pop and other advantages the HP brings to the party. Others may disagree, and that's OK too.


----------



## nohjy

I have a very small theater which is completely light controlled and am using a Pioneer FPJ1 (JVC RS2) for projection. I purchased a Da lite High Contrast Matte White screen I really like for its overall picture, but I can see the sreen material in high contrast scenes and it is really annoying. I am considering going to the High Power screen, but I am very concerned that the picture may then be too bright. I understand that this screen does some things very well, but will I am guessing it will washout blacks and kill shadow detail? I just think a 2.8 gain screen is far more than I need - and yes my Projector is almost at eye level which means I'll get close to the full gain of the screen. I have to get a Da lite (for a number of reasons), so if you have other ideas in their product line let me know.


Thanks,

John


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/16068621
> 
> 
> I didn't mean the black bars will be lighter than the black velvet--although of course they will be. I meant the black bars will be lighter on the HP than they will be on a matte white screen, which is the comparison dannic had asked about.
> 
> 
> Personally, a little light in the black bars does not bother me. I concentrate on what's between them. Oh I know that in a perfect world the bars would be perfectly black. Front projection is all about compromise, and I'm willing to give up a little darkness in the black bars to get the pop and other advantages the HP brings to the party. Others may disagree, and that's OK too.



Agreed. Completely.










In a perfect world, a screen would be completely black. Each pixel would light up against a coal black field. Until that happens, it's hard to imagine a screen technology that would get me more excited than the HP.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nohjy* /forum/post/16068734
> 
> 
> I have a very small theater which is completely light controlled and am using a Pioneer FPJ1 (JVC RS2) for projection. I purchased a Da lite High Contrast Matte White screen I really like for its overall picture, but I can see the sreen material in high contrast scenes and it is really annoying. I am considering going to the High Power screen, but I am very concerned that the picture may then be too bright. I understand that this screen does some things very well, but will I am guessing it will washout blacks and kill shadow detail? I just think a 2.8 gain screen is far more than I need - and yes my Projector is almost at eye level which means I'll get close to the full gain of the screen. I have to get a Da lite (for a number of reasons), so if you have other ideas in their product line let me know.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> John



No such thing as too bright with the HP. Filter it until you don't need the filter.


----------



## FLBoy

nohjy- It would help us to know what size your screen is. Also what color are your walls and ceiling? Can you tolerate a narrow viewing cone?


----------



## nohjy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/16070001
> 
> 
> nohjy- It would help us to know what size your screen is. Also what color are your walls and ceiling? Can you tolerate a narrow viewing cone?



The room is 14' x 12' the walls are painted a dark beige and the ceiling is a normal drop ceiling white. I think I can tolerate a narrow viwing area, but I didn't buy the FPJ1 to washout its black levels. So, I am sensitive to the idea of raising black levels.


John


----------



## Joseph Clark

Am I missing something here? Why does this question keep reappearing?


There is nothing magical about the HP screen material that is going to create artificially high black levels. If the screen brightness is too high with the HP, filter the projector's lens. Case closed.


In my case, I couldn't make 110" of screen acceptably bright with a Sharp XV-Z20000. Along comes the HP. Case closed. If your projector is brighter than mine, you either don't need the HP or you filter the lens until the lamp ages enough for you to feel the need to remove the filter. You then have a new lamp for free.


From my perspective, the only reasons not to consider the HP are the viewing cone and whether or not you have light coming from behind the projector. If those things are not issues, then very little else should concern you. Be happy.


----------



## krazykona

I need a little advice.


I have a 14 x 21 home theatre, with seating at 12 and 19 feet. The ceilings are 7' 5" currntly the typical drop ceiling white, and the projector is ceiling mounted. The walls are brown, the carpet is mostly black. I am considering going to black ceiling tiles. There is no ambient light.


I just purchased the Pioneer FPJ1 projector. I am looking at jumping from my current 92" screen up to a 119". I have used FLBoy's screen calculator and it is saying that I would have a gain of 1.55 center and 1.59 right and left.


So now my questions are, first is theHP the right screen for me? And second is that to go to a 119" screen will require me to mount the screen tight up against the ceiling as my speakers are wall mounted, and their trim bezel is 61" from the ceiling. This would require me to use a da-snap frame rather than the cinema countour.


Opinions?


----------



## smithfarmer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nohjy* /forum/post/16072298
> 
> 
> The room is 14' x 12' the walls are painted a dark beige and the ceiling is a normal drop ceiling white. I think I can tolerate a narrow viwing area, but I didn't buy the FPJ1 to washout its black levels. So, I am sensitive to the idea of raising black levels.
> 
> 
> John



In your previous post you voiced concern about seeing the screen material, that shouldn't be too much of a concern with the HP screen.


And if you're seriously concerned about washing out your black levels, the #1 thing you should do is paint your room a much darker color, especially the white ceiling. You could then ceiling mount the FPJ1 thus reducing the perceived gain of the HP even more and you would have no worries about elevated black levels at all.


----------



## dang10

Also could use some advice.


Like the previous posters, I also have the FPJ1/RS2. It is ceiling mounted about 14' from screen which will be 106". Room has light hardwoor floors (although I'll be purchasing a darker area rug) and eggshell colored walls and ceiling. Lots of windows that can be covered but light will come in from the left side due to a 12' open doorway that leads to another room.


I've been considering M1300 and M2500 materials from Draper and looking at pearlescent and video spectra from dalite before reading this thread.


I want higher gain as I'll be watching a lot of Sunday football. however, the PJ will be ceiling mounted so would an angular reflective screen be better? Besides the M2500, are there any other


----------



## FLBoy

Buying the HP and then using it with a high ceiling mounted PJ is like buying a Ferrari and then never driving it over 35 mph, IMHO.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/16076467
> 
> 
> Buying the HP and then using it with a high ceiling mounted PJ is like buying a Ferrari and then never driving it over 35 mph, IMHO.



Don't forget the other HP advantages... wave free, invisible texture, accurate color, ambient light rejection, doesn't light up the walls/ceiling/floor as much....


----------



## dang10

FL Boy - Understand that. I guess the question then is would you rather have a Benz or a Ferrari that you don't drive over 35?


Would I be better off with a ceiling mounted PJ showing on a HP screen or with another type of screen?


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dang10* /forum/post/16077196
> 
> 
> FL Boy - Understand that. I guess the question then is would you rather have a Benz or a Ferrari that you don't drive over 35?
> 
> 
> Would I be better off with a ceiling mounted PJ showing on a HP screen or with another type of screen?



I think that he is implying that you should perhaps re-think, very hard, the possibility of mounting your pj lower, e.g., on a shelf on your back wall. (I understand, though, that room logistics sometimes make this unfeasible.) I initially was thinking of a ceiling mount, but because of wanting to use the HP (because I wanted a BIG screen!) I have it on a stand just behind our seats and only a ft above our heads. Makes the HP perform marvelously.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dang10* /forum/post/16077196
> 
> 
> FL Boy - Understand that. I guess the question then is would you rather have a Benz or a Ferrari that you don't drive over 35?
> 
> 
> Would I be better off with a ceiling mounted PJ showing on a HP screen or with another type of screen?



Heh, with your light colors and ambient light, you surely could use the HP ambient light rejection mentioned by erkq above.


Here's the rub: The gain of the HP to ambient light coming from more than 30 degrees off-axis (from a viewer to center screen line) is about 0.7. For a near-eye-level, on-horizontal-axis, PJ position the gain of the HP is about 2.1. Under these conditions the HP gain for the projected image is 2.1 / 0.7 = 3.0 times the gain for off-axis light. This is 3 times better than a matte white screen.


Now consider a moderate, ceiling mounted position in which the on-horizontal-axis gain of the projected image drops to, say, 1.4. Now the HP gain for the projected image is 2.0 times the gain for off-axis light. In other words, the ambient light rejection decreases as the on-axis gain decreases.


If we take the PJ mount even higher to 30 degrees off-axis vertically, the gain for the projected image will be 0.7--exactly the same as the gain for the ambient light, and all ambient light rejection has been lost. It is thus incorrect to assume that the HP has a fixed amount of ambient light rejection regardless of the PJ position.


In answer to your question, I would say you need the HP, but you also need to extend your PJ ceiling mount as low as possible to maximize both gain and ambient light rejection.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/16076811
> 
> 
> Don't forget the other HP advantages... wave free, invisible texture, accurate color, ambient light rejection, doesn't light up the walls/ceiling/floor as much....



(Ambient light rejection is discussed above.) And be careful with that last advantage. When the PJ is on the ceiling, where do you think the HP will send most of its light? Right, the ceiling.


----------



## GoCaboNow

After testing gray, 1.0, 1.3, 1.4 screen samples from Draper, Da-lite and Carada - as well as the High Power, I went with the HP to drive my scope 120" wide image I was looking for. My room is completely light controlled with black ceiling and dark red walls. I have a new rs10 that has great black levels and good brightness. When doing the testing I found that my primed drywall where the screen will go put out just as good an image as the 1.3 and 1,4 screen samples - they literally dissappeared in the image and was slightly brighter than the 1.0 samples. Hard to really see what the high power would do as the screen sample was so small but you could see the little square sample just glowing next to everything else. I did decide on the hp as I can have the pj at eye height and seating within the screen and figured if I did not like I could always go back to the wall. Ha!


----------



## Mike_WI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GoCaboNow* /forum/post/16078965
> 
> 
> After testing gray, 1.0, 1.3, 1.4 screen samples from Draper, Da-lite and Carada - as well as the High Power, I went with the HP to drive my scope 120" wide image I was looking for. My room is completely light controlled with black ceiling and dark red walls. I have a new rs10 that has great black levels and good brightness. When doing the testing I found that my primed drywall where the screen will go put out just as good an image as the 1.3 and 1,4 screen samples - they literally dissappeared in the image and was slightly brighter than the 1.0 samples. Hard to really see what the high power would do as the screen sample was so small but you could see the little square sample just glowing next to everything else. I did decide on the hp as I can have the pj at eye height and seating within the screen and figured if I did not like I could always go back to the wall. Ha!



It sounds like you just needed some HP wall paint.

















Mike


----------



## GoCaboNow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mike_WI* /forum/post/16079009
> 
> 
> It sounds like you just needed some HP wall paint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mike



Dang! They make that?







That would have saved me $675


----------



## NCARalph

We just got set up with an Epson 6500UB and a 106" Picture King portable screen with High Power material in a non-light controlled living room with several windows. The projector is about 18' from the screen and we sit between 11 and 14' away with eye height about at the same level as the projector and close to on axis. We set the screen as low as it will go, about 12" off the floor so our eye height and the projector are close to the middle.


At night on Theater Black, with the lights out and the only street light nearby from the side, it is spectacular with reasonable blacks and dazzling whites compared to a Pioneer Kuro 50" plasma TV. In late afternoon with enough light coming in the windows to very comfortably read by, using Living Room, it is quite watchable. Fortunately there isn't much direct light from the direction of the projector.


Moving from side to side, it seems to me that if you are at a comfortable viewing angle, the screen brightness is fine. There is some fall off, but by the time it gets to really being an issue, you're so far off axis that it isn't pleasant to watch anyway.


BTW - we got all this from the Projector People and were very happy with their price, service and delivery.


Bottom line - What's not to like?


----------



## FLBoy

My setup is somewhat similar, so I know just where you are coming from. Enjoy!


----------



## pelly

I am excited as I just got an Epson 6500UB and am trying to decide on a screen. I have been reading about the many happy viewers and am considering the high power, but am not sure it is the right choice.


Here is my situation. Due to a low roof with duct work in the middle I was not quite sure where to place the projector. (Ceiling mount not really an option and I can't shelf mount on the back of the room due to distance and counter seating) With the 6500s good horizontal lens shift I am actually going to place this at a somewhat unique position. I am going to place it on the right side wall of my long and somewhat narrow basement. I know this is not as ideal as directly on axis, but I will be placing it fairly close to eye level.


When I plug the numbers into FLBoys calculator (thanks FLBoy) these are my approximate gain numbers

Screen left 1.6, Screen center 1.4, Screen right 1.35


I have not heard much discussion, if any about mounting it off to the side. What opinions do you have about a high power screen for my situation?


I don't really need the gain since I have a bright projector, but I am intrigued by some of the other benefits such as no screen waves,etc since I will be using a manual pull down screen. Cost is a factor as I am considering a model B high power screen or alternatively maybe just an Elite manual screen if the high power is not the best option.


Thanks for any opinions.


----------



## FLBoy

pelly- With your proposed far right PJ position, your right side viewers will experience a bright picture with the HP, while your left side viewers will see a dim picture--not good. If you do use the HP, I believe you will be much more pleased with the results if you mount the PJ on a stand high enough to clear the heads of your viewers and centered with the screen just behind your seating.


Alternatively, if you feel you MUST use the far right PJ mount, I would recommend a matte white, unity gain screen, which should give you a balanced brightness for all seats. If you are worried about waves, consider a fixed frame screen.


ETA- Are you sure the 6500UB has enough horizontal lens shift to place your PJ against the right wall in the first place? The horizontal lens shift is limited to 47% if you use no more than 9% vertical lens shift--less if you use more vertical. This means your PJ lens will have to be slightly inside the viewing area of the screen (horizontally), or you won't have enough lens shift to center the image. This would imply that your screen is jammed against your right wall, which itself is not a good idea. Am I missing something here?


----------



## miketyler

I am sold on the high power fabric but would really like to have the remote operation functionality. Electric models in 96" length run around $800+, and is outside my budget.


Does Da-lite sell replacement screen fabric/elements? I have found an early model Cosmopolitan with a glass beaded screen and was considering purchasing it and replacing the fabric. Has anyone tried this?


The other half of tells me I should just buy a Model B or C high power and be done with it.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *miketyler* /forum/post/16097375
> 
> 
> I am sold on the high power fabric but would really like to have the remote operation functionality. Electric models in 96" length run around $800+, and is outside my budget.
> 
> 
> Does Da-lite sell replacement screen fabric/elements? I have found an early model Cosmopolitan with a glass beaded screen and was considering purchasing it and replacing the fabric. Has anyone tried this?
> 
> 
> The other half of tells me I should just buy a Model B or C high power and be done with it.



A friend of mine has a manual HP pull down. The operation is smooth and easy. I, for one, would be reluctant to try to replace fabric the way you suggest. Be off by just a tiny fraction of an inch at one end and the fabric will bind. Could be ugly.


----------



## miketyler

I chatted with Damien at Da-Lite. They do offer instructions in PDF format on how to replace the screen elements in their screens. However, he also said that not all models have the same attach mechanisms. I believe he said their Electrol series fabric element attaches to the roller dowel with "gaffers tape"


Da-lite sells the high power replacement element for the older Cosmo Electrol but the 96"x96" it was over $600. For a little more than that I can buy a new unit turn key.


Am still interested in doing this if I can make fabric from the cheaper B model work


----------



## Decadent_Spectre

The high power sounds like the ticket as I like a bright picture but would the high power be overkill at a throw distance of about 9 feet 8 inches with a 6500UB? From what I have read it should do splendidly with longer throws and lower lumen projectors but the epson is bright and my throw distance is short, would I be better off with pearlescent or even a matt white? Projector will likely be mounted near the ceiling.


----------



## jackmay




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Decadent_Spectre* /forum/post/16128979
> 
> 
> The high power sounds like the ticket as I like a bright picture but would the high power be overkill at a throw distance of about 9 feet 8 inches with a 6500UB? From what I have read it should do splendidly with longer throws and lower lumen projectors but the epson is bright and my throw distance is short, would I be better off with pearlescent or even a matt white? Projector will likely be mounted near the ceiling.



Absolute nonsense. My HP screen at rougly the same distance (a little further back) with a bright IN82 projector. I have no problems with the brightness level and love the quality and color of the picture I see. My eyes are normal and like those of most people.


You are one of many that seems to think with absolutely no proof given that there is some absolute brightness level which is optimum.


Give us a reference for the optimum brightness level you seem to think exist since most of us have never heard of it.


The iris of your eye automatically adjust the light level to a level that it has decided is best after millions of years of evolution. Unless you have some horrible eye disease, just let you eye handle it. Your eyes are most likely a lot better than your thinking aout brightness.


----------



## Decadent_Spectre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jackmay* /forum/post/16129538
> 
> 
> Absolute nonsense. My HP screen at rougly the same distance (a little further back) with a bright IN82 projector. I have no problems with the brightness level and love the quality and color of the picture I see. My eyes are normal and like those of most people.
> 
> 
> You are one of many that seems to think with absolutely no proof given that there is some absolute brightness level which is optimum.
> 
> 
> Give us a reference for the optimum brightness level you seem to think exist since most of us have never heard of it.
> 
> 
> The iris of your eye automatically adjust the light level to a level that it has decided is best after millions of years of evolution. Unless you have some horrible eye disease, just let you eye handle it. Your eyes are most likely a lot better than your thinking aout brightness.



I think you misunderstood me, when I refer to overkill I refer to it being too bright (such that it may cause eye strain over extended periods) rather than actually a "perfect" amount of brightness (preference for brightness would differ from person to person). Perhaps my choice of words was wrong but I was just trying to put across the question that would the HP be too bright at this distance resulting in eye strain.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Decadent_Spectre* /forum/post/16128979
> 
> 
> The high power sounds like the ticket as I like a bright picture but would the high power be overkill at a throw distance of about 9 feet 8 inches with a 6500UB? From what I have read it should do splendidly with longer throws and lower lumen projectors but the epson is bright and my throw distance is short, would I be better off with pearlescent or even a matt white? Projector will likely be mounted near the ceiling.



The largest diagonal the 6500UB can fill at 9'8' is 99". Your picture should be plenty bright with a unity gain screen. I know it's blasphemy to say it in this thread, but I would recommend a matte white screen unless you have ambient light issues. In that case, I would recommend a gain screen, but still not the HP unless you can lower the PJ to near seated eye level. Using the HP with a PJ on the ceiling will seriously reduce both its gain and (as a result) its ability to reject ambient light.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jackmay* /forum/post/16129538
> 
> 
> Absolute nonsense. My HP screen at rougly the same distance (a little further back) with a bright IN82 projector. I have no problems with the brightness level and love the quality and color of the picture I see. My eyes are normal and like those of most people.
> 
> 
> You are one of many that seems to think with absolutely no proof given that there is some absolute brightness level which is optimum.
> 
> 
> Give us a reference for the optimum brightness level you seem to think exist since most of us have never heard of it.
> 
> 
> The iris of your eye automatically adjust the light level to a level that it has decided is best after millions of years of evolution. Unless you have some horrible eye disease, just let you eye handle it. Your eyes are most likely a lot better than your thinking aout brightness.



Yikes... so hostile to such an innocent question.


I think a case CAN be made for "too bright" in a dark room. A blazingly bright screen surrounded by a black room can be too intense. For example, I can't watch a regular TV in a pitch black room. It just reams my eyes out... way too bright.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/16130474
> 
> 
> The largest diagonal the 6500UB can fill at 9'8' is 99". Your picture should be plenty bright with a unity gain screen. I know it's blasphemy to say it in this thread, but I would recommend a matte white screen unless you have ambient light issues. In that case, I would recommend a gain screen, but still not the HP unless you can lower the PJ to near seated eye level. Using the HP with a PJ on the ceiling will seriously reduce both its gain and (as a result) its ability to reject ambient light.



I have to agree with this assessment. The HP isn't for everyone. We'd need more information to help out the original poster with his particular situation.


----------



## Decadent_Spectre

What exactly do you mean by a "unity gain screen" ?


There probably should be a little ambient light unfortunately I cannot test it as the room is still under construction. There is one large window in the room which will be behind a ceiling to floor curtain which I estimate should cover it nicely but would still leak some light but this is just a guess.


I am thinking about a 96" 16:9 image with the lens throw distance at about 9 feet 8 inches and "eye" viewing position at about 10 feet maybe 10 feet 2 inches. The ceiling is low about 95-98" off the floor and the PJ will likely be about 6" from the ceiling (top of the PJ), I could try to position it lower around 35" from the floor but then I would need horizontal lens shift, again this is kind of hard to be sure of as nothing is finished so I can't quite test it.


The room walls have soundproofing on it but nothing else so far, most likely will be putting cotton cloth on it, colors are undecided so could probably make it a slightly dark color if needed.


I do really like the brighter picture of an LCD TV so I'm looking for a LCD TV look @ 96".


----------



## Kilgore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/16130474
> 
> 
> The largest diagonal the 6500UB can fill at 9'8' is 99". Your picture should be plenty bright with a unity gain screen. I know it's blasphemy to say it in this thread, but I would recommend a matte white screen unless you have ambient light issues. In that case, I would recommend a gain screen, but still not the HP unless you can lower the PJ to near seated eye level. Using the HP with a PJ on the ceiling will seriously reduce both its gain and (as a result) its ability to reject ambient light.



I'm curious...


Have you ever actually OWNED an HP screen?


I only ask this because I've owned one for 4 years now. I first used it with a Sanyo Z2, a Sanyo Z4, and now, an Epson 6100.


Even in low lamp mode and using the Theater Black 1 setting, the HP gives an extremely gloriously BRIGHT image. When you move outside the "viewing cone", you are correct, there is a distinctly visable drop in gain.


Mind you, the resulting image when viewed from outside the viewing cone is still quite excellent. As a matter of fact, with the Epson 6100 (and I'm sure with the 6500 as well), moving from eye level with the projector to outside the viewing cone taes the image from AWESOME to EXCELLENT.


I would go as far as to say that, with either the Epson 6100 or 6500UB the HP screen would look far better from outside the viewing cone than any matte white screen. The image is MUCH more vivid, has way more plasma-like pop, even off-axis.


The Da-Lite Hi Power screen is one of the most maligned screens in existence. Maligned, mainly, by people who have never actually seen one in person.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kilgore* /forum/post/16134246
> 
> 
> I'm curious...
> 
> 
> Have you ever actually OWNED an HP screen?



Oh, did I just blaspheme?

















Yes, I am currently using the HP and have been for the past two years. I love this screen, BUT my PJ is mounted at eye level to fully enjoy its retro-reflective goodness. I would never in my wildest dreams consider using the HP with the PJ mounted high on the ceiling--nor would I recommend that anyone else do that. YMMV.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Decadent_Spectre* /forum/post/16134191
> 
> 
> What exactly do you mean by a "unity gain screen" ?
> 
> 
> The ceiling is low about 95-98" off the floor and the PJ will likely be about 6" from the ceiling (top of the PJ), I could try to position it lower around 35" from the floor but then I would need horizontal lens shift ...



Sorry, "unity gain" means a gain of 1.0.


If you want a bright picture and you can find a way to mount your PJ either at eye level between your viewing positions, or centered just above the heads of your viewers, then I would recommend the HP. Using a lot of horizontal lens shift is not recommended with the HP, as it will make seats on one side of the room brighter than the opposite side. Suggest you check out the screen gain calculator in my signature for further info.


----------



## Decadent_Spectre

I checked your screen gain calculator and I thought the default values were for the HP?


I didn't know some of the values requested so I assumed it was the HP values (it looked like it anyway) and filled out with my room info and received a gain of about 1.2 on axis and a little more off axis from your calculator with the default settings on the screen.


The HP would not seem like a good idea unless I am able to lower the PJ as you have said. Would the 1.0 matte white be bright enough with just a 1.0 gain? The projector central calculator says 28 fL for 1.0 on the epson which is considerably more than what I've read is generally recommended, between 15-22 fL, unfortunately I have no idea how bright this would be in a dark room. I do know that I think that the images at the theaters are not bright enough.


I also just looked into what the fL of LCD TVs would be and it seems they run about 130 fL for 450 cd/m2 (and often more) which is a lot for a PJ, running the numbers into the calculator at projector central I got 78 fL for a 2.8 gain screen with a 9 feet 8 inch throw and a 96" image for the 6500UB. I also tried using my LCD TV with all the lights off and it was straining on the eyes although the brightness did look good. I also noticed it was kind of lighting up the room quite a lot and its only a 32" LCD. I would imagine a PJ would be a bit too much at those brightness levels in a dark room.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Decadent_Spectre* /forum/post/16135948
> 
> 
> I checked your screen gain calculator and I thought the default values were for the HP?



Yes, as I recall, I did use the HP values as the default screen values in the calculator. Your gain numbers seem about right to me for a high ceiling mount.


Since you seem to like a bright picture, you will probably be happiest with the HP *if you can put the PJ near seated eye level*. Some members have used a telescoping extension pole with a ceiling mount to allow lowering the PJ during use and then raising the PJ back to the ceiling when not in use. I think Chief Manufacturing makes some of these.


I personally like a bright picture. I use the Epson 1080 Home with a 100" 16x9 HP screen. The PJ is mounted on a 36" high pedestal a few feet behind my main viewing seats, and it shoots between the heads of the two viewers. IIRC, my gain is around 2.3 for these two seats. I use low bulb in Theater Dark mode and estimate my screen brightness at 25-30 fL.


If you decide to use a high, fixed ceiling mount for the PJ, you will get better results with an angular reflective screen. I would suggest that you stay under 1.5 gain, because high gain AR screens are subject to hot spotting, especially at short throw. I also recommend getting a sample before buying, as some have highly visible surface texture.


Hope this helps.


----------



## Decadent_Spectre

Extremely helpful post! Thanks.


Now I want to look into the HP some more and try to bring the PJ down as close to eye level as I can so I can see what all the fuss is about







, I don't think the viewing angle should be much of a problem as it would generally be used by 1-2 people at a time. Would it work best above the eyes rather than to the left or right?


If I could bring it down it would most likely be around 12" below eye level and to the left by about 25-30". I just used your calculator again (I must say absolutely brilliant tool!) and I'm getting about 2.3 center/left/right if I change it to the position I am thinking of.


I read that after calibration the 6500UB gives 587 lumens? In which case -


587 X 2.3 / 27.416 Sq/feet (84" X 47") = 49.24 fL


If I'm correct?


Edit - I just used the optional inputs and it gave me a gain of 1.4 for the center and 1.5 on the left and almost 1.6 on the right. When it says left or right of the screen center do you mean from the viewing position (my left/right) or from the screens perspective ?


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Decadent_Spectre* /forum/post/16137789
> 
> 
> Would it work best above the eyes rather than to the left or right?
> 
> 
> If I could bring it down it would most likely be around 12" below eye level and to the left by about 25-30".
> 
> 
> I just used the optional inputs and it gave me a gain of 1.4 for the center and 1.5 on the left and almost 1.6 on the right. When it says left or right of the screen center do you mean from the viewing position (my left/right) or from the screens perspective ?



Thanks! Not sure I understand your first question. I prefer to have the PJ at seated eye level and to sit on either side of the PJ beam. This allows room for a low table between the viewers for resting drinks and food. Someone who uses a sofa for seating or who needs three seats might prefer to locate the PJ just high enough for the PJ beam to clear the heads of the center viewer.


For best results the PJ should be centered horizontally on the screen. If the PJ is located to one side, viewers on that side will see a brighter image than viewers on the opposite side. A retro-reflective screen always reflects most of its light back towards the PJ lens. Using horizontal lens shift does not change that fact.


For the optional inputs, the calculator is asking how far the PJ is to the right or left of the screen center. This value is not affected by your viewing position. Please also be sure to use consistent measurement units (generally inches) when changing input values.


If I have misunderstood any of your questions, feel free to rephrase and ask again.


----------



## Chad T




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kilgore* /forum/post/16134246
> 
> 
> I'm curious...
> 
> 
> Have you ever actually OWNED an HP screen?



FLBoy was quite humble in his response to this. I consider FLBoy to be one of the HP "gurus" and he was instrumental in supplying the info that lead to me purchasing a HP screen. I'd reckon he spent quite a bit of time creating the calculator. He posts constantly in this thread and I don't know how it's possible to even fathom that he doesn't own a HP. Anyway, just giving due respect to FLBoy.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chad T* /forum/post/16140278
> 
> 
> FLBoy was quite humble in his response to this. I consider FLBoy to be one of the HP "gurus" and he was instrumental in supplying the info that lead to me purchasing a HP screen. I'd reckon he spent quite a bit of time creating the calculator. He posts constantly in this thread and I don't know how it's possible to even fathom that he doesn't own a HP. Anyway, just giving due respect to FLBoy.



Thanks so much for your kind words, Chad T. I don't want to dismiss anyone's opinion in this forum, so I try to roll with the punches. I will say so when I disagree, but I attempt to never say anything I can't back up. I find that most members are very supportive. Kilgore is an obvious advocate of the HP, as am I. I think he just misread the substance of my overall message. Anyway, no problemo.


----------



## Decadent_Spectre

I mean to ask whether it would be better to keep the PJ to the left or right of the viewer or just slightly above their heads?


I understand that it means to the left or right of the screen but is it from my perspective across the room (so my left/right) or is the right/left from the screens perspective facing me? I would assume its from my perspective?


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Decadent_Spectre* /forum/post/16141983
> 
> 
> I mean to ask whether it would be better to keep the PJ to the left or right of the viewer or just slightly above their heads?
> 
> 
> I understand that it means to the left or right of the screen but is it from my perspective across the room (so my left/right) or is the right/left from the screens perspective facing me? I would assume its from my perspective?



Neither up/down nor right/left is "better" for maximizing the gain. What determines the gain is the angle between a first line from the PJ's lens to a point on the screen and a second line from the viewer's eyes to the same point on the screen. The gain calculator uses 3-D vector math to calculate the angle. Ideally, for maximum gain you would want the PJ lens to be placed at the same position as the viewer's eyes, thereby producing a zero degree angle between the first and second lines. For obvious reasons, a compromise is required! For practical reasons, about the best you can expect to achieve is a 10 degree angle and a corresponding screen gain of around 2.3 for the HP. Whether your departure from the ideal of zero degrees is vertical or horizontal depends on your personal preference.


Yes, right and left are from your viewing perspective.


----------



## Decadent_Spectre

I just recalculated everything and I think that in TheaterBlack1 at low lamp power after calibration at max zoom I should be getting about 534 lumens (using - http://www.projectorreviews.com/epso...erformance.php ) and the screen gain is about 1.67 in the center with the HP. About 32 fL. Should be plenty bright.


Edit - To achieve this though the PJ would be quite close to my head, would the noise from it be a problem?


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Decadent_Spectre* /forum/post/16142883
> 
> 
> To achieve this though the PJ would be quite close to my head, would the noise from it be a problem?



Depends on the PJ--and whether you use high or low power lamp mode. You will also have to consider the direction in which the PJ exhausts hot air. (You don't want it to blow hot air on you.) I solved both problems with my Epson 1080 Home by placing the PJ about 3 feet behind my seating and using low power mode.


----------



## Decadent_Spectre

Thanks a lot










Could you suggest a screen instead of the HP if the HP is not feasible? Planning to use the european/asian version of the 6500UB, the EH-TW4000.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Decadent_Spectre* /forum/post/16144792
> 
> 
> Thanks a lot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you suggest a screen instead of the HP if the HP is not feasible? Planning to use the european/asian version of the 6500UB, the EH-TW4000.



If you have to go angular reflective, I'd generally suggest staying under 1.5 gain. I'm hesitant to recommend anything specific, as my only hands-on experience is with the HP. If you want to start your own thread, you might specify size, type (manual pull down, electric, or fixed frame), budget, etc., and see what kind of replies you get.


Good luck!


----------



## SCLlama

Got my 133" HP Cinema Contour up today. It really adds a ton of life to the picture. Detail and "POP" have increased immensely over my old Matte White. The blacks have increased as well, but the trade off is well worth it (and I'm big on black levels). It's really only noticeable in very dark scenes or if you're staring at the black bars of a cinemascope film. I'll probably rig up some sort of masking system for it.


The ability to reject light and still stay bright and watchable with tons of ambient light is one the most impressive things about it. It is better than I was expecting. Same with the viewing cone. It is really a non-issue. It is very watchable well off axis.


Still very highly recommended. I can't imagine ever going back to Matte White.


----------



## miketyler

Wow - sounds like another HP satisfied customer. I have abondoned the idea of swapping screens between a B and Cosmo for all the "what if..." factor.


I found a newer 10'x10' Cosmo Electrol HP screen and am considering it now. However with my layout the best image I can throw will be about 98" x 56" Can you mask areas on a rol up screen without creating wrinkles in the fabric? I would need to mack off the sides and top to properly frame in my screen. Most of my content will be in 16:9 HD format. Maybe this question is better addressed in the DIY section?


----------



## phasar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/9243741
> 
> 
> The viewing cone chart above pretty much says it all.
> 
> 
> It is a smooth transition though as you move away from optimal. Unlike some rear projection units where all of a sudden it goes black.



I Just installed a 119" HP 16:9 screen. I have a ptax200 sitting on a end table level with the screen. However, I can't detect any difference in the picture quality whether I'm directly in front or at a 90 degree angle. I was initially showing it on a white wall,even with the HP screen I don't notice much difference in the picture sharpness or detail, however it does hide the screen material and gives the picture a little more brightness.


----------



## s.newave

Anyone know where i could view a da-lite hp screen in manhattan? Anxious to pull the trigger on this screen but still have a little doubt and its hard to get an idea from just a sample.


thx


----------



## dannic

OK


I have been struggling with this decision long enough.


I am ready to pull the trigger on a new screen however I can't seem to make up my mind between the HP or the plain matte white.


Here's my setup and questions:


- JVC RS 20 from 11' back and ceiling mounted 3' above seated eye level

- 106" 16 X 9 screen (matte white or HP?)

- seating is 11' back, approximately 2 feet on each side of the projector

- home theatre in basement which we watch 95% at night so ambient light is minimized but not completely eliminated (from reflected light off room surfaces)

- medium walls, light carpet and ceiling (am going to be making a removable black cloth ceiling panel to convert the light ceiling to black in order to improve the reflected ambient light conditions)

- overall I would estimate that we are seated very close to 30 degrees off axis in regards to the viewing cone of the HP, both horizontally and vertically


Now I have an existing matte white screen and have obtained a 2' X 2' sample of the HP material which I taped onto the matte white screen. I have been watching and comparing the two screen materials for a couple of weeks and I am no closer to a decision than when I started. To tell you the truth, I cannot make up my mind....I am 50/50 between these two with my set up.


Here's what I have seen so far with my set up which is not ideal for the HP.


- cost: advantage matte white

- whites: advantage HP

- blacks: advantage matte white

- perceived contrast: advantage HP

- viewing angle: advantage matte white

- hides screen waves:advantage HP

- ambient light: advantage HP

- shadow detail: advantage HP

- brighter picture: advantage HP


Now when you stand up, wow the HP really takes off and boy is it bright. I can see why folks like it so much. But as soon as I sit down, overall the HP is very close to the matte white in all aspects with a slight advantage in overall picture brightness (in very light scenes then the HP brightness advantage is more pronounced, in med-dark scenes, almost identical to matte white)


My questions are:


for my setup, 106" screen (relatively small), and decent ambient light control, is the HP necessary? My internet JVC vendor is steering me toward the matte white because of these facts. This is what he is running and loves it. In his opinion, if I was going for a larger screen than perhaps the HP is justified.


I guess the narrow viewing cone and the lighter blacks are what are holding me back on the HP. I do like the increased brightness of this screen, even in my less than ideal setup. As well, even though I have a decent size screen sample, it is still challenging to conceptualize a 106" HP picture without seeing one first.


Since this is getting to be a ridiculously long decision process, any of your insights would be greatly appreciated


Thanks in advance


----------



## hrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dannic* /forum/post/16315885
> 
> 
> OK
> 
> 
> I have been struggling with this decision long enough.
> 
> 
> I am ready to pull the trigger on a new screen however I can't seem to make up my mind between the HP or the plain matte white.
> 
> 
> Here's my setup and questions:
> 
> 
> - JVC RS 20 from 11' back and ceiling mounted 3' above seated eye level
> 
> - 106" 16 X 9 screen (matte white or HP?)
> 
> - seating is 11' back, approximately 2 feet on each side of the projector
> 
> - home theatre in basement which we watch 95% at night so ambient light is minimized but not completely eliminated (from reflected light off room surfaces)
> 
> - medium walls, light carpet and ceiling (am going to be making a removable black cloth ceiling panel to convert the light ceiling to black in order to improve the reflected ambient light conditions)
> 
> - overall I would estimate that we are seated very close to 30 degrees off axis in regards to the viewing cone of the HP, both horizontally and vertically
> 
> 
> Now I have an existing matte white screen and have obtained a 2' X 2' sample of the HP material which I taped onto the matte white screen. I have been watching and comparing the two screen materials for a couple of weeks and I am no closer to a decision than when I started. To tell you the truth, I cannot make up my mind....I am 50/50 between these two with my set up.
> 
> 
> Here's what I have seen so far with my set up which is not ideal for the HP.
> 
> 
> - cost: advantage matte white
> 
> - whites: advantage HP
> 
> - blacks: advantage matte white
> 
> - perceived contrast: advantage HP
> 
> - viewing angle: advantage matte white
> 
> - hides screen waves:advantage HP
> 
> - ambient light: advantage HP
> 
> - shadow detail: advantage HP
> 
> - brighter picture: advantage HP
> 
> 
> Now when you stand up, wow the HP really takes off and boy is it bright. I can see why folks like it so much. But as soon as I sit down, overall the HP is very close to the matte white in all aspects with a slight advantage in overall picture brightness (in very light scenes then the HP brightness advantage is more pronounced, in med-dark scenes, almost identical to matte white)
> 
> 
> My questions are:
> 
> 
> for my setup, 106" screen (relatively small), and decent ambient light control, is the HP necessary? My internet JVC vendor is steering me toward the matte white because of these facts. This is what he is running and loves it. In his opinion, if I was going for a larger screen than perhaps the HP is justified.
> 
> 
> I guess the narrow viewing cone and the lighter blacks are what are holding me back on the HP. I do like the increased brightness of this screen, even in my less than ideal setup. As well, even though I have a decent size screen sample, it is still challenging to conceptualize a 106" HP picture without seeing one first.
> 
> 
> Since this is getting to be a ridiculously long decision process, any of your insights would be greatly appreciated
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance



I tried out my RS20 on a friend's HP and my feeling is you have one of the best projectors for the HP, maybe _the_ best. The ambient light issues may mean the matte white will not give you as good contrast as the HP over time as the bulb fades.


I would try to lower the projector to get more of the HP's gain.


Wherever did you get a 2' by 2' sample?


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dannic* /forum/post/16315885
> 
> 
> - overall I would estimate that we are seated very close to 30 degrees off axis in regards to the viewing cone of the HP, both horizontally and vertically



At 30 degrees off axis the gain of the HP is 0.75, according to the HP gain vs viewing angle chart I obtained from Da-Lite. At that angle you are throwing away virtually all of the potential advantages of the HP, because it will perform similar to a matte gray screen.


Have you considered an adjustable extension column for your ceiling mount? You can lower the PJ for movies and raise it back up for playing pool. If you are worried that the PJ is a head bumping hazard when lowered, then buy an artificial plant or something to place under it to keep people from walking into it. You can do this.


----------



## macming

I just got the 119" Model C HP two days ago. I've only had limited time with it, but so far we LOVE this screen.


Like everyone said, it is very bright, the picture really pops, the best of all, it is wave/crease free, and the image literally floats in the middle of the room.


Thanks to everyone in this thread, and we're REALLY happy with the purchase







Next to the projector that is...


----------



## ctviggen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/16318207
> 
> 
> At 30 degrees off axis the gain of the HP is 0.75, according to the HP gain vs viewing angle chart I obtained from Da-Lite. At that angle you are throwing away virtually all of the potential advantages of the HP, because it will perform similar to a matte gray screen.
> 
> 
> Have you considered an adjustable extension column for your ceiling mount? You can lower the PJ for movies and raise it back up for playing pool. If you are worried that the PJ is a head bumping hazard when lowered, then buy an artificial plant or something to place under it to keep people from walking into it. You can do this.




That's interesting, but the most you can drop it is one foot, and the majority of these only let you drop it 6 inches. Would that really be worth it? I ask because I have a projector and HP screen, but I haven't put either up yet.


Speaking of this, anyone know of a mount/stand that would be next to the ceiling (not recessed), yet could pull down around 18 inches or so?


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ctviggen* /forum/post/16334194
> 
> 
> That's interesting, but the most you can drop it is one foot, and the majority of these only let you drop it 6 inches. Would that really be worth it? I ask because I have a projector and HP screen, but I haven't put either up yet.
> 
> 
> Speaking of this, anyone know of a mount/stand that would be next to the ceiling (not recessed), yet could pull down around 18 inches or so?



I agree with you, but the Chief adjustables are the only ones I have found so far. Having said that, I think even a small drop is better than none. The ideal solution would allow the PJ to come down near seated eye level, but that would probably require some kind of spring-loaded fold-down mechanism. I'm guessing the range of the Chief columns is limited by cable management issues; i.e., what to do with the excess cable when the column is collapsed.


----------



## javry




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dannic* /forum/post/16315885
> 
> 
> OK
> 
> Here's what I have seen so far with my set up which is not ideal for the HP.
> 
> 
> - cost: advantage matte white
> 
> - whites: advantage HP
> 
> - blacks: advantage matte white
> 
> - perceived contrast: advantage HP
> 
> - viewing angle: advantage matte white
> 
> - hides screen waves:advantage HP
> 
> - ambient light: advantage HP
> 
> - shadow detail: advantage HP
> 
> - brighter picture: advantage HP
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance



It sure looks like you're headed in the direction of the HP, given your analysis above. Also, perhaps I missed it but how many people usually are with you when watching a movie? If it's just you and your spouse, the HP is probably a good bet, assuming you can work the cone issue a little more to your advantage. If it's more than two people sitting side by side, I'd consider some other alternatives before making a final decision.


----------



## Schlotkins

I'm getting close to deciding on this screen. I have on question on projector placement however. My projector will be sitting on a table probably dead center on the screen but definitely a bit below eye level. One question is how close can the projector be to the screen? I'm going with a fairly small size - 65" if I can - and an Epson 6500UB. From one source I'm seeing about 8 1/2 feet and another is a minimum of 6 feet. I'm just curious so I know my placement options.


Thanks,

Chris


----------



## javry




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Schlotkins* /forum/post/16340182
> 
> 
> I'm getting close to deciding on this screen. I have on question on projector placement however. My projector will be sitting on a table probably dead center on the screen but definitely a bit below eye level. One question is how close can the projector be to the screen? I'm going with a fairly small size - 65" if I can - and an Epson 6500UB. From one source I'm seeing about 8 1/2 feet and another is a minimum of 6 feet. I'm just curious so I know my placement options.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Chris



why so small? Room?


----------



## Schlotkins

Well, that's some of it. We currently have a 50" plasma and from 8 feet, my wife was kind of complaining about how big it was. We moved and now the plasma would have to be mounted about 5 feet off the ground - way too high for comfortable viewing. The couch is now at 10.5 feet viewing distance from the screen, so I think 65", maybe 72" would give the same viewing experience from that distance. It's going to be our everyday setup so I don't want to go movie size to watch HGTV.







The main couch (it's just my wife and I) would have a maximum off-center viewing angle of 12 degrees. There's a loveseat to the side that would have an angle of 30 degrees for one seat.


At this point, I just need to figure out how flexible my options are for projector placement as well as finalize a screen size. I've been debating this for about 3 or 4 weeks so my deadline to make a decision is 11:59 PM PST on Sunday.










(Here is a tread on my situation in more detail: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1138161 )


Thanks for any assitance,

Chris


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Schlotkins* /forum/post/16340775
> 
> 
> Well, that's some of it. We currently have a 50" plasma and from 8 feet, my wife was kind of complaining about how big it was. We moved and now the plasma would have to be mounted about 5 feet off the ground - way too high for comfortable viewing. The couch is now at 10.5 feet viewing distance from the screen, so I think 65", maybe 72" would give the same viewing experience from that distance. It's going to be our everyday setup so I don't want to go movie size to watch HGTV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The main couch (it's just my wife and I) would have a maximum off-center viewing angle of 12 degrees. There's a loveseat to the side that would have an angle of 30 degrees for one seat.
> 
> 
> At this point, I just need to figure out how flexible my options are for projector placement as well as finalize a screen size. I've been debating this for about 3 or 4 weeks so my deadline to make a decision is 11:59 PM PST on Sunday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Here is a tread on my situation in more detail: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1138161 )
> 
> 
> Thanks for any assitance,
> 
> Chris



Beware of the 'incredibly shrinking screen' effect. When I finally replaced the 24" Sony Trinitron about 5 yrs ago, to get a new 'big screen', I started out thinking of a 56" rptv; by the time I finally pulled the trigger I got a 61", viewing from ~ 12 ft. Liked it, so about a yr later traded it for a 73" (Mits) rptv. Like it even better, and decided to go REALLY big, a 126" diag HP screen, now with a RS20 projector, still from ~ 12 to 13 ft. At EACH STAGE my wife said 'this is obscenely humongous' though within a few months it was 'gee, this doesn't seem so big; in fact, it's very nice'; and this is also for the present setup.


I suppose it was necessary for me to go through this process; i.e., jumping straight to pj and large screen was too much for a single step; but it would have saved some expense.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Schlotkins* /forum/post/16340775
> 
> 
> Well, that's some of it. We currently have a 50" plasma and from 8 feet, my wife was kind of complaining about how big it was.



I agree with millerwill's assessment IF you're looking at this as a TV. I never did. Look at it as a theater and the jump to huge is easy. I went from 25" diag to 92" wide and then 120" wide when I moved into my new house. Never looked back. Just remember, it's NOT a TV! It's a movie theater.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Schlotkins* /forum/post/16340182
> 
> 
> One question is how close can the projector be to the screen? I'm going with a fairly small size - 65" if I can - and an Epson 6500UB. From one source I'm seeing about 8 1/2 feet and another is a minimum of 6 feet. I'm just curious so I know my placement options.



The Product Data Sheet for the 6500UB states that the minimum projected distance required to fill a 100" diagonal 16:9 screen is 9.8 feet. Image size is directly proportional to throw, so to fill a 65" screen the minimum throw is 65/100 x 9.8 = 6.37 feet, and for a 72" screen, 7.056 feet.


----------



## ctviggen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/16334673
> 
> 
> I agree with you, but the Chief adjustables are the only ones I have found so far. Having said that, I think even a small drop is better than none. The ideal solution would allow the PJ to come down near seated eye level, but that would probably require some kind of spring-loaded fold-down mechanism. I'm guessing the range of the Chief columns is limited by cable management issues; i.e., what to do with the excess cable when the column is collapsed.



I would put the projector in a cart between two chairs, but we have a 21 month old, which means this would last all of about 10 seconds before she was all over the projector. I have to ceiling mount, unfortunately.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ctviggen* /forum/post/16344153
> 
> 
> I would put the projector in a cart between two chairs, but we have a 21 month old, which means this would last all of about 10 seconds before she was all over the projector. I have to ceiling mount, unfortunately.



Check this out. Probably too expensive for most of us, but it certainly would solve your issues with the toddler.


----------



## xb1032




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Schlotkins* /forum/post/16340775
> 
> 
> Well, that's some of it. We currently have a 50" plasma and from 8 feet, my wife was kind of complaining about how big it was. We moved and now the plasma would have to be mounted about 5 feet off the ground - way too high for comfortable viewing. The couch is now at 10.5 feet viewing distance from the screen, so I think 65", maybe 72" would give the same viewing experience from that distance. It's going to be our everyday setup so I don't want to go movie size to watch HGTV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The main couch (it's just my wife and I) would have a maximum off-center viewing angle of 12 degrees. There's a loveseat to the side that would have an angle of 30 degrees for one seat.
> 
> 
> At this point, I just need to figure out how flexible my options are for projector placement as well as finalize a screen size. I've been debating this for about 3 or 4 weeks so my deadline to make a decision is 11:59 PM PST on Sunday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Here is a tread on my situation in more detail: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1138161 )
> 
> 
> Thanks for any assitance,
> 
> Chris



For 65" I think I'd get a plasma or a DLP TV. Seems odd getting a projector for only 65" of screen size.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xb1032* /forum/post/16354228
> 
> 
> For 65" I think I'd get a plasma or a DLP TV. Seems odd getting a projector for only 65" of screen size.



I went through that decision process too. The pj is smaller and cheaper.


----------



## xb1032




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/16354340
> 
> 
> I went through that decision process too. The pj is smaller and cheaper.



For his situation that an Epson 6500UB and a screen isn't the cheaper route. Something like a 63" Samsung plasma would likely be cheaper than what he is doing and you'll never have to replace the bulb or worry about ambient lighting issues. Or a 65"/73" Mits DLP is a bit cheaper than the Epson and the bulb will last a bit longer and you don't have to worry about ambient lighting.


If you're going to go FP make it worth your while and get something bigger than an everyday TV.


----------



## dannic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hrd* /forum/post/16316398
> 
> 
> I would try to lower the projector to get more of the HP's gain.
> 
> 
> Wherever did you get a 2' by 2' sample?



HRD, Richard from Quebec Acoustics (Canada) sent me out this HP sample....very nice sample size



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/16318207
> 
> 
> Have you considered an adjustable extension column for your ceiling mount? You can lower the PJ for movies and raise it back up for playing pool. If you are worried that the PJ is a head bumping hazard when lowered, then buy an artificial plant or something to place under it to keep people from walking into it. You can do this.



FLBoy, I have considered this, however the projector is ceiling mounted about 3' directly over our heads so dropping it down would not only place closer to eye level but also to ear level as well. Probably not a problem as I find the RS 20 to be relatively quiet at 3' away. Only other concern would be is how stable is the projector with an extension mount? ie: with people walking around upstairs, will the projector tend to wobble or jiggle?


As it is mounted right now, it is rock solid. I have included a few pics to illustrate my set up. I made a simple homemade mount out of MDF to get the projector tight to the ceiling. The projector is mounted on the cold air return about 6'7" off the floor.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *javry* /forum/post/16339705
> 
> 
> It sure looks like you're headed in the direction of the HP, given your analysis above. Also, perhaps I missed it but how many people usually are with you when watching a movie? If it's just you and your spouse, the HP is probably a good bet, assuming you can work the cone issue a little more to your advantage. If it's more than two people sitting side by side, I'd consider some other alternatives before making a final decision.



JAVRY, yes it is usually (95%) my wife and I watching so horizontally we are probably within the 30 degree radius.


All things considered, I suppose I would be covering all the bases with the HP now and if I decide to lower the projector in the future, I could reap the additional benefits. With my current setup and using FLBoy's nifty gain calculator http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=966057 my gain is about 1.45 so I am still getting a brighter picture albeit not ideal.


I hope I feel the same way in the AM when I call my internet vendor......man oh man I have been flip flopping around on this decision for too long.


Time to pull the trigger?....and then have no regrets wishing I would have gotten the plain matte white instead?


Thanks in advance


----------



## erkq

Nice clean install. But I sure see WAF in those colors!


----------



## FLBoy

I think you will have no regrets with the HP, even at 1.45 gain. As you noted, the potential for more gain is still there if you need it. Enjoy!!


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dannic* /forum/post/16360851
> 
> 
> HRD, Richard from Quebec Acoustics (Canada) sent me out this HP sample....very nice sample size
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FLBoy, I have considered this, however the projector is ceiling mounted about 3' directly over our heads so dropping it down would not only place closer to eye level but also to ear level as well. Probably not a problem as I find the RS 20 to be relatively quiet at 3' away. Only other concern would be is how stable is the projector with an extension mount? ie: with people walking around upstairs, will the projector tend to wobble or jiggle?
> 
> 
> As it is mounted right now, it is rock solid. I have included a few pics to illustrate my set up. I made a simple homemade mount out of MDF to get the projector tight to the ceiling. The projector is mounted on the cold air return about 6'7" off the floor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JAVRY, yes it is usually (95%) my wife and I watching so horizontally we are probably within the 30 degree radius.
> 
> 
> All things considered, I suppose I would be covering all the bases with the HP now and if I decide to lower the projector in the future, I could reap the additional benefits. With my current setup and using FLBoy's nifty gain calculator http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=966057 my gain is about 1.45 so I am still getting a brighter picture albeit not ideal.
> 
> 
> I hope I feel the same way in the AM when I call my internet vendor......man oh man I have been flip flopping around on this decision for too long.
> 
> 
> Time to pull the trigger?....and then have no regrets wishing I would have gotten the plain matte white instead?
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance



It's probably too late for you to consider this, but in your sitting configuration I would have recommended a projection stand, like the Dalite PH800-1250 (check this on the Dalite website) located right behind your couch and just above head height. (The vertical stem of the stand could come right up to the back of the couch.) It would work perfectly for an HP screen, and looks like it would work well in your room.


This is what I use with my RS20 on a 126" diag HP screen. Works incredibly well.


----------



## dannic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/16361075
> 
> 
> Nice clean install. But I sure see WAF in those colors!



ERKQ, oh yeah!!, part of the tradeoff....of course!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/16361324
> 
> 
> I think you will have no regrets with the HP, even at 1.45 gain. As you noted, the potential for more gain is still there if you need it. Enjoy!!



FLBoy, Thanks for your input, I feel more confident now for sure.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/16361446
> 
> 
> It's probably too late for you to consider this, but in your sitting configuration I would have recommended a projection stand, like the Dalite PH800-1250 (check this on the Dalite website) located right behind your couch and just above head height. (The vertical stem of the stand could come right up to the back of the couch.) It would work perfectly for an HP screen, and looks like it would work well in your room.
> 
> 
> This is what I use with my RS20 on a 126" diag HP screen. Works incredibly well.



Millerwill, many thanks as well, that's not a bad idea and I could still make that work after the fact as I believe I have enough cabling. Looks like a slick product and it would avoid having the projector exposed by being ceiling mounted too low.


----------



## Tutmos

I've now had my 159" 16:9 HP with an RS1 for well over a year and I'd never go back to anything else. I heard all the people yapping about the screen being too big to watch and not being bright enough, having to move your head like a tennis match and eye strain etc. It's all a crock of poopy. I have pretty good light control but it's not a bat cave. I also now have 2076 hours on this bulb btw. Also the viewing cone is not nearly as significant as is suggested by many here, or at least used to be. You'll notice it once you move about 5 to 8 feet from the center line at about 17 feet back. It's still very enjoyable but just not as bright as the sweet spot in the middle. If I could go bigger I would, the screen wall just can't fit anything bigger.










I wouldn't hesitate for a second in doing exactly the same setup all over again


----------



## millerwill

Wow, I'm envious--yours is bigger than mine (126" diag 16:9 HP)! Is 17 ft how far back to you sit from this monster? This would be ~ 1.5 SW, so the screen is really not that large for this distance. (I'm at 12 ft, for a viewing distance of ~ 1.3 SW.)


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tutmos* /forum/post/16388100
> 
> 
> I heard all the people yapping about the screen being too big to watch and not being bright enough, having to move your head like a tennis match and eye strain etc. It's all a crock of poopy.



I've never heard this "crock of poopy" from those that own an HP, only from the unwashed masses of have nots. I think this is the most loved screen ever produced, again, among those that OWN it.


----------



## Tutmos




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/16389010
> 
> 
> Wow, I'm envious--yours is bigger than mine (126" diag 16:9 HP)! Is 17 ft how far back to you sit from this monster? This would be ~ 1.5 SW, so the screen is really not that large for this distance. (I'm at 12 ft, for a viewing distance of ~ 1.3 SW.)



Two rows, one at 12' and one at 17'. The only reason I opt for the rear row normally is it's on a riser with Butt Kickers installed and the front row doesn't have them.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/16389072
> 
> 
> I've never heard this "crock of poopy" from those that own an HP, only from the unwashed masses of have nots. I think this is the most loved screen ever produced, again, among those that OWN it.



Well....almost...

















Great screen though.


----------



## jostenmeat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tutmos* /forum/post/16388100
> 
> 
> I've now had my 159" 16:9 HP with an RS1 for well over a year and I'd never go back to anything else. I heard all the people yapping about the screen being too big to watch and not being bright enough, having to move your head like a tennis match and eye strain etc. It's all a crock of poopy. I have pretty good light control but it's not a bat cave. I also now have 2076 hours on this bulb btw. Also the viewing cone is not nearly as significant as is suggested by many here, or at least used to be. You'll notice it once you move about 5 to 8 feet from the center line at about 17 feet back. It's still very enjoyable but just not as bright as the sweet spot in the middle. If I could go bigger I would, the screen wall just can't fit anything bigger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't hesitate for a second in doing exactly the same setup all over again



Ditto. Same size, same screen, same PJ. Little over a year. Very good light control, though not total bat cave, ceiling is left white. I'm at approximately 15 and 21 ft respectively for two rows. I'm at about 720 hours, and the pic is glorious.


6 seats look pretty darn identical to my noobie eyes, with just a slight drop off in brightness at the extremes of the front row of four. Rear row, they all look good, but I do prefer the center seats for more balanced surround effect.


I've recently made friends with a few AV installers. They're blown away, and one of them is working on a HUGE job. (he's been picking my brain, and I'm trying to get him to check out Sim2, and now he will soon get a demo . . . and I want to tag along!) AT curved will be the thing . . .


Had a friend come over, movie director of 10 years just inducted into the DGA last year, and he thinks it's the most beautiful pic he's ever seen. Of course, everyone else thinks the same thing. My screen + PJ = less than $4k. Some folks spend more on a LCD flat panel.


Finally ceiling mounted the PJ, and it's cool to have an adjustable pipe to lower as the bulb ages. IMO, it's too loud in high mode anyways. And still too bright for now, even at 159" with over 700 hours.


Thanks AVS, for the PJ, and this thread!


----------



## FremontRich




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/16340949
> 
> 
> Beware of the 'incredibly shrinking screen' effect. When I finally replaced the 24" Sony Trinitron about 5 yrs ago, to get a new 'big screen', I started out thinking of a 56" rptv; by the time I finally pulled the trigger I got a 61", viewing from ~ 12 ft. Liked it, so about a yr later traded it for a 73" (Mits) rptv. Like it even better, and decided to go REALLY big, a 126" diag HP screen, now with a RS20 projector, still from ~ 12 to 13 ft. At EACH STAGE my wife said 'this is obscenely humongous' though within a few months it was 'gee, this doesn't seem so big; in fact, it's very nice'; and this is also for the present setup.
> 
> 
> I suppose it was necessary for me to go through this process; i.e., jumping straight to pj and large screen was too much for a single step; but it would have saved some expense.




Bill, I went from a 41" Sony RPTV to my current 92" DIY screen. At the transition I thought "Holy crap, this is huge!" Now, three years later I'm lusting for a larger screen... LOL


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FremontRich* /forum/post/16396812
> 
> 
> Bill, I went from a 41" Sony RPTV to my current 92" DIY screen. At the transition I thought "Holy crap, this is huge!" Now, three years later I'm lusting for a larger screen... LOL



I was over last night at daughter/son-in-laws house last night. They inherited my RS1 pj when I got an RS20, and he has just finished installing a motorized 133" diag 16:9 HP screen, has the pj mounted behind the wall with a projection hole for the pic--an incredibly elegant installation--I'm jealous! But he is an engineer, and knows how to do all this so well.


----------



## FremontRich




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/16396885
> 
> 
> I was over last night at daughter/son-in-laws house last night. They inherited my RS1 pj when I got an RS20, and he has just finished installing a motorized 133" diag 16:9 HP screen, has the pj mounted behind the wall with a projection hole for the pic--an incredibly elegant installation--I'm jealous! But he is an engineer, and knows how to do all this so well.




I wouldn't denigrate yourself, Bill. Had you not made the switch from a TV to a projector your son in law would have happily continued to purchase a regular TV. Instead, he and his wife, your daughter, are enjoying the benefits of a huge screen rather than a puny TV.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FremontRich* /forum/post/16397471
> 
> 
> I wouldn't denigrate yourself, Bill. Had you not made the switch from a TV to a projector your son in law would have happily continued to purchase a regular TV. Instead, he and his wife, your daughter, are enjoying the benefits of a huge screen rather than a puny TV.



I was kidding, of course, about being jealous; 'proud' is the better adjective.


----------



## javry




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/16389072
> 
> 
> I've never heard this "crock of poopy" from those that own an HP, only from the unwashed masses of have nots. I think this is the most loved screen ever produced, again, among those that OWN it.



well....I'm not so sure erkg. When I had mine up, I sat about 12 feet back and always detected cone difference when either standing up or sitting down. I tended to notice it more when entering the cone as opposed to when leaving it though. Of course I always viewed movies within the cone and there was usually no more than two of us watching at a time so it wasn't an immediate issue per se. But if, for instance, my kids still lived at home, I probably would have had to at least consider other options.


----------



## javry




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/16397577
> 
> 
> I was kidding, of course, about being jealous; 'proud' is the better adjective.



nothing like a proud father in law. It's great!


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *javry* /forum/post/16424628
> 
> 
> well....I'm not so sure erkg. When I had mine up, I sat about 12 feet back and always detected cone difference when either standing up or sitting down. I tended to notice it more when entering the cone as opposed to when leaving it though. Of course I always viewed movies within the cone and there was usually no more than two of us watching at a time so it wasn't an immediate issue per se. But if, for instance, my kids still lived at home, I probably would have had to at least consider other options.



Yes, people have reported this. But they seem to feel the picture is superior and STILL higher gain even viewing outside the cone.


Do you notice a cone when you are stationary? Is the screen still uniform even when viewing outside the cone as long as you're sitting still? I'm always interested as I'm thinking of trying the HP some time. I'd have to re-configure my speakers though so I'd want to be sure. The uniformity isn't something you can test with a sample.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/16425306
> 
> 
> Yes, people have reported this. But they seem to feel the picture is superior and STILL higher gain even viewing outside the cone.
> 
> 
> Do you notice a cone when you are stationary? Is the screen still uniform even when viewing outside the cone as long as you're sitting still? I'm always interested as I'm thinking of trying the HP some time. I'd have to re-configure my speakers though so I'd want to be sure. The uniformity isn't something you can test with a sample.



Brightness uniformity is not something you should be concerned with if you have the HP. If the projector is behind you, there is technically some non-uniformity, but you'd be very hard pressed to perceive it. If the projector is somewhere in front of your seating position, you won't see any at all. Color uniformity is even better. Can't beat the HP, IMO.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/16425306
> 
> 
> Yes, people have reported this. But they seem to feel the picture is superior and STILL higher gain even viewing outside the cone.



With some exceptions. I found the picture was not still superior outside the viewing cone.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/16425306
> 
> 
> I'm always interested as I'm thinking of trying the HP some time.



Since you will be well aware of how to employ it properly, you'll probably love it.


----------



## javry




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/16425306
> 
> 
> Yes, people have reported this. But they seem to feel the picture is superior and STILL higher gain even viewing outside the cone.
> 
> 
> Do you notice a cone when you are stationary? Is the screen still uniform even when viewing outside the cone as long as you're sitting still? I'm always interested as I'm thinking of trying the HP some time. I'd have to re-configure my speakers though so I'd want to be sure. The uniformity isn't something you can test with a sample.



........to answer your question directly erkg, there is IMO a definite boundary to where the cone starts and ends. But when viewing outside the cone, the picture certainly appeared to remain stable in any one location. However, it would increase in "dullness" [for lack of a better phrase] as the position continued to shift toward the extremity of the viewing angle. And it's only when re-entering the cone that I truly appreciated the difference. Some of this may have to do with the fact that I was viewing a 96" screen from 12 feet away.....as opposed to some of you monsters who are viewing say a 126" screen from 15 to 20 feet away or whatever. Obviously in the later, the lateral base of the cone would be wider and hence may offer more uniformity equal to what you would expect at the cone center.


I sure don't want to pour water on anyone's parade here. I'm just hoping that my own experience will help others to make an intelligent purchasing decision.


----------



## javry

guys, let me add that I fully enjoyed the HP. My god....the first time I hung it up and watched a movie on it......the colors were so bright and intense, I almost.....well...never mind. Combining that with an RS-1 [or others from JVC] is a combination that takes on all comers. As soon as I get things situated after being overseas for 4 years, I'm sure I'll hang it back up. It's a great screen. We just need to remember that it's not for everyone or every situation.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *javry* /forum/post/16426082
> 
> 
> guys, let me add that I fully enjoyed the HP. My god....the first time I hung it up and watched a movie on it......the colors were so bright and intense, I almost.....well...never mind. Combining that with an RS-1 [or others from JVC] is a combination that takes on all comers. As soon as I get things situated after being overseas for 4 years, I'm sure I'll hang it back up. It's a great screen. We just need to remember that it's not for everyone or every situation.



It's true that it isn't for everyone. However, two things that are often forgotten in the discussion of the brightness are that it is a flat out beautiful screen surface (right up there with the best of them), and it's cheaper than a lot of other screens. If you can live with the cone, and if you don't have light coming from behind the projector, this could be the perfect screen for you.


----------



## javry

True enough. No argument here


----------



## xb1032

I'm researching the HP screens as well and I love the brightness from the sample I'm getting. Most movies for me will typically just be me and my wife viewing. When I have others over most aren't nearly as picky as me and if I have to sit outside the cone for a few movies no big deal. After testing out some demo materila with my Elitescreen Cinewhite 1.1 with the HP screen on it, it looks like the lights have been shut off on the Cinewhite screen. Like comparing last years plasmas with an LCD on the showroom floor. Huge difference. And it appears that absolute black levels only drop slightly. It seems worth it to me at least from the sample I have.


----------



## javry

My two cents worth are to park the HP on your "A" list and then continue your search .....but stay objective until you've run out of objectivity. For instance, take a look at the Silverstar FTHOI. With this approach, you have every thing to gain and absolutely nothing to loose.


----------



## xb1032




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *javry* /forum/post/16545181
> 
> 
> My two cents worth are to park the HP on your "A" list and then continue your search .....but stay objective until you've run out of objectivity. For instance, take a look at the Silverstar FTHOI. With this approach, you have every thing to gain and absolutely nothing to loose.



I don't believe that screen is available in a motorized screen though which is what I need. Otherwise I'd request a sample of that as well.


----------



## javry

I probably shoudn't have mentioned the SS. It supressed my larger message to you.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xb1032* /forum/post/16525985
> 
> 
> I'm researching the HP screens as well and I love the brightness from the sample I'm getting. Most movies for me will typically just be me and my wife viewing. When I have others over most aren't nearly as picky as me and if I have to sit outside the cone for a few movies no big deal. After testing out some demo materila with my Elitescreen Cinewhite 1.1 with the HP screen on it, it looks like the lights have been shut off on the Cinewhite screen. Like comparing last years plasmas with an LCD on the showroom floor. Huge difference. And it appears that absolute black levels only drop slightly. It seems worth it to me at least from the sample I have.



The issue of the narrow cone pretty much goes away if, as you say, it's just a couple of people watching a great majority of the time. For me, that's always been the case. When I need extra brightness, I can open up the iris or go to high lamp mode, or both. I wouldn't need more than 2 hands to count the times I've done that.


Time to say it again - my HP is the one and only piece of home theater gear I've had absolutely no inclination to upgrade. 'Nuff said.


----------



## javry

agreed :>)


----------



## FLBoy

^ +2


----------



## Pure-Evil




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/16396885
> 
> 
> I was over last night at daughter/son-in-laws house last night. They inherited my RS1 pj when I got an RS20, and he has just finished installing a motorized 133" diag 16:9 HP screen, has the pj mounted behind the wall with a projection hole for the pic--an incredibly elegant installation--I'm jealous! But he is an engineer, and knows how to do all this so well.



UNLESS that screen in tensioned in some manner, i'm betting there are HUGE waves in it. i had 120" screens now (3 of them) and all developed waves...which is why i went fixed frame instead of electric.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pure-Evil* /forum/post/16554466
> 
> 
> UNLESS that screen in tensioned in some manner, i'm betting there are HUGE waves in it. i had 120" screens now (3 of them) and all developed waves...which is why i went fixed frame instead of electric.



One of the advantages of the HP... it's very difficult to see waves.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pure-Evil* /forum/post/16554466
> 
> 
> UNLESS that screen in tensioned in some manner, i'm betting there are HUGE waves in it. i had 120" screens now (3 of them) and all developed waves...which is why i went fixed frame instead of electric.



I have a fixed screen (126" diag HP) and do prefer this, but I must say that I looked for waves in their screen and really saw none. Could be that they will develop over time. But as erkq said above, the retro-reflective character of the HP greatly diminishes any visible effects of any waves in the screen.


----------



## transendance

A question for those of you having large 16:9 hp screens.


I am looking at a 78" x 139" model "C" - pulldown setup. Andhave been wondering about the ~ 2:35 viewing experience?


So the question is, does the set up need some sort of home improvised masking solution or does it function "naturally" as a constant width setup "as is"?


I guess that my concern is the loss of percieved contrast because of the the letterbox above and below.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *transendance* /forum/post/16555148
> 
> 
> A question for those of you having large 16:9 hp screens.
> 
> 
> I am looking at a 78" x 139" model "C" - pulldown setup. Andhave been wondering about the ~ 2:35 viewing experience?
> 
> 
> So the question is, does the set up need some sort of home improvised masking solution or does it function "naturally" as a constant width setup "as is"?
> 
> 
> I guess that my concern is the loss of percieved contrast because of the the letterbox above and below.



I have a 1.1 gain SMX but this is exactly what I do. I sit up front for 2.35 and back for 16:9. The bars are fine, but I'm using a JVC pj with no auto-iris. So possibly a pj with an iris would get the bars too light during a bright scene?


I don't know if the HP would make the bars any more annoying. I think not since the gain is linear over the luminance range so the bars would be the same ratio of "darkness" as with my SMX.


----------



## jostenmeat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pure-Evil* /forum/post/16554466
> 
> 
> UNLESS that screen in tensioned in some manner, i'm betting there are HUGE waves in it. i had 120" screens now (3 of them) and all developed waves...which is why i went fixed frame instead of electric.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/16554500
> 
> 
> One of the advantages of the HP... it's very difficult to see waves.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/16554541
> 
> 
> I have a fixed screen (126" diag HP) and do prefer this, but I must say that I looked for waves in their screen and really saw none. Could be that they will develop over time. But as erkq said above, the retro-reflective character of the HP greatly diminishes any visible effects of any waves in the screen.



Yeah. I have recently noticed, while sitting in the most extremely off-axis seat (of 8) that the waves are much more easily noticeable. I think, in this case, the retro-reflective nature actually hurts. Because the lower part of the wave will be dimmer, and the upper part brighter, or something like that.


If you are on-axis, the instances will be very rare I am led to believe.


Any of the middle seats, or even the extreme seats in the back row, it's a non-issue for me. I have noticed a bit of waving, myself, of a few scenes which of course are only large scale pans. The instances are rare. I'm guessing one short moment for every 5 movies. I think of Ratatouille when Remy discovers he's in Paris (but sometimes I don't notice the waving even here), a particular panning scene in the dry desert of NCFOM, and a panning scene in Wall-E over the very large BnL store.


Every person I've asked, and I've asked many of the _numerous_ guests (of whom many are also repeat visitors), have said they have never noticed it. I've had a film director (DGA member) over twice, and a guy who used to work for a movie audio production company as well. I've stopped asking, because why make them look for it?


159" pull down.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *transendance* /forum/post/16555148
> 
> 
> A question for those of you having large 16:9 hp screens.
> 
> 
> I am looking at a 78" x 139" model "C" - pulldown setup. Andhave been wondering about the ~ 2:35 viewing experience?
> 
> 
> So the question is, does the set up need some sort of home improvised masking solution or does it function "naturally" as a constant width setup "as is"?
> 
> 
> I guess that my concern is the loss of percieved contrast because of the the letterbox above and below.



It works fine for me in the "natural sense". My PJ is an RS1 with roughly 750 hours, mounted very close to the rear row's eyes (just barely over the head, behind), and when I make a shadow with my hand on the black bar, it's just barely visible. It's there, but quite subtle. I'm sure you know that the absolute black level is raised, but I'm sure not worried about loss of perceived contrast.


It's near a bat-cave. Dark burgundy curtaining covering the entire viewing periphery, with two very large _black_ rugs on the floor.


The most distracting things, if you cared to be distracted, is the reflected light off the, yes, black metal casings of my black acoustical panels, and a bit of light off the center speaker's top.


----------



## javry

I remember the workout I got from putting my HP together. I certainly didn't have to go to the gym that day that's for sure! Once together, it was taut and as best as I can tell, without any wrinkles from any angle.


----------



## Joseph Clark

Me, too. I must have lost 3 pounds in sweat that day. Eventually, I gave up on following the directions. I had to get the screen off the floor and in a good position. Having another person to help would have made the process so easy - get the frame together, unroll the screen and snap it in place. You do have to be careful about scratching the surface, as you do with any screen, but the HP surface is pretty tough. I had to work hard to scratch the sample piece they sent me. I did a stress test of sorts, to see how much it would take to create a blemish. I worked hard at it, but when I did scrape it I realized just how unattractive a scratch would look. You don't want that to happen.


----------



## Brian227

after a year of reading/procrastinating, I finally bought the HP in 16/9 110"(Diag.). This was sight unseen, never having seen one. It was for my now "old" RS-1. With the projector at tabletop position, and temporarily delaying thoughts for an ~ eye level, behind couch position( fearing excessive brightness), the image blew away any preconceived expectations. It will take some time to get used to the very bright, contrasty, adequately black

non-theatrical image..but I like it. The image is very much more 3-D, and colors are deeper..more intense. I'll make adjustments to soften this..but I'll say this much.

It is the best projected image i've ever had in my home. The RS-1 is my fifth projector.

I am with the new screen addition one very happy camper!


----------



## millerwill

Your experience mirrors that of so many of us who have gone with the HP. If it is setup optimally for it, it is truly amazing.


----------



## Joseph Clark

Me, too. I've had 3 screens - Draper, Stewart and the HP. I've seen several others in show rooms and at the homes of friends. I have yet to see a screen that beats the HP. That doesn't mean they're not out there, but it's hard to imagine.


----------



## xb1032




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *transendance* /forum/post/16555148
> 
> 
> A question for those of you having large 16:9 hp screens.
> 
> 
> I am looking at a 78" x 139" model "C" - pulldown setup. Andhave been wondering about the ~ 2:35 viewing experience?
> 
> 
> So the question is, does the set up need some sort of home improvised masking solution or does it function "naturally" as a constant width setup "as is"?
> 
> 
> I guess that my concern is the loss of percieved contrast because of the the letterbox above and below.



If you are doing a pulldown couldn't you just pull the screen down enough and adjust your projector so that no bars are visible? My understanding is the pulldown w/o CSR can be stopped at various intervals. Yea, a step every time but it might be a solution.


----------



## noah katz

You could also get extra black material at the top so you can pull it down lower to get the image at the right height.


----------



## FremontRich




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/16622882
> 
> 
> Your experience mirrors that of so many of us who have gone with the HP. If it is setup optimally for it, it is truly amazing.




Bill, I've forgotten, is your Hi Power a rollup or fixed screen? HDTV or 2.35:1?


Hehe... in your recent post I read where you have a fixed screen... so that question has been answered...


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FremontRich* /forum/post/16630406
> 
> 
> Bill, I've forgotten, is your Hi Power a rollup or fixed screen? HDTV or 2.35:1?



It's a 126" diag 16x9, fixed frame (da-snap model, with the light-absorbing material covering the frame). My eyes are ~ 12 ft from it, and my wife scoots back to ~ 13 ft.


----------



## FremontRich




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/16630438
> 
> 
> It's a 126" diag 16x9, fixed frame (da-snap model, with the light-absorbing material covering the frame). My eyes are ~ 12 ft from it, and my wife scoots back to ~ 13 ft.



Wow, that's a huge screen. When you display 2.35:1 movies do the black bars annoy you?


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FremontRich* /forum/post/16630444
> 
> 
> Wow, that's a huge screen. When you display 2.35:1 movies do the black bars annoy you?



Not at all. I usually use the powered lens shift of the RS20 to shift a 2.35 movie so that the bottom of the pic lines up with the bottom of the screen, i.e., so that all the black bar is at the top. And then I hardly notice it. (I do have black material on the ceiling and side walls out about 8 ft from the screen wall, and this makes a nice black envelope for the screen.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/16631956
> 
> 
> Not at all. I usually use the powered lens shift of the RS20 to shift a 2.35 movie so that the bottom of the pic lines up with the bottom of the screen, i.e., so that all the black bar is at the top. And then I hardly notice it. (I do have black material on the ceiling and side walls out about 8 ft from the screen wall, and this makes a nice black envelope for the screen.



The RS-20 and the HP must be one killer combination. I'd love to see such a setup, but unfortunately I don't know anyone in my neck of the woods who has one. I read Greg Roger's review, and it had me salivating. What I'd really like to do is put an RS-20 right beside my Sharp 20K and do some serious A/B. The Sharp's ANSI contrast is about 2.5 times the RS-20's. Of course, the RS-20's full field contrast beats the tar out of the 20K.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/16633560
> 
> 
> The RS-20 and the HP must be one killer combination.



Indeed it is. My 'upgrade bug' is in hibernation for the foreseeable future.


----------



## javry




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/16633560
> 
> 
> The RS-20 and the HP must be one killer combination. I'd love to see such a setup, but unfortunately I don't know anyone in my neck of the woods who has one. I read Greg Roger's review, and it had me salivating. What I'd really like to do is put an RS-20 right beside my Sharp 20K and do some serious A/B. The Sharp's ANSI contrast is about 2.5 times the RS-20's. Of course, the RS-20's full field contrast beats the tar out of the 20K.



Joe,

Most of us who have done this have just jumped in without a demo. If you choose to do the same, I don't think you'd be sorry.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *javry* /forum/post/16638206
> 
> 
> Joe,
> 
> Most of us who have done this have just jumped in without a demo. If you choose to do the same, I don't think you'd be sorry.



I doubt I'd be sorry, either, based on what I've been reading. I think, though, I'll wait for another year before thinking about it too seriously. The Sharp has several things going for it:


1. Excellent optics.

2. Single chip DLP, together with the fine optics, means razor sharp focus and image clarity; no convergence issues whatsoever. (And RBE is not an issue with me.)

3. Excellent ANSI contrast, for an image that really pops, especially in bright scenes.

4. Proven reliability. I've had 2 Sharp DLPs and they've both been extremely reliable performers. They work out of the box and keep on working, even with heavy use.

5. An excellent color management system.

6. A track record of working with all my components with no hassles or surprises (not a given with the myriad HDMI issues being reported).


I'm sure the RS-20's extraordinary full field contrast, with great blacks and shadow detail, would be something I'd really appreciate. It's also good to know that the JVC has a good color management system. I'd love to see one, and if I did, it's possible I'd be won over, but the Sharp is such a great projector. The one thing I have to do with it is use a lower gamma, because my aging eyes don't pick up shadow detail near black so well anymore. A higher gamma on the Sharp means I lose detail in the darker parts of the image. From what I've read, the JVC would fix that for me.


I've had the 20K for about 2 1/2 years now, and I've been extremely happy with it. I'm also curious what the next year will bring in terms of LED front projection. Next to my HP, the Sharp 20K is the thing in my system I'm most satisfied with.


----------



## deanzsyclone

Ok, since I have both screens now at my house (just put up my new HP) here are some comparison shots with the new screen rolled down HALF WAY in front of the vutec. So simply put, the HP is the top portion of the photo and the vutec is the bottom half of the picture. Very impressive results.


The photos do a really good job of showing the differnce that I see when viewing.


No more sparklies.


Yes if you move off axis from the center of the screen by 5ft or so, the image on the HP gets darker, as a matter of fact it gets darker than the image on the vutec screen, so if people are going to be sitting on the side looking to thier left at the screen go for the vutec, it doesn't get darker like the hp. But I'll be keeping this HP, since my viewing is just me and one other, one on the left of the projector and one on the right.


I had to take the projector down from the cieling and put it on a stand slightly higher than the seat I sit in, kind of a pain but works for me. You most certainly do have to be eye level or very close to it with the projector, hope this helps!!!





































Sorry guess the cammera was tilted a bit when I took the photos.


----------



## smithfarmer

Looks to me like the HP imparts a blueish hue to the images.


----------



## erkq

Thanks for the pics, deanzsyclone. You say you notice dimming if 5 feet off axis. It seems this means that a viewing position at the exact edge of the screen is still within the HP's viewing cone? That is, a position where if you look straight ahead you are looking at the edge of the screen.


So if I have a 10' wide screen I should have 10' of eyeball range?


----------



## maxleung




> Quote:
> Looks to me like the HP imparts a blueish hue to the images.



Using the eyedropper tool in Irfanview picture viewer, you can see that the HP drops red a little bit, while green and blue are at the same levels. The Vutec drops the blue a bit, while mostly keeping red and green level.


However, keep in mind that some cameras do some strange processing on images in an attempt to do color balance. Best thing to do is to use real measuring equipment like a spectrophotometer or something.


With that said, I do recall reading that there is a color shift for retroflective screens like the HP.


----------



## deanzsyclone




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smithfarmer* /forum/post/16673648
> 
> 
> Looks to me like the HP imparts a blueish hue to the images.



Might be your pc's monitor, looks nice and white on my monitor and on the screen.


----------



## deanzsyclone




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/16673661
> 
> 
> Thanks for the pics, deanzsyclone. You say you notice dimming if 5 feet off axis. It seems this means that a viewing position at the exact edge of the screen is still within the HP's viewing cone? That is, a position where if you look straight ahead you are looking at the edge of the screen.
> 
> 
> So if I have a 10' wide screen I should have 10' of eyeball range?



Actually quickly dims as you move off axis, anything after about one foor starts the dimming process and falls off quickly as you move, at five feet it's noticibly darker than the vutec screen.


----------



## smithfarmer

Max,


Interesting. Thanks for the info. The overscan/safe action frames definitely show quite a difference on my monitor and it is not subtle at all. The greys on the SilverStar in that pic look just like the actual greys I see on my own SilverStar when using that disc. Can other owners verify if the color on their HP screen resembles these images when using the DVE disc?


----------



## deanzsyclone

I also have the hi res versions if someone wants to post them. Also, the white balance was set to automatic, wish I set it to sunlight but I forgot. Speed, apature and ISO were the exact same in all photos.


----------



## smithfarmer




> Quote:
> Might be your pc's monitor, looks nice and white on my monitor and on the screen.



Hello Dean,


I was refering to the greys in these shots as there looks to be some blue push on the HP:




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deanzsyclone* /forum/post/16673822


----------



## deanzsyclone




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smithfarmer* /forum/post/16673884
> 
> 
> Hello Dean,
> 
> 
> I was refering to the greys in these shots as there looks to be some blue push on the HP:




Mmmm, could be, I had to turn down the red a bit, I left blue alone. Wouldn't mind a color calibration some day.


----------



## Joseph Clark

The thing about taking pictures of the HP and the SS is that a camera in one position can never do justice to both at the same time. The HP achieves maximum gain when the projector is at about eye level (with the eyes close to the lens). The SS achieves maximum gain with the projector up high relative to the viewer.


You can see what this means if you move around with samples of the 2 screens being illuminated by a solid projection beam - like a white screen from Photoshop. If you stand next to the projector and then move to the side, the HP will dim and the SS will stay pretty much the same. If you stand next to the projection lens, then move your head down, you'll see the SS start to get brighter, while the HP will lose brightness the further down your head goes. At one point, the 2 screens will be roughly the same brightness, then the SS will become brighter than the HP. That's because the HP is retro-reflective, while the SS is angular-reflective. The SS is meant to be mounted in a certain orientation - there's a definite up and down. The projector also should be ceiling mounted to achieve the gain you want.


The SS has the advantage if your main goal is to have more uniform gain from side to side (that is, with multiple seats from the one side of the room to the other), and with the projector mounted on the ceiling. The HP will appear much dimmer for people seated on the right and left sides, outside the "cone." The advantage is for people who sit inside the cone, where you'll get really good brightness. Also, for me, the HP image is obviously "cleaner." There are no sparklies or hotspotting with the HP. I can live with the cone much easier than the problems the SS brings with it.


For some, the SS problems are worth it to achieve the extra seating flexibility. Since it's usually just me and one or 2 others watching, there's no way I'd give up the image quality of the HP to get more side to side brightness. The HP looks that good, and that much better than the SS.


----------



## noah katz

"The SS has the advantage if your main goal is to have more uniform gain from side to side"


Wouldn't the SS only have that gain in one part of the screen, i.e. higher gain perhaps but lower gain uniformity across the screen?


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/16677548
> 
> 
> "The SS has the advantage if your main goal is to have more uniform gain from side to side"
> 
> 
> Wouldn't the SS only have that gain in one part of the screen, i.e. higher gain perhaps but lower gain uniformity across the screen?



I can't speak from experience on that issue, Noah. What I was referring to was similar levels of screen brightness for viewers seated from left to right with the SS. The HP will drop off very dramatically the more a viewer is off to the side - not so with the SS. I'm not sure about the brightness uniformity of the SS from one side of the screen to the other, because of the size of the SS sample I had to play with. I do know that the sample I had, even though it was very small, displayed an almost metallic hotspotting. The HP surface appears extremely uniform, in comparison.


I know that the HP does have a degree of brightness non-uniformity depending on where the projector is relative to the viewer. I sit about 5 feet in front of my projector, on the left side. The right side of the image is a little dimmer than the left for me. I hadn't actually noticed this while watching, but I tested it by moving a smallish white window in full-screen Photoshop from left to right. I could see it become a little dimmer as it moved to the right side. In contrast, if I sit in the middle of the screen, I see virtually no screen non-uniformity. In practical terms, HP non-uniformity is very difficult to pick up on in normal viewing from just about anywhere in my room.


This is not true of my Stewart Firehawk, which has not only brightness uniformity issues, but also color uniformity issues. I use the AVS black color scheme, and from my normal seat (on the left side of the screen), the colors with the Firehawk start to fade noticeably on the right side of the screen, so that a yellow line becomes almost colorless at the extreme. Not so with the HP.


----------



## amp3d1

I was considering a Dalite Perm wall 133" High Power screen. The builder made the lower 1/2 of the wall protrode 8 inches vs top, forming an 8 inch shelf" sort of like my ascii art below. Is permwall stiff enough to just hang from the wall. Otherwise i was considering making a rectangular Hardwood 2x1 inch frame, mount permwall to it and then mount it to my wall.










What do you think?

|

|_

=|

=|


I would prefer not do go to DaSnap because the price goes up 50% - on principle it feel like a ripoff vs what carada charges







!! I;m thinking model C left permanently open - if my situation is not feasible - just don't want any waves.


----------



## deanzsyclone




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/16675313
> 
> 
> The thing about taking pictures of the HP and the SS is that a camera in one position can never do justice to both at the same time. The HP achieves maximum gain when the projector is at about eye level (with the eyes close to the lens). The SS achieves maximum gain with the projector up high relative to the viewer.



I can't agree with that at all, when I lowered the projector the SS did not get ANY dimmer what so ever, it remained exactly the same. Sorry but that's what I saw with my own eyes.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deanzsyclone* /forum/post/16685146
> 
> 
> I can't agree with that at all, when I lowered the projector the SS did not get ANY dimmer what so ever, it remained exactly the same. Sorry but that's what I saw with my own eyes.



I think you missed his point. The SS works better with the pj higher because it's angular reflective. The HP works with the pj as close to eye level as possible because it's retro reflective. You would have to have the pj in two places at once for the pics you took to give a true comparison.


----------



## darinp2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/16675313
> 
> 
> If you stand next to the projection lens, then move your head down, you'll see the SS start to get brighter, while the HP will lose brightness the further down your head goes.



Is that with the SS lower than your eyes and projector? If everything is lined up so that the HP, SS, projector, and your eyes are all at the same height then I wouldn't expect you to see that. I would expect the SS to also be at about its maximum gain straight on.


--Darin


----------



## hrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/16685324
> 
> 
> I think you missed his point. The SS works better with the pj higher because it's angular reflective. The HP works with the pj as close to eye level as possible because it's retro reflective. You would have to have the pj in two places at once for the pics you took to give a true comparison.



Vutec recommends a ceiling mount for the SS, but only because they feel that gives the optimum uniformity. I don't believe it has any effect on the gain.


----------



## Joseph Clark

I'll see if I can make this clearer. I guess I didn't do a very good job of that with my first explanation.


I started thinking about getting a new screen about 2 1/2 years ago. I had a 109" Stewart Firehawk screen that I'd used for a few years with three different DLP projectors. My projector at the time was a new Sharp 20K, mounted very high on a shelf. The center of the lens was probably about a foot (or less) below the top of the screen. The Sharp, set to high contrast mode and low lamp, was too dim for the 1.3 gain Firehawk. I needed more brightness.


I requested samples from Vutec and DaLite. (The DaLite HP sample was small, not even a foot square. The SS sample was a little bigger.) I hung them from my existing screen with string, so that they were at the same height and right next to the Firehawk surface (just about mid way down). I could see easily the relative gain of each surface from any position in the room. I used a full white screen from Photoshop, so no video would get in the way of my testing.


I stood on my couch and put my head right next to the projection lens. The HP sample exploded with brightness. At this point, the SS was significantly dimmer than the HP. It makes sense - maximum gain from the retro-reflective HP (my eyes literally 2-3 inches from the lens) and not nearly as much from the SS. The angular reflective SS works better with a ceiling mount, and the viewer in a lower position relative to the projector.


As I moved my head down, I could see the HP get dimmer. Makes sense - the further your head moves from the projection lens, the less light is collected by the HP's retro-reflective surface and bounced back to your eyes. That's the "cone" people always talk about with the HP. The further away in any direction you move, the dimmer the HP becomes. People seated far to the side see less and less benefit from the HP. That's why I always ask people what their seating arrangements will be. If a home theater is going to have viewers sitting on the edges of the screen (or even further to the side) on a regular basis, the HP probably isn't the right screen for them. Those people won't be getting the same viewing experience as the ones closer to the lens. Also, if the home theater owner has to ceiling mount for whatever reason, that person isn't going to benefit much from an HP. Drop your head 3 or 4 feet below the lens and the HP's gain drops dramatically.


As my head moved down, though, the good qualities of the SS began to manifest. The gain increased (while the HP gain decreased). At one point, the HP and the SS were at roughly the same brightness level. As I passed that point, the HP continued to dim and the SS got brighter, so that in effect they switched their relative brightness levels from the point in time in which my head was next to the projection lens. That's why I said photographs of the 2 screens were of very limited value in terms of overall brightness. Take a picture of the 2 screens with the camera next to the lens and the HP will appear brighter. Take a photo from a seated position (viewer down low and projector up high) and the SS will appear brighter. A single photo tells you almost nothing of value in terms of a comparison of the 2 screens.


As I moved around the room, 2 things were clear: the further from the projection lens I got, the dimmer the HP became; and, the SS maintained its side-to-side brightness far better than the HP.


Another benefit of moving around the room was that I picked up on the SS surface sheen. As I moved, even the small SS sample called attention to itself. I knew it would bother me. The HP sample's surface just disappeared - it was the same (except for brightness) no matter how I moved. At the same time, I was picking up on the snowy glistening of the Firehawk, as though I was looking at a blanket of snow. It wasn't quite that bad, but it's the closest analogy I can think of.


By the end of the experiment, I knew what I wanted. The Firehawk was too dim, no matter what. The SS sheen was too distracting. The HP was just about perfect. All I had to do was lower my projector height. Side to side viewing would not be a problem in my room. I figured out a way to do that and I've been a happy camper ever since.


The hard part of the experiment (not too hard, but it took a little time) was figuring out how to get the HP and SS samples next to the screen. After firing up the projector with the white Photoshop screen, it took about 30 seconds of moving my head around to see the differences among the screens. Of course, I tried the samples out with regular HD video, too. The results were not quite as "smack you in the face" obvious as the white screen, but they were all too clear. No contest. The HP won for image quality and brightness.


Is that any clearer?


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hrd* /forum/post/16685851
> 
> 
> Vutec recommends a ceiling mount for the SS, but only because they feel that gives the optimum uniformity. I don't believe it has any effect on the gain.



Have to disagree. I saw it change. Even on the SS sample, there's an "up" arrow to make sure you orient it in the proper direction.


Anyone who's trying out samples should be able to duplicate my experience pretty easily.


----------



## Joseph Clark

I was prepared to buy the screen I liked the best when I was running the test, but I would have preferred to keep a high shelf mount. I liked having the projector up high and out of the way. Lowering the projector also involved some compromises with seating, and it cost more for the Chief mount. A high shelf mount also looks better in the room. More important to me, though, was getting the best quality image I could, and high gain. My Sharp is not a bright projector. Even though I had to work quite a bit harder to make the HP work, I've never regretted it. It was also cheaper by a wide, wide margin than the SS. It was cheaper than the Firehawk, too.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/16685890
> 
> 
> I'll see if I can make this clearer. I guess I didn't do a very good job of that with my first explanation.
> 
> 
> I started thinking about getting a new screen about 2 1/2 years ago. I had a 109" Stewart Firehawk screen that I'd used for a few years with three different DLP projectors. My projector at the time was a new Sharp 20K, mounted very high on a shelf. The center of the lens was probably about a foot (or less) below the top of the screen. The Sharp, set to high contrast mode and low lamp, was too dim for the 1.3 gain Firehawk. I needed more brightness.
> 
> 
> I requested samples from Vutec and DaLite. (The DaLite HP sample was small, not even a foot square. The SS sample was a little bigger.) I hung them from my existing screen with string, so that they were at the same height and right next to the Firehawk surface (just about mid way down). I could see easily the relative gain of each surface from any position in the room. I used a full white screen from Photoshop, so no video would get in the way of my testing.
> 
> 
> I stood on my couch and put my head right next to the projection lens. The HP sample exploded with brightness. At this point, the SS was significantly dimmer than the HP. It makes sense - maximum gain from the retro-reflective HP (my eyes literally 2-3 inches from the lens) and not nearly as much from the SS. The angular reflective SS works better with a ceiling mount, and the viewer in a lower position relative to the projector.
> 
> 
> As I moved my head down, I could see the HP get dimmer. Makes sense - the further your head moves from the projection lens, the less light is collected by the HP's retro-reflective surface and bounced back to your eyes. That's the "cone" people always talk about with the HP. The further away in any direction you move, the dimmer the HP becomes. People seated far to the side see less and less benefit from the HP. That's why I always ask people what their seating arrangements will be. If a home theater is going to have viewers sitting on the edges of the screen (or even further to the side) on a regular basis, the HP probably isn't the right screen for them. Those people won't be getting the same viewing experience as the ones closer to the lens. Also, if the home theater owner has to ceiling mount for whatever reason, that person isn't going to benefit much from an HP. Drop your head 3 or 4 feet below the lens and the HP's gain drops dramatically.
> 
> 
> As my head moved down, though, the good qualities of the SS began to manifest. The gain increased (while the HP gain decreased). At one point, the HP and the SS were at roughly the same brightness level. As I passed that point, the HP continued to dim and the SS got brighter, so that in effect they switched their relative brightness levels from the point in time in which my head was next to the projection lens. That's why I said photographs of the 2 screens were of very limited value in terms of overall brightness. Take a picture of the 2 screens with the camera next to the lens and the HP will appear brighter. Take a photo from a seated position (viewer down low and projector up high) and the SS will appear brighter. A single photo tells you almost nothing of value in terms of a comparison of the 2 screens.
> 
> 
> As I moved around the room, 2 things were clear: the further from the projection lens I got, the dimmer the HP became; and, the SS maintained its side-to-side brightness far better than the HP.
> 
> 
> Another benefit of moving around the room was that I picked up on the SS surface sheen. As I moved, even the small SS sample called attention to itself. I knew it would bother me. The HP sample's surface just disappeared - it was the same (except for brightness) no matter how I moved. At the same time, I was picking up on the snowy glistening of the Firehawk, as though I was looking at a blanket of snow. It wasn't quite that bad, but it's the closest analogy I can think of.
> 
> 
> By the end of the experiment, I knew what I wanted. The Firehawk was too dim, no matter what. The SS sheen was too distracting. The HP was just about perfect. All I had to do was lower my projector height. Side to side viewing would not be a problem in my room. I figured out a way to do that and I've been a happy camper ever since.
> 
> 
> The hard part of the experiment (not too hard, but it took a little time) was figuring out how to get the HP and SS samples next to the screen. After firing up the projector with the white Photoshop screen, it took about 30 seconds of moving my head around to see the differences among the screens. Of course, I tried the samples out with regular HD video, too. The results were not quite as "smack you in the face" obvious as the white screen, but they were all too clear. No contest. The HP won for image quality and brightness.
> 
> 
> Is that any clearer?



I think you've given a very fare and accurate assessment of the pros and cons of these two screens. I'm a fan of the HP because I can set things up optimally for it: my pj is on a stand, just behind and between two recliners for my wife and I, who are just about the only viewers (girls are married, etc.); pj's only a ft above and behind our heads (forturnately the RS20 is quiet as a mouse--don't hear it at all with 68 yr old ears, but fortunately one can crank up the volume as necessary!). So if one's room and life style lends itself to such a set up, it's just about perfect. But it does have the limitations you describe very well.


----------



## deanzsyclone

Ok so were going back and fourth about the angle of the ss, and as I stated before, when my projector was mounted on the ceiling the SS looked pretty good, when I moved the projector down to eye level the SS looked exactly the same, no brighter no dimmer.


Now here is another example, pic taken of no country for old men, 1st pic is of the SS with projector mounted on CEILING, with sony DSL cammera set to 200 iso, the shutteer speed set at 1.3, and the aprature set at 5.6.


2nd photo I overid the cammera (took it out of auto mode) and locked in the same settings as above 200iso, 1.3shutter and 5.6 apature. So in other words same exact cammera settings and position and frame as you can see. But now with the HP screen. Now you can see how the image is so much brighter, in comparison. Naturaly setings on the cammera for the ss were just to sensitive when it came to the HP screen shot.


Hope this helps??


----------



## Joseph Clark

Hey, deanzsyclone. I think we're talking about 2 different ways of comparing the 2 screens. I didn't move my projector during the testing. I just moved my head around. I'd have to use video to show what I saw. Still images would never work. I also knew from the way I did it what kind of gain I was likely to get from each screen, based on where my projector was going to be. In your photos, it's hard to tell the position of the camera relative to the projector lens. That's important in understanding how bright the HP looks.


The way I tested the samples made it easy for me to determine how the screens would perform in my room. The only important thing for me regarding the SS was that I knew it would give me the brightness I needed with a ceiling mounted projector, but that the sheen would be too distracting. The HP's surface was far and away the best of the 3, but I'd have to find a way to mount the projector lower to get the gain I wanted. That's all I needed to know, and once I was finished that day, I knew what I needed to do to get the HP working in my room.


----------



## deanzsyclone




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/16686457
> 
> 
> In your photos, it's hard to tell the position of the camera relative to the projector lens. That's important in understanding how bright the HP looks.



How about I just tell you then? Cammera was sitting on top of the projector (eye level), and projector no longer mounted to ceiling, it was at slightly higher than chair level. Helpful??


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deanzsyclone* /forum/post/16686876
> 
> 
> How about I just tell you then? Cammera was sitting on top of the projector (eye level), and projector no longer mounted to ceiling, it was at slightly higher than chair level. Helpful??



Yes, it is helpful. With the camera mounted on top of the projector, the HP is going to be at just about max gain, and thus the increased brightness over the SS is very understandable. The SS should be less bright, I would think, since the angle should be reflecting a greater amount of light downward, a few feet under the projector. In other words, if you lowered the camera 3-4 feet and took the shot from there, the brightness levels should reverse, or at least become much closer. That's consistent with what I saw in my test.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/16686322
> 
> 
> I think you've given a very fare and accurate assessment of the pros and cons of these two screens. I'm a fan of the HP because I can set things up optimally for it: my pj is on a stand, just behind and between two recliners for my wife and I, who are just about the only viewers (girls are married, etc.); pj's only a ft above and behind our heads (forturnately the RS20 is quiet as a mouse--don't hear it at all with 68 yr old ears, but fortunately one can crank up the volume as necessary!). So if one's room and life style lends itself to such a set up, it's just about perfect. But it does have the limitations you describe very well.



You know, after reading more on the RS-20, I was unclear if the shadow detail is much better at high gamma than my Sharp 20K. (I know the black level is better. No contest there.) Do you know what your gamma is, and if it's high (2.4 or so), how's the shadow detail?


As I said some time ago, I have to use a lower gamma. I have a hard time not losing shadow detail when the Sharp's gamma is that high. My eyes are aging, too.


----------



## millerwill

I don't use a super high gamma since my room is not a true batcave (though it's pretty good). A gamma ~ 2.2 to 2.3 is what I find best. The 'A' gamma pre-set is very nice for my setup--~ 2.3, then shading up to 2.2 or so at the lowest IRE.


I've not seen a Sharp 20K, though know for reputation that it is a very fine unit. I might have gone with a dlp if there had been one with the short throw that I need in my room setup (


----------



## amp3d1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *amp3d1* /forum/post/16681424
> 
> 
> I was considering a Dalite Perm wall 133" High Power screen. The builder made the lower 1/2 of the wall protrode 8 inches vs top, forming an 8 inch shelf" sort of like my ascii art below. Is permwall stiff enough to just hang from the wall. Otherwise i was considering making a rectangular Hardwood 2x1 inch frame, mount permwall to it and then mount it to my wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> |
> 
> |_
> 
> =|
> 
> =|
> 
> 
> I would prefer not do go to DaSnap because the price goes up 50% - on principle it feel like a ripoff vs what carada charges
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> !! I;m thinking model C left permanently open - if my situation is not feasible - just don't want any waves.



Anyone who has a permwall or DIY or just someone smarter than me(not hard) got any advice?


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/16687030
> 
> 
> I don't use a super high gamma since my room is not a true batcave (though it's pretty good). A gamma ~ 2.2 to 2.3 is what I find best. The 'A' gamma pre-set is very nice for my setup--~ 2.3, then shading up to 2.2 or so at the lowest IRE.
> 
> 
> I've not seen a Sharp 20K, though know for reputation that it is a very fine unit. I might have gone with a dlp if there had been one with the short throw that I need in my room setup (
> 
> 
> I'm going to have to try to get to Cedia this year. Do you know where it's going to be? I haven't been to a show like that for a long time. Meanwhile, I'd still like to see an RS20 somewhere close to the St. Louis area. Is there an RS20 owner somewhere close by in Missouri or Illinois who wouldn't mind my coming by to take a look?


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *amp3d1* /forum/post/16687349
> 
> 
> Anyone who has a permwall or DIY or just someone smarter than me(not hard) got any advice?



The HP is a very heavy duty material. I'm not sure a 1x2 would provide enough support. It shouldn't be too hard to fashion a frame for it, though. I think I'd consider something more substantial than 1x2's. You might want to use a 1x2 frame attached to 2x4's that you could overlap onto the shelf.



[[[[]]

[[[[]]

[[[[]]

[[[[]]

[[[[]]

[[[[]]

----]]

----]]

----]]

----]]

----]]


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *amp3d1* /forum/post/16687349
> 
> 
> Anyone who has a permwall or DIY or just someone smarter than me(not hard) got any advice?



I thought about the permwall for my 126" diag HP but was afraid it would be too flemsy, so got the Da-Snap (I wanted a rather thin frame, rather than the wider Cinema Contour). It has been excellent. Contact Jason at AVS for a good price.


----------



## amp3d1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/16688793
> 
> 
> I thought about the permwall for my 126" diag HP but was afraid it would be too flemsy, so got the Da-Snap (I wanted a rather thin frame, rather than the wider Cinema Contour). It has been excellent. Contact Jason at AVS for a good price.



Joseph, Miller thanks for your advice.


Miller,

Do you feel the da-snap is rigid enough to be hung from bracket offset from wall? The da-snap on pricegrabber was about $400 more than Perm-wall which is in turn $300 more than model C. i think the $400 delta could be better invested in furniture or better speakers than a frame if the image is the same in the end (just my own opinion)


Joseph, i guess builting up a wood frame to fix the offset is an option. i wonder if there are some nice steel rods/plate i can buy to enforce the frame instead of 2x4s - i'll check out home depot too


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *amp3d1* /forum/post/16689138
> 
> 
> Miller,
> 
> Do you feel the da-snap is rigid enough to be hung from bracket offset from wall? The da-snap on pricegrabber was about $400 more than Perm-wall which is in turn $300 more than model C. i think the $400 delta could be better invested in furniture or better speakers than a frame if the image is the same in the end (just my own opinion)



Yes. The Da-Snap comes with wall brackets on which it is hung. Since my screen covers up a window (that my wife agreed to giving up!), it had to clear the window sill; so I screwed a 2x4 to the wall above the window and screwed the DaSnap mounting brackets onto it. Works just fine, and the screen is ~ 3" away from the wall.


----------



## Chad T




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *amp3d1* /forum/post/16689138
> 
> 
> Joseph, Miller thanks for your advice.
> 
> 
> Miller,
> 
> Do you feel the da-snap is rigid enough to be hung from bracket offset from wall? The da-snap on pricegrabber was about $400 more than Perm-wall which is in turn $300 more than model C. i think the $400 delta could be better invested in furniture or better speakers than a frame if the image is the same in the end (just my own opinion)
> 
> 
> Joseph, i guess builting up a wood frame to fix the offset is an option. i wonder if there are some nice steel rods/plate i can buy to enforce the frame instead of 2x4s - i'll check out home depot too



Going on "lights on" aesthetics only, I would opt for a Model C over a Perm-Wall. Our local Buffalo Wild Wings restaurant has Perm-wall screens....and they look like absolute do-do IMO. The only way I would consider a Perm-wall was if I was going to install a masking system or something else that would hide the frame. I don't really understand the major upcharge difference Da-Lite charges for their fixed frame screens beyond the Perm-wall........but it is still worth it IMO.


----------



## amp3d1

JUst got my permwall high power screen. Mounted it on to rectagular frame made of 2x4s to my offset walls; perfect solutionf or $30 worth of material. My only disappointment so far is taht when i unrolled the screen a found powery residue when some 1/2" long by few mm wide white marks that look black w/camera flash. I was able to emulate the look by scratch my old dalite sample square.


Anyone had good luck exchanging screens w/dalite?

Other than that, i'd also love to know if anyone has a epson 6500UB and how much they had to increase any of the color settings (red i heard is a bit low) to calibrate it right.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *amp3d1* /forum/post/16854162
> 
> 
> JUst got my permwall high power screen. Mounted it on to rectagular frame made of 2x4s to my offset walls; perfect solutionf or $30 worth of material. My only disappointment so far is taht when i unrolled the screen a found powery residue when some 1/2" long by few mm wide white marks that look black w/camera flash. I was able to emulate the look by scratch my old dalite sample square.
> 
> 
> Anyone had good luck exchanging screens w/dalite?
> 
> Other than that, i'd also love to know if anyone has a epson 6500UB and how much they had to increase any of the color settings (red i heard is a bit low) to calibrate it right.



Before you send it back, try cleaning it. Cleaning solutions are listed on the DaLite site, but I used eyeglass cleaner and a microfiber cloth. My HP had a considerable amount of some sort of residue on it from the factory, but it cleaned up nicely.


----------



## jostenmeat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *amp3d1* /forum/post/16854162
> 
> 
> Anyone had good luck exchanging screens w/dalite?
> 
> Other than that, i'd also love to know if anyone has a epson 6500UB and how much they had to increase any of the color settings (red i heard is a bit low) to calibrate it right.



Well, we're in the wrong thread, and I've never owned an Epson, but every unit will have different OTB variation. While I don't know about the 6500, IIRC, Jason Turk said the previous 1080 UB had even more OTB variation than typical. He did not imply at all that it wasn't a great performer, only that individual calibration was even more imperative. HTH.


----------



## amp3d1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/16855102
> 
> 
> Before you send it back, try cleaning it. Cleaning solutions are listed on the DaLite site, but I used eyeglass cleaner and a microfiber cloth. My HP had a considerable amount of some sort of residue on it from the factory, but it cleaned up nicely.



yeah i messaged dalite they recommended denature alcohol (which i presume is the standard disinfectant rubbing alcohol). I just sent pictures w/close up to the guy i bought it from, i just don't want to do more damage since when i wiped with a moist (not soaked) cottom cloth in one direction, it appeared to do more smearing than cleaning.


I was just wondering in general if dalite has been really good w/exchanges if the screen indeed can't be cleaned up.


----------



## amp3d1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jostenmeat* /forum/post/16856315
> 
> 
> Well, we're in the wrong thread, and I've never owned an Epson, but every unit will have different OTB variation. While I don't know about the 6500, IIRC, Jason Turk said the previous 1080 UB had even more OTB variation than typical. He did not imply at all that it wasn't a great performer, only that individual calibration was even more imperative. HTH.



hmm, sorry if it's the wrong thread. I already had my epson calibrated for a white wall. I was just wondering how much color the screen typically imbued (drop in red, blue push, etc) and people's experience. I guess i just invest in a AVIVA DVD in any case though


----------



## macming




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *amp3d1* /forum/post/16854162
> 
> 
> Other than that, i'd also love to know if anyone has a epson 6500UB and how much they had to increase any of the color settings (red i heard is a bit low) to calibrate it right.



I'm running my 6500UB on Theatre Black 1, with no calibration, and a Model C HP screen. The colours look just fine to me










My friend's gf just started working for a high end projection engineering firm. I'm waiting for her to be trained for some professional calibration heheh


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *amp3d1* /forum/post/16857770
> 
> 
> yeah i messaged dalite they recommended denature alcohol (which i presume is the standard disinfectant rubbing alcohol). I just sent pictures w/close up to the guy i bought it from, i just don't want to do more damage since when i wiped with a moist (not soaked) cottom cloth in one direction, it appeared to do more smearing than cleaning.
> 
> 
> I was just wondering in general if dalite has been really good w/exchanges if the screen indeed can't be cleaned up.



From what I've read, DaLite is pretty good about making good on defective screens.


BTW, a damp cloth may be deceptive initially. I was a little concerned when I tried to clean my screen the first time. It seemed to smear. It actually wasn't smearing at all, but just that the surface doesn't dry very rapidly, added to the fact that the "clean" cloth I used wasn't as clean as I thought.


Try this - get a really clean, lint free cloth and buff the area you suspect may be defective with denatured alcohol. That's a very high percentage alcohol, not the typical rubbing alcohol. You shouldn't have any trouble getting it in a drugstore. Then, buff out the area you cleaned with another clean, soft, dry cloth until the area is no longer looks wet. When I did that (but with eye glass cleaner, not alcohol), the area I cleaned looked significantly cleaner and brighter than the rest of the screen. I had to go over the whole surface to make sure it was free of any residue. I was shocked at how much better it looked than when I started.


I think that if the screen surface was actually damaged, it would be obvious. I doubt you'd have a question in your mind about it. I had to work pretty hard to cause the sample they sent me to fail. (I was trying to find out what I'd have to do to damage my actual screen.) When it did fail, the area where it flaked off was quite obviously ruined. I suspect yours is just dirty. If you do the cleaning, you'll know for sure. The surface is pretty tough, so you can rub fairly hard to get the grime off (within reason, of course). If, after you clean it, it still looks the same, you'll know for sure something has happened to it.


----------



## Scrimpin

Regarding the HP, if projector should be at or near viewer eye level, how have you folks addressed projector noise. I would think it more of an issue compared to a ceiling mount........or is a couple feet above eye level still acceptable. I'm thinking that a projector at eye level pretty much needs to be in fron, beside or directly behind the viewer but a couple feet higher and you have flexibility to move it back quite a bit further.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Scrimpin* /forum/post/16877273
> 
> 
> Regarding the HP, if projector should be at or near viewer eye level, how have you folks addressed projector noise. ...



It depends on the pj. With the JVC RS20, e.g., or the Sony's (I believe), noise is not a problem even if the pj is within 2 ft of your head; at least this is what I find. DLP pj's are noisier, though, so you need to check out very carefully what pj you have or are interested in.


----------



## deanzsyclone




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Scrimpin* /forum/post/16877273
> 
> 
> Regarding the HP, if projector should be at or near viewer eye level, how have you folks addressed projector noise. I would think it more of an issue compared to a ceiling mount........or is a couple feet above eye level still acceptable. I'm thinking that a projector at eye level pretty much needs to be in fron, beside or directly behind the viewer but a couple feet higher and you have flexibility to move it back quite a bit further.



I have the sony vpl-vw100 and it sits about 2 feet from my head, I don't hear a thing!


----------



## FLBoy

My RS10 is at eye level, but about four feet behind me. I use low lamp (Normal) and hear nothing. I could hear my previous Epson Home 1080 slightly (also on low lamp).


----------



## GoCaboNow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *amp3d1* /forum/post/16854162
> 
> 
> JUst got my permwall high power screen. Mounted it on to rectagular frame made of 2x4s to my offset walls; perfect solutionf or $30 worth of material. My only disappointment so far is taht when i unrolled the screen a found powery residue when some 1/2" long by few mm wide white marks that look black w/camera flash. I was able to emulate the look by scratch my old dalite sample square.
> 
> 
> Anyone had good luck exchanging screens w/dalite?
> 
> Other than that, i'd also love to know if anyone has a epson 6500UB and how much they had to increase any of the color settings (red i heard is a bit low) to calibrate it right.



This sounds more like a defect. I have seen HP screens that have been torqued or creased causing the microbeads to come loose in a line. Looks like a white line to the naked eye but under projection it comes out as black marks.


By the way, I have my rs10 almost level with the 2nd row heads and PJ noise is no problem at all.


----------



## K-Spaz

Guys, I could use some help on with this screen choice.


I looked at some of this thread today but didn't read all of it of course. I just posted a question on the Dalite Spectra thread that you'll find somewhere near the top of the thread list if anyone should care to look at that.


This HP screen looks appealing to me, all except it appears to me my setup isn't going to take full advantage of its characteristics. I use an X10 DLP and it's ceiling mounted. The room is 13.5'x15.25' or thereabouts. My throw is just a tick under 14' and seating distance is about 11'. My screen now is just over 100" a 16:9. Zoomed up pretty much all the way.


Since my pj is 4' above my head while seated, I am thinking that using the diagram on the first page of this thread, I'll be looking at a significantly lowered gain even with this material due to my angular projection setup vs a retro-r ideal setup. If so, then I am assuming (we know what assume means) a lower gain screen with a better viewing angle, and one intended for angular projection would be more suited to my needs.


Then of course there's plenty of contradictory information where some folks are saying the off angle viewing isn't as bad as it's made out to be, yada yada yada. Well, Certainly my situation isn't going to be idea. Would anyone care to comment on what they think I could expect if I went with this HiPower screen? Lowering the pj is not an option. I'm at zero keystone now and would prefer to stay that way.


I'm currently using a DIY screen that's painted, if that helps.

Thanks in advance for any opinions.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/16877830
> 
> 
> Guys, I could use some help on with this screen choice.
> 
> 
> I looked at some of this thread today but didn't read all of it of course. I just posted a question on the Dalite Spectra thread that you'll find somewhere near the top of the thread list if anyone should care to look at that.
> 
> 
> This HP screen looks appealing to me, all except it appears to me my setup isn't going to take full advantage of its characteristics. I use an X10 DLP and it's ceiling mounted. The room is 13.5'x15.25' or thereabouts. My throw is just a tick under 14' and seating distance is about 11'. My screen now is just over 100" a 16:9. Zoomed up pretty much all the way.
> 
> 
> Since my pj is 4' above my head while seated, I am thinking that using the diagram on the first page of this thread, I'll be looking at a significantly lowered gain even with this material due to my angular projection setup vs a retro-r ideal setup. If so, then I am assuming (we know what assume means) a lower gain screen with a better viewing angle, and one intended for angular projection would be more suited to my needs.
> 
> 
> Then of course there's plenty of contradictory information where some folks are saying the off angle viewing isn't as bad as it's made out to be, yada yada yada. Well, Certainly my situation isn't going to be idea. Would anyone care to comment on what they think I could expect if I went with this HiPower screen? Lowering the pj is not an option. I'm at zero keystone now and would prefer to stay that way.
> 
> 
> I'm currently using a DIY screen that's painted, if that helps.
> 
> Thanks in advance for any opinions.



If I owned an X10, I'd be looking somewhere else for a screen. The benefits will be lost in a ceiling mount setup such as yours.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/16877857
> 
> 
> If I owned an X10, I'd be looking somewhere else for a screen. The benefits will be lost in a ceiling mount setup such as yours.



Sorta what I thought. Thanks.


----------



## xb1032

As mentioned K-Spaz, don't get the HP if the projector is 4ft over your head. I have my front row about 2-1/2 feet over my head and I get a nice boost in brightness while maintaining black levels well. However, at 4 feet you won't get any benefit out of it. And actually outside the cone your picture might end up dimmer than a screen with no gain.


----------



## xb1032




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deanzsyclone* /forum/post/16877322
> 
> 
> I have the sony vpl-vw100 and it sits about 2 feet from my head, I don't hear a thing!



Mine is about 2.5 ft over my head and I don't hear anything out of my Pioneer FPJ1 on low lamp mode either. I actually prefer the projector at this height over eye level. At least this early on my bulb it would be too bright and black levels are better in my front row than the brighter pic in the back row.


----------



## amp3d1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/16878551
> 
> 
> Sorta what I thought. Thanks.



yeah, the only side benefit is that if you are on a budget dalite model C high power has a pretty rigid screen (ie no waves). But out of the screens i demo'd and tried out. The best to me was Stewart ultramatt 200, then stewart firehawk and dalite silvermatt, then carada brilliant white (which is probably less gain than advertised) then video spectra in the middle of the pack. But is certainly looked better than the pearlsc. screen. I'd page support on the dalite, carada and stewart web sites and ask for the samples, you can check them out yourself. Elite sells a powergain surface as well, but the service was so crappy it put me off.


People who visited generlly liked the HP, then carada brilliantwhite and ultramatte 150 the best.



I had projecter only 2ft above eye and i wanted a 133" inch, so i got it and love is like a giant LCD tv. HP black level isn't great due to all the gain, but the big screen and ability to watch it w/lights on more than makes up for it. Even tha black level i can probably fix tuning down the projector power.... but i don't want to


----------



## amp3d1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/16877830
> 
> 
> Guys, I could use some help on with this screen choice.
> 
> 
> I looked at some of this thread today but didn't read all of it of course. I just posted a question on the Dalite Spectra thread that you'll find somewhere near the top of the thread list if anyone should care to look at that.
> 
> 
> This HP screen looks appealing to me, all except it appears to me my setup isn't going to take full advantage of its characteristics. I use an X10 DLP and it's ceiling mounted. The room is 13.5'x15.25' or thereabouts. My throw is just a tick under 14' and seating distance is about 11'. My screen now is just over 100" a 16:9. Zoomed up pretty much all the way.
> 
> 
> Since my pj is 4' above my head while seated, I am thinking that using the diagram on the first page of this thread, I'll be looking at a significantly lowered gain even with this material due to my angular projection setup vs a retro-r ideal setup. If so, then I am assuming (we know what assume means) a lower gain screen with a better viewing angle, and one intended for angular projection would be more suited to my needs.
> 
> 
> Then of course there's plenty of contradictory information where some folks are saying the off angle viewing isn't as bad as it's made out to be, yada yada yada. Well, Certainly my situation isn't going to be idea. Would anyone care to comment on what they think I could expect if I went with this HiPower screen? Lowering the pj is not an option. I'm at zero keystone now and would prefer to stay that way.
> 
> 
> I'm currently using a DIY screen that's painted, if that helps.
> 
> Thanks in advance for any opinions.



you won't like make answer.


Ask dalite for some screen samples and put them on your wall w/your current setup. I was in your postiion just 3 weeks ago and spent insane hours researching, when screen swatched answered my question so much better. All the cone stuff etc doesn't really hit home until you see it in action.


----------



## K-Spaz

Thanks very much for all the info. I have one sample of material coming already, I'll see if I can't ask these manufacturers for some as well.


Who'da'thunk this could be so difficult a choice?


----------



## FLBoy

K-Spaz, I agree with the others that the X10 is not a projector to pair with the HP. If you want to see why, feel free to put your setup dimensions into my screen gain calculator linked below. The default screen setup values are for the HP.


----------



## deanzsyclone

Yes 4 feet above your head really lowers the lumens of the image very noticbly. Almost makes buying the HP useless, I think when I get about 3-4 feet off center my vutek silver screen is actually brighter, did you see my photos I posted????? I still have my silver screen hanging behind the HP, if your in S. Cal area your welcome to see the difference between the two at angle.

I don't even use that silver screen the HP looks so much brighter! But not at 4 feet off angle.


Dean



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/16877830
> 
> 
> Guys, I could use some help on with this screen choice.
> 
> 
> I looked at some of this thread today but didn't read all of it of course. I just posted a question on the Dalite Spectra thread that you'll find somewhere near the top of the thread list if anyone should care to look at that.
> 
> 
> This HP screen looks appealing to me, all except it appears to me my setup isn't going to take full advantage of its characteristics. I use an X10 DLP and it's ceiling mounted. The room is 13.5'x15.25' or thereabouts. My throw is just a tick under 14' and seating distance is about 11'. My screen now is just over 100" a 16:9. Zoomed up pretty much all the way.
> 
> 
> Since my pj is 4' above my head while seated, I am thinking that using the diagram on the first page of this thread, I'll be looking at a significantly lowered gain even with this material due to my angular projection setup vs a retro-r ideal setup. If so, then I am assuming (we know what assume means) a lower gain screen with a better viewing angle, and one intended for angular projection would be more suited to my needs.
> 
> 
> Then of course there's plenty of contradictory information where some folks are saying the off angle viewing isn't as bad as it's made out to be, yada yada yada. Well, Certainly my situation isn't going to be idea. Would anyone care to comment on what they think I could expect if I went with this HiPower screen? Lowering the pj is not an option. I'm at zero keystone now and would prefer to stay that way.
> 
> 
> I'm currently using a DIY screen that's painted, if that helps.
> 
> Thanks in advance for any opinions.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deanzsyclone* /forum/post/16880452
> 
> 
> , if your in S. Cal area your welcome to see the difference between the two at angle.
> 
> I don't even use that silver screen the HP looks so much brighter! But not at 4 feet off angle.
> 
> 
> Dean



I appreciate the offer, but unfortunately, I'm in Pennsylvania. I'm sorta getting the picture that this isn't going to work with the DLP I've got. And that's fine. I also looked into the Stewart Ultramatte 200 and that's got a rather steep falloff as well.


Judging from the info I'm seeing, I'll just have to stick to a 1.5gain material and live with it. Something's tellin me that any of the commercial choices will beat the DIY screen I've got. They may not cost appreciably more either. We'll see.


I do have samples of 5 materials on the way and as mentioned above, that's about the only way to make a real decision. Trying to visualize this is not easy. I can clearly see the shortcomings of the screen I have now for the room I'm in. It's not bad, but I think it can be a lot better in the darker movies with greater shadow detail and that sort of thing. Rainy scenes, overcast, etc, I'm thinking will look better with some more gain. If I keep the screen I've got and put this in front of it I can always switch screens for things like pixar movies and ones with more brightness. The one that's there takes no space and as they say, since it's stitt'n here paid for, "it's not eat'n anything."


Another issue I find from looking at specs on the Stewart site is the screen width to throw ratio is recommended to be 2.0 on the Ultramatte 200, mines 1.85 or so. I presume the HighPower is the same way, though I didn't notice that spec on the DaLite site. They'll be here in a few days and I'll make a decision then.


Thanks again guys for all the help. Ya never know how much you don't know till you start talking to someone who does.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/16880870
> 
> 
> Another issue I find from looking at specs on the Stewart site is the screen width to throw ratio is recommended to be 2.0 on the Ultramatte 200, mines 1.85 or so. I presume the HighPower is the same way, though I didn't notice that spec on the DaLite site.



The reason for the minimum throw ratio on the Stewart screens is because they are all angular reflective. Angular reflective screens tend to hot spot at short throw. (Hot spotting is defined as one part of the picture, e.g., centerscreen, being noticeably brighter than another part, e.g., the right or left side.) The general rule for angular reflective white screens is that the minimum throw to avoid hot spotting is equal to the screen width times the screen gain. This rule applies to Da-Lite's angular reflective white screens as well, whether or not they publish the spec. The rule does not apply to gray screens, which hot spot more easily. (Note the 1.6 factor for the 1.25 gain FireHawk G3, a gray screen.)


The Da-Lite High Power screen material is retroreflective. The general rule above does NOT apply to retroreflective screens. It is in fact almost impossible to make the HP hot spot at any reasonable throw. Retroreflective screens reflect most of their light back towards the light source. That's why they work best when the PJ lens and the viewers' eyes are located as close as possible to one another.


The opposite is true of angular reflective screens. With angular reflective screens, the ideal height for the PJ is one in which the PJ lens' line of site to the screen center makes the same angle above the screen normal that the viewers' line of sight makes below the screen normal. For example, if the throw and the viewing distance are equal, the the PJ lens ideally should be as high above the screen center as the viewers' eyes are below screen center. The ideal PJ height is exceeded in many installations. The consequences are usually minor, provided that the minimum throw rule discussed above is followed.


----------



## Elkhunter

With 717 hours on my Panny 200, it's too dim for me on my 159" "test" screen (a white wall), even in normal mode (dynamic throws the colors off too much).


I was using a 110" screen (boc with graffers tape for a border). I decided to zoom out to 159" (the maximum size for a Model "C"), to see if it would be ok with my 12'-8" (152") viewing distance, in my true batcave. Love it !!!


Trouble is, the added screen size (110"= 5,184 sq. inches vs 159"= 10,842 sq. inches) dims the picture too much (even in my cave). At over twice the surface area, its no wonder its so dim (twice the area would equal 1/2 the lumens....right ???).


I just watched Apocalypto (BD), and the sacrifice scenes didn't have the bright pop that I like. I then tacked the boc on the wall, with the projector still zoomed to 159", and the brightness didn't change.


Months ago, I posted in another forum that I looked at a 12" x 12" HP sample, and to my eyes, it raised the blacks (poor on a Panny to begin with) to a medium gray.


In a reply to my post, someone posted that the reason the blacks looked so gray was due to the HP sample being so small. That with a full size screen, the blacks would look ok. Is this true (IMO, this sounds like BS to me) ???


As much as I would like to use a 159" screen, I don't want to spend the $$$ only to discover that the blacks are medium gray.


Bottom line:

While the HP raises the bright scenes, which is great, it also raises the blacks to the point to where they are MUCH lighter than a .8-1.3 screen would....right ???


BTW: The Panny is shelf mounted, with the center of the lens 13" above the center of the screen. And, in case you haven't guessed already.....I'm a lumens freak. TIA


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Elkhunter* /forum/post/16905935
> 
> 
> With 717 hours on my Panny 200, it's too dim for me on my 159" "test" screen (a white wall), even in normal mode (dynamic throws the colors off too much).
> 
> 
> I was using a 110" screen (boc with graffers tape for a border). I decided to zoom out to 159" (the maximum size for a Model "C"), to see if it would be ok with my 12'-8" (152") viewing distance, in my true batcave. Love it !!!
> 
> 
> Trouble is, the added screen size (110"= 5,184 sq. inches vs 159"= 10,842 sq. inches) dims the picture too much (even in my cave). At over twice the surface area, its no wonder its so dim (twice the area would equal 1/2 the lumens....right ???).
> 
> 
> I just watched Apocalypto (BD), and the sacrifice scenes didn't have the bright pop that I like. I then tacked the boc on the wall, with the projector still zoomed to 159", and the brightness didn't change.
> 
> 
> Months ago, I posted in another forum that I looked at a 12" x 12" HP sample, and to my eyes, it raised the blacks (poor on a Panny to begin with) to a medium gray.
> 
> 
> In a reply to my post, someone posted that the reason the blacks looked so gray was due to the HP sample being so small. That with a full size screen, the blacks would look ok. Is this true (IMO, this sounds like BS to me) ???
> 
> 
> As much as I would like to use a 159" screen, I don't want to spend the $$$ only to discover that the blacks are medium gray.
> 
> 
> Bottom line:
> 
> While the HP raises the bright scenes, which is great, it also raises the blacks to the point to where they are MUCH lighter than a .8-1.3 screen would....right ???
> 
> 
> BTW: The Panny is shelf mounted, with the center of the lens 13" above the center of the screen. And, in case you haven't guessed already.....I'm a lumens freak. TIA



You don't need to worry about the HP raising black levels for that size screen. The contrast isn't going to be affected by the HP, just the brightness. If you want enough brightness to light up a much larger screen, the HP will do that for you, as long as you are within the cone. That is, you'll have to have the projector set to close to eye level to achieve the gain you need. I'm still baffled that this HP-as-black-level-destroyer myth persists. There's nothing magical about the HP fabric that raises black level while leaving bright areas unaffected. It makes the whole image brighter. Result - contrast is maintained, and so is relative black level. If the HP is too bright for a given screen size, filter it until the bulb ages. Then, take the filter off and you have a "new" lamp.


Thanks FLBoy. Of course, I meant to say to place the projector close to eye level, not the HP. It's corrected.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/16906090
> 
> 
> You don't need to worry about the HP raising black levels for that size screen.



+1 ^^^


Elkhunter: In a light controlled room, the projector sets the black level--and the white level--for a given screen. If you double your current screen's area and keep the same screen gain, you will cut in half the brightness of both the black level and the white level. If you double your screen's area and you double your screen gain, you will get exactly the same black level and white level that you have with your current screen.


ETA- The above paragraph assumes the PJ brightness remains constant. If you leave the PJ positioned where it is now and zoom the image to fill the new screen, the wider zoom setting will allow more light through the lens, making the image somewhat brighter than with your current screen. Alternatively, you could leave the zoom setting as is and just move the PJ further back to fill the new screen.


----------



## millerwill

Another useful comparison: as said above, doubling the gain of a screen (with no other changes) will increase the black level, and the white level, by a factor of 2; i.e., the CR stays the same. And this is EXACTLY the same as doubling the lumen output of the projector (if everything else stays the same).


----------



## hrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Elkhunter* /forum/post/16905935
> 
> 
> With 717 hours on my Panny 200, it's too dim for me on my 159" "test" screen (a white wall), even in normal mode (dynamic throws the colors off too much).
> 
> 
> I was using a 110" screen (boc with graffers tape for a border). I decided to zoom out to 159" (the maximum size for a Model "C"), to see if it would be ok with my 12'-8" (152") viewing distance, in my true batcave. Love it !!!
> 
> 
> Trouble is, the added screen size (110"= 5,184 sq. inches vs 159"= 10,842 sq. inches) dims the picture too much (even in my cave). At over twice the surface area, its no wonder its so dim (twice the area would equal 1/2 the lumens....right ???).
> 
> 
> I just watched Apocalypto (BD), and the sacrifice scenes didn't have the bright pop that I like. I then tacked the boc on the wall, with the projector still zoomed to 159", and the brightness didn't change.
> 
> 
> Months ago, I posted in another forum that I looked at a 12" x 12" HP sample, and to my eyes, it raised the blacks (poor on a Panny to begin with) to a medium gray.
> 
> 
> In a reply to my post, someone posted that the reason the blacks looked so gray was due to the HP sample being so small. That with a full size screen, the blacks would look ok. Is this true (IMO, this sounds like BS to me) ???
> 
> 
> As much as I would like to use a 159" screen, I don't want to spend the $$$ only to discover that the blacks are medium gray.
> 
> 
> Bottom line:
> 
> While the HP raises the bright scenes, which is great, it also raises the blacks to the point to where they are MUCH lighter than a .8-1.3 screen would....right ???
> 
> 
> BTW: The Panny is shelf mounted, with the center of the lens 13" above the center of the screen. And, in case you haven't guessed already.....I'm a lumens freak. TIA



I have an HP and have viewed three other HP screens at forum friend's homes with a variety of projectors. My advice for those who are very interested in excellent black levels is to use the HP only with the RS20.


----------



## xb1032

When you say "raises black levels" I would say that absolute black level is the same as it is with a non-gain screen. Black levels or colors aren't as deep as they are on a non-gain screen but you can adjust brightness/gamma to help with this to a certain extent. For this very reason I don't put my projector (Pioneer FPJ1) at the "best" height. Setting the projector several feet above eye level gives a nice boost in brightness w/o sacrificing color depth very much.


IMO, my FPJ1 with my 106" DaLite Model C above my head ~2.5ft looks MUCH better than it did with my 100" Elitescreen 1.1 gain. I would also like to note that I had a 9G Pioneer Kuro and black levels are very important to me!


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hrd* /forum/post/16909321
> 
> 
> I have an HP and have viewed three other HP screens at forum friend's homes with a variety of projectors. My advice for those who are very interested in excellent black levels is to use the HP only with the RS20.



Gak!! I use my Sharp XV-Z20000 with an HP and get wonderful results. Any projector that needs extra gain (and in the right setting) can benefit from the HP. I'm sure the RS20 has wonderful black level, but to say that someone should use the HP only with an RS20 is to exclude many who could benefit.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xb1032* /forum/post/16909517
> 
> 
> When you say "raises black levels" I would say that absolute black level is the same as it is with a non-gain screen. Black levels or colors aren't as deep as they are on a non-gain screen but you can adjust brightness/gamma to help with this to a certain extent. For this very reason I don't put my projector (Pioneer FPJ1) at the "best" height. Setting the projector several feet above eye level gives a nice boost in brightness w/o sacrificing color depth very much.
> 
> 
> IMO, my FPJ1 with my 106" DaLite Model C above my head ~2.5ft looks MUCH better than it did with my 100" Elitescreen 1.1 gain. I would also like to note that I had a 9G Pioneer Kuro and black levels are very important to me!



At the risk of sounding like a curmudgeon, I can't agree that extraordinary measures need to be taken with an HP screen to compensate for something intrinsically bad in the high gain material. I haven't seen any evidence that the HP does damage to the black levels or the gamma or the color depth of my projector. The HP is brighter. It rejects ambient light (not that I have much). Contrast (from my Sharp) is very good. Colors are deep and rich. My eyes are about 2' from the lens and I get enough gain to compensate for my dim projector. I live very comfortably in the cone of brightness, and I love how "transparent" the HP is to the image I'm projecting.


Curmudgeon riff over.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hrd* /forum/post/16909321
> 
> 
> I have an HP and have viewed three other HP screens at forum friend's homes with a variety of projectors. My advice for those who are very interested in excellent black levels is to use the HP only with the RS20.



hrd: Please read the first paragraph of post #1665. Is there any part of it with which you disagree? If so, please tell me why. If you agree with all of it, then please tell me how the *same* black level and the *same* white level could possibly look any different between a 1.0 gain screen and the HP at a gain of 2.0. Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## hrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/16910263
> 
> 
> hrd: Please read the first paragraph of post #1665. Is there any part of it with which you disagree? If so, please tell me why. If you agree with all of it, then please tell me how the *same* black level and the *same* white level could possibly look any different between a 1.0 gain screen and the HP at a gain of 2.0. Inquiring minds want to know.



The overall contrast can still make for a satisfying image when the gain increases as it does with the HP, but the black level will elevate overall enough to cut into the 3-dimensionality of the image. For some, this does not matter so much, because they do not have the kind of projector or excellent room conditions to project an image with that kind of impressive feature.


I have personally observed a SIM2 C3X1080 3-chip DLP and a SIM2 HT380 1-chip DLP on HP screens and noticed how they both lost way too much punch on the high gain screen. With the HT380, my thought afterward was "What ANSI?" The C3X1080 owner replaced his HP with a Stewart screen and the HT380 owner now has the new Planar projector.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hrd* /forum/post/16911312
> 
> 
> The overall contrast can still make for a satisfying image when the gain increases as it does with the HP, but the black level will elevate overall enough to cut into the 3-dimensionality of the image. For some, this does not matter so much, because they do not have the kind of projector or excellent room conditions to project an image with that kind of impressive feature.
> 
> 
> I have personally observed a SIM2 C3X1080 3-chip DLP and a SIM2 HT380 1-chip DLP on HP screens and noticed how they both lost way too much punch on the high gain screen. With the HT380, my thought afterward was "What ANSI?" The C3X1080 owner replaced his HP with a Stewart screen and the HT380 owner now has the new Planar projector.



Here we go round the merry go round.


----------



## xb1032




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/16909757
> 
> 
> At the risk of sounding like a curmudgeon, I can't agree that extraordinary measures need to be taken with an HP screen to compensate for something intrinsically bad in the high gain material. I haven't seen any evidence that the HP does damage to the black levels or the gamma or the color depth of my projector. The HP is brighter. It rejects ambient light (not that I have much). Contrast (from my Sharp) is very good. Colors are deep and rich. My eyes are about 2' from the lens and I get enough gain to compensate for my dim projector. I live very comfortably in the cone of brightness, and I love how "transparent" the HP is to the image I'm projecting.
> 
> 
> Curmudgeon riff over.




I think it depends on the color what a person is referring to when they say "black levels". Absolute blacks do not rise. However, when low level detail is there the HP brings those details out more by making them brighter. Thus the deepest of gray levels 'rise' or a 'brighter' because of the high gain and can make one refer to black levels being lighter. This is the only reason I brought up brightness/gamma.


----------



## K-Spaz

Concerning the "Raising Black Levels"


I'll say in advance that I'm a serious novice at this, and I don't have a HP screen. But...


I do have a screen, and I did get 4 samples of material. And I've stayed at a holiday inn express (or whatever the commercial says). What I take these people to mean is exactly what I saw with 4 different samples with 4 different gains (all taped to my screen as the 5th comparison).


To My Eyes... Looking for quite some time at various content over these simultaneously, was that in dark areas, the higher gain screens didn't change the image noticeably, but they did change the lighter screen images dramatically. This was literally projecting on both at the same time. It was my first testing like this and it was a very eye opening experience.


At least to me and on my setup, the higher gain screens made blacks just as black as the .8 gain dk gray screen materials, but they made whites so white and bright that the effective contrast must be about double what it is on my current screen. It was also obvious to me that the higher gain materials were going to be way too bright for my setup (screen is not very big).


In any case, I can see where a person might say the blacks are deeper, even though the reality is that its just the whites that are whiter/brighter.


----------



## Joseph Clark

People want a high gain screen so they can achieve an image that is bright enough for their viewing environments (and a level of contrast that is the best their projector can deliver). If, as in my case, your projector is simply too dim to give you a satisfying image at the size you want, the HP is a Godsend.


If the image is too bright after you install the HP, you can reduce brightness by using:


the brightness and contrast controls (and other calibration controls),


or the projector's iris,


or the lamp level,


or a lens filter,


to bring down the overall light level and achieve the black level, white level and color balance you want.


On the other hand, you can't add extra brightness to a projector's lamp.


Unless you have one that goes all the way to 11.


----------



## Elkhunter

Are you HP owners who replied to my post, saying that your blacks aren't effected in a negative way by your HP ???


Let me post my HP question in this way:

Let's say that I'm sitting right in the center of a 159" 1.0 gain Matte White Model C (more or less the same gain as the white wall/boc that I'm using now). The center of the projector's lens is only 13" above the center of the screen (great for an HP).


I load a 2.35:1 BD in the player and select a scene of the sky at night. I note how black the night sky and the black bars of the 2.35:1 BD are.


Then, at the press of a button, a 159" 2.8 gain High Power Model C is lowered in front of the Matte White. Same screen size, throw, viewing distance and picture mode.


Based on my test of a 12"x12" HP sample, the night sky and the black bars of the BD would be close to a medium gray with the HP in place, with my Panny 200.


Hell, Stevie Wonder could have seen the night sky and the black bars on the HP sample that I had.


Are you HP owners saying that the HP's gain (added light on the screen) is only added to the bright parts of a scene (the blacks aren't effected) ???


----------



## Joseph Clark

See my post above, please. Why would you keep the brightness and contrast levels of your projector the same for those screens? If you add gain, you recalibrate! Dropping one screen down in front of another proves nothing - NOTHING!


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Elkhunter* /forum/post/16911856
> 
> 
> Are you HP owners who replied to my post, saying that your blacks aren't effected in a negative way by your HP ???
> 
> 
> 
> Are you HP owners saying that the HP's gain (added light on the screen) is only added to the bright parts of a scene (the blacks aren't effected) ???



First question - yes, that is EXACTLY what I meant by all my posts tonight. The HP has NO negative effect on black levels in my home theater.


Second question - no, that is precisely what I have NOT been saying in all my posts tonight. To repeat, the HP does NOT magically add light to the darker parts of the image while leaving the brighter areas unaffected. It is a uniform gain. Add the HP, recalibrate your black and white levels and enjoy. The contrast will remain the same or even improve.


This is one of the reasons I wanted the HP. My projector has 3 iris settings. The greatest contrast is achieved with the smallest iris opening. My old screen was plenty bright with the iris open all the way, but the contrast suffered. I wanted the iris closed down, but that made the projector too dim. By adding the HP, I was able to use the small iris, improve contrast and still have a bright enough image for my 110" screen.


I'm sorry to sound so snarky, but we've been down this road so many times, and it's been said so many different ways again tonight. The HP screen does NOT destroy black levels, period. It solves a serious brightness issue while creating a narrow viewing cone. If you can live with the cone, you'll love it. If you can't, look somewhere else. But the urban myth that the HP is some sort of black devouring monster that spits up gray goo is just plain wrong.


Alright, now! The Cardinals just took the third game in their series with the Dodgers. I feel a little better.


Again, sorry for the snark.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hrd* /forum/post/16911312
> 
> 
> The overall contrast can still make for a satisfying image when the gain increases as it does with the HP, but the black level will elevate overall enough to cut into the 3-dimensionality of the image. For some, this does not matter so much, because they do not have the kind of projector or excellent room conditions to project an image with that kind of impressive feature.
> 
> 
> I have personally observed a SIM2 C3X1080 3-chip DLP and a SIM2 HT380 1-chip DLP on HP screens and noticed how they both lost way too much punch on the high gain screen. With the HT380, my thought afterward was "What ANSI?" The C3X1080 owner replaced his HP with a Stewart screen and the HT380 owner now has the new Planar projector.



That's hilarious!


----------



## xb1032

The purpose of an HP screen is to boost brightness with what light is being thrown at it. On an all black screen I notice no difference between the Elitescreen(1.1 gain) that I had and my HP. HOWEVER, deep gray tones on the HP are brighter than the Elitescreen because of the added gain on the HP [if] I leave brightness/gamma at the same settings. In order to achieve similar color depth the picture settings would need modified for the HP. In other words, you aren't going to be able to do an A/B comparison.


Black levels are VERY important to me. Having said that I'd take a slight loss in color depth to get a punchy picture over a dim picture any day. There's not much 'punch' to a noticeably dim picture.


----------



## deanzsyclone




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Elkhunter* /forum/post/16911856
> 
> 
> Are you HP owners who replied to my post, saying that your blacks aren't effected in a negative way by your HP ???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ???



Ok so let me shine a bit of realistic light on simply phrasing it more accurately. As a new owner of a 119" hp I can tell you that yes, blacks are affected. BUT, and a big BUT, the blacks are affected in what I can best say is a small quantity, but the whites/colors are affected in what seems to me as double. So the trade off is fantastic, and I do mean fantastic.

When watching your average scene in a movie, the whites and colors overwhelm any small gain in blacks and simply do not register to the eye. Even scenes like Walley where he is out in space riding outside the probe ship

among the stars looks much better than my previous screen, and keep in mind, much of the scenes are in deep dark space with only stars and planets.


Hope that helps.


----------



## GoCaboNow

No doubt about it, there is a raised black level with the high power. However, I agree, the over all brightness of the image is raised so much to make that raised black level insignificant - to me. As with anything in the front projection world, YMMV. I tested the high power with a unity gain screen and 1.4 gain screen sample I had. I even employed both screens for a while and would switch back and forth depending on the movie. But after a while I ended up just using the high power. I even preferred the high power on the darkest movie I have ever seen in AVP Requiem.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GoCaboNow* /forum/post/16923414
> 
> 
> No doubt about it, there is a raised black level with the high power. However, I agree, the over all brightness of the image is raised so much to make that raised black level insignificant - to me. As with anything in the front projection world, YMMV. I tested the high power with a unity gain screen and 1.4 gain screen sample I had. I even employed both screens for a while and would switch back and forth depending on the movie. But after a while I ended up just using the high power. I even preferred the high power on the darkest movie I have ever seen in AVP Requiem.



And when you were switching back and forth between the HP and the other screen, did you recalibrate your projector every time you switched?


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/16923751
> 
> 
> And when you were switching back and forth between the HP and the other screen, did you recalibrate your projector every time you switched?



I agree with your points, JC. Some of the faults hurled at the HP by some people could only happen if the HP were to impart a gamma curve to the image. Only an active device can have a curved response. Passive devices are linear. The HP's response to light is linear and contrast cannot change. Black levels relative to white levels remains constant.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/16925354
> 
> 
> I agree with your points, JC. Some of the faults hurled at the HP by some people could only happen if the HP were to impart a gamma curve to the image. Only an active device can have a curved response. Passive devices are linear. The HP's response to light is linear and contrast cannot change. Black levels relative to white levels remains constant.



It doesn't seem to matter how it's said - whether it's couched in technical or casual terms. People just keep on recycling the same idea - that the HP raises black levels. Even HP owners do it, though they claim the "other benefits" outweigh the "negative impact on black levels."


I think that the heart of the problem is that people confuse extra brightness with increased black levels, and no amount of explaining has been able to clear up that basic confusion around here. The same people, I'd wager, would have no problem with one projector being brighter than another. They'd be OK with that and would be a lot less likely to say, "Yes, this RS20 is brighter than many other projectors, so it hurts black levels." That sounds ridiculous, but people have no problem saying exactly that about the HP.


People think they should "trust their eyes." They look at a dark area of an image on 2 screen samples and the HP sample's "black" looks brighter. Well, Duh!!! That's the point. You buy the HP because you want things brighter. If you adjust the contrast and brightness for the HP sample, your projector's black level hasn't changed (because the contrast hasn't changed), and you'll see the best blacks your projector can deliver. There are lots of ways of reducing the light level even further with the projector, if the HP is too bright.


There just isn't any way to add brightness to a projection lamp. It only gets so bright. For people like me (who have dim projectors), or for people who want a much larger screen, the HP is wonderful. It can give you a beautiful, bright image...

*WITHOUT DAMAGING BLACK LEVELS AT ALL.*


Even as I type this, I'm certain that someone, very soon, will post something about how the HP raises/hurts/damages black levels - because they've "seen it with their own eyes."


----------



## xb1032

My projector is about 2.5 ft over my head now. If I didn't have back row seating I'd do like many here and set it closer to eye levels and get an ND filter for my projector and improve black levels to an even better level







. With the added brightness of the HP and since it more than delivers enough brightness (at least at this early on with my bulb and for my tastes) an ND filter with this should make a terrific image. I wonder how much ANSI contrast improves with an HP screen over a non-gain screen.


----------



## noah katz

Joseph,


"People just keep on recycling the same idea - that the HP raises black levels."


This is not an idea, it's an indisputable fact - as erkq just noted, screens are passive, linear devices, so if the white level is raised, so is the black level by the same amount.


But perceptually, a brighter image w/same CR doesn't *appear* to have higher black level, and in fact often appears to have higher CR.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/16926536
> 
> 
> Joseph,
> 
> 
> "People just keep on recycling the same idea - that the HP raises black levels."
> 
> 
> This is not an idea, it's an indisputable fact - as erkq just noted, screens are passive, linear devices, so if the white level is raised, so is the black level by the same amount.
> 
> 
> But perceptually, a brighter image w/same CR doesn't *appear* to have higher black level, and in fact often appears to have higher CR.



I suppose I'm guilty of the same thing as others here - not being clear. I understand that the HP raises the brightness of the entire image, dark and light. That was exactly the point I was trying to make - apparently not too well. What I've been ranting on about is what seems to be the perception that the HP raises the black level while not affecting the white level. This idea, I think, leads people to believe that the screen causes the image and the color to appear "washed out" or "gray," effectively reducing contrast, which it does not. As you point out, the opposite often happens, with the CR appearing to increase, even if the absolute black level raises.


My main point is that the HP does one thing extremely well. It allows people with less than bright projectors or very large screens to achieve a level of brightness they can live with. If the absolute black level of the image after the HP is too high, there are several very effective ways of reducing it to whatever point you want - brightness and contrast controls, iris, lamp level, filters. Too bright is fairly easy to deal with; too dark not so much.


What bothers me is the _implication_ that seems to run through a lot of the comments - _that black level is raised and therefore the image is compromised_. The biggest implication that I read into these posts is that the HP does increase brightness, but it hurts contrast (makes things look more washed out, gray and that colors look less intense). That simply isn't true and I think it's misleading to people who are looking to get easily digestible information on the pros and cons of a screen. The cons of the HP are easy to tell people about - mainly the cone. Many of these posts imply contrast and black level issues with the HP that simply don't exist. Contrast is not an issue. Perceived contrast is not an issue. A washed out image is not a issue. Black level is not an issue. The HP can help make those things better in many cases, but it never need make any of those things worse. Of course it can, if the person puts up an HP and doesn't make any attempt to adjust the image for the new screen, but I think that's what must be happening in some of these cases.


Or maybe I'm just reading these posts wrong. If that's the case, I apologize. In any case, I apologize if any of my comments come off as snarky. I'm certainly not the technical guru that many of you are on these forums.


And I'm not an HP fanboy, although I'm sure I come off that way sometimes. If I found something I liked better than the HP, I'd jump ship in a heartbeat. I know a better screen for my needs will come along one of these days. It may already be out there. If I find it, I'm all over it.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/16926536
> 
> 
> Joseph,
> 
> 
> "People just keep on recycling the same idea - that the HP raises black levels."
> 
> 
> This is not an idea, it's an indisputable fact - as erkq just noted, screens are passive, linear devices, so if the white level is raised, so is the black level by the same amount.
> 
> 
> But perceptually, a brighter image w/same CR doesn't *appear* to have higher black level, and in fact often appears to have higher CR.



Although this point is probably not worth making in the larger scheme of things, to say that the HP raises black levels is accurate only in a relative sense. It's an inaccurate statement if unqualified. To say that the HP raises black levels is true only relative to another screen, or even to the relative seating position of a viewer.


Usually, when we say the HP raises black level, it's a comparison of the HP to a lower gain screen. With the same projector settings, the HP, with a viewer seated in the sweet spot and getting, say, a gain of 2.5, will have a higher absolute black level than the same viewer in the same seat viewing a unity gain screen (1.0). That's obvious. Move that same viewer over 5 feet to the left and outside the sweet spot, so that he's getting a gain of, say, .8 with the HP, and the HP has lowered the absolute black level for the viewer compared to that same unity gain screen.


If we compare the HP to a higher gain screen (such as, perhaps, the Vutec SS), we might accurately say that switching to the HP has lowered the black level for the viewer. Move the viewer outside the sweet spot and the HP has lowered the black level even more.


Such comments, though, are pretty meaningless. When I go researching a new topic on home theater here on AVS, I don't want to wade through a bewildering mass of data and numbers that I can't grasp. I think most people are like me. They just want to know if something is going to work in their home theater. That's why, when I have a fair understanding of an issue and post, I try to make it simple. (Simple posts from a simple guy.







) Here's simple: if you can live with the cone, the HP is probably going to be a great screen for you. If you have to ceiling mount, or have a lot of light behind the projector, or you have seating that goes too far off to the side, look somewhere else. If you can get your head close to the lens level and not too far off to the side, you'll be in good shape with an HP.


Posts about black level are confusing, because "black level" and what it means for an individual is relative. People get caught up in buzz words here, just like everywhere else. Right now, "black level" has some serious buzz. People hear the comment that the HP raises "black level" and they get bent out of shape about it. "Black level = good." "More black level = better." "HP = less black level. "HP = bad." "I'm movin' on to the next screen thread." I do the same thing when I tire of reading some of the posts on various threads. That's why the implications of what I think people mean when they say the HP raises black level bother me.


It's all relative, and the HP is not going to damage your "black level" experience.


----------



## Chad T




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/16926805
> 
> 
> I suppose I'm guilty of the same thing as others here - not being clear. I understand that the HP raises the brightness of the entire image, dark and light. That was exactly the point I was trying to make - apparently not too well. What I've been ranting on about is what seems to be the perception that the HP raises the black level while not affecting the white level. This idea, I think, leads people to believe that the screen causes the image and the color to appear "washed out" or "gray," effectively reducing contrast, which it does not. As you point out, the opposite often happens, with the CR appearing to increase, even if the absolute black level raises.
> 
> 
> My main point is that the HP does one thing extremely well. It allows people with less than bright projectors or very large screens to achieve a level of brightness they can live with. If the absolute black level of the image after the HP is too high, there are several very effective ways of reducing it to whatever point you want - brightness and contrast controls, iris, lamp level, filters. Too bright is fairly easy to deal with; too dark not so much.
> 
> 
> What bothers me is the _implication_ that seems to run through a lot of the comments - _that black level is raised and therefore the image is compromised_. The biggest implication that I read into these posts is that the HP does increase brightness, but it hurts contrast (makes things look more washed out, gray and that colors look less intense). That simply isn't true and I think it's misleading to people who are looking to get easily digestible information on the pros and cons of a screen. The cons of the HP are easy to tell people about - mainly the cone. Many of these posts imply contrast and black level issues with the HP that simply don't exist. Contrast is not an issue. Perceived contrast is not an issue. A washed out image is not a issue. Black level is not an issue. The HP can help make those things better in many cases, but it never need make any of those things worse. Of course it can, if the person puts up an HP and doesn't make any attempt to adjust the image for the new screen, but I think that's what must be happening in some of these cases.
> 
> 
> Or maybe I'm just reading these posts wrong. If that's the case, I apologize. In any case, I apologize if any of my comments come off as snarky. I'm certainly not the technical guru that many of you are on these forums.
> 
> 
> And I'm not an HP fanboy, although I'm sure I come off that way sometimes. If I found something I liked better than the HP, I'd jump ship in a heartbeat. I know a better screen for my needs will come along one of these days. It may already be out there. If I find it, I'm all over it.



Yeah, I think you're getting a bit worked up when (I think) we're basically all saying the same thing with different words. I haven't re-read the thread, but I don't really recall people saying that a HP affects black/white representation in a non-linear fashion (if that's what you're indeed saying). It simply makes things brighter.


The simplest way that I know to say it is that if you put an all black image on a 1.0 or 1.1 gain screen, then put the same image on a HP screen (properly setup to get a good amount of gain), then blacks WILL appear more washed out because the image has been made brighter by the positive gain.


BTW, I have tried several different screens (see my sig) and I use pretty much the same black/white level calibration settings on my Epson HC720 for all of the screens.


----------



## Joseph Clark

You're right. Sorry. I've been bored. Anything to get the juices going a little.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/16927336
> 
> 
> Although this point is probably not worth making in the larger scheme of things, to say that the HP raises black levels is accurate only in a relative sense. It's an inaccurate statement if unqualified. To say that the HP raises black levels is true only relative to another screen, or even to the relative seating position of a viewer.
> 
> 
> Usually, when we say the HP raises black level, it's a comparison of the HP to a lower gain screen. With the same projector settings, the HP, with a viewer seated in the sweet spot and getting, say, a gain of 2.5, will have a higher absolute black level than the same viewer in the same seat viewing a unity gain screen (1.0). That's obvious. Move that same viewer over 5 feet to the left and outside the sweet spot, so that he's getting a gain of, say, .8 with the HP, and the HP has lowered the absolute black level for the viewer compared to that same unity gain screen.
> 
> 
> If we compare the HP to a higher gain screen (such as, perhaps, the Vutec SS), we might accurately say that switching to the HP has lowered the black level for the viewer. Move the viewer outside the sweet spot and the HP has lowered the black level even more.
> 
> 
> Such comments, though, are pretty meaningless. When I go researching a new topic on home theater here on AVS, I don't want to wade through a bewildering mass of data and numbers that I can't grasp. I think most people are like me. They just want to know if something is going to work in their home theater. That's why, when I have a fair understanding of an issue and post, I try to make it simple. (Simple posts from a simple guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) Here's simple: if you can live with the cone, the HP is probably going to be a great screen for you. If you have to ceiling mount, or have a lot of light behind the projector, or you have seating that goes too far off to the side, look somewhere else. If you can get your head close to the lens level and not too far off to the side, you'll be in good shape with an HP.
> 
> 
> Posts about black level are confusing, because "black level" and what it means for an individual is relative. People get caught up in buzz words here, just like everywhere else. Right now, "black level" has some serious buzz. People hear the comment that the HP raises "black level" and they get bent out of shape about it. "Black level = good." "More black level = better." "HP = less black level. "HP = bad." "I'm movin' on to the next screen thread." I do the same thing when I tire of reading some of the posts on various threads. That's why the implications of what I think people mean when they say the HP raises black level bother me.
> 
> 
> It's all relative, and the HP is not going to damage your "black level" experience.



The HP screen raises black levels just like a brighter projector raises black levels (and also the white level, keeping the CR the same); if you want a brighter pj, an inexpensive way to achieve the same thing is to use a HP screen (if you can locate the pj optimally for it). As many, on many threads have said: 'ftL's is ftL's, no matter whether you achieve them via the pj or via a high gain screen'.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/16925840
> 
> 
> It doesn't seem to matter how it's said - whether it's couched in technical or casual terms. People just keep on recycling the same idea - that the HP raises black levels.



Essentially: that's because it does raise black levels in the projected image. (In the relative terms that I think most people understand the issue).



Even HP owners do it, though they claim the "other benefits" outweigh the "negative impact on black levels."



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/16925840
> 
> 
> The same people, I'd wager, would have no problem with one projector being brighter than another. They'd be OK with that and would be a lot less likely to say, "Yes, this RS20 is brighter than many other projectors, so it hurts black levels." That sounds ridiculous, but people have no problem saying exactly that about the HP.



Because screens and projectors are different. One is active, the other passive. Projectors being active can increase contrast; screens being passive do not (for now, taking room issues out of the equation for simplicity's sake).


A projector can have increased contrast from, say, the previous model you owned, and hence achieve a _deeper black level for the same given peak brightness_.


Or, alternately, the same projector can be made to produce the same black level, but it's increased contrast means it achieves a higher peak brightness.

So you get a brighter image without raising the black level.


Whereas a screen is a passive device, doesn't change contrast, and making a brighter image it will raise _all frequencies equally_ So your black levels _do rise_. (The RS20 projector is not only brighter than the previous model, it can achieve a bit higher contrast...so see above).


So comparing projectors to screens on this issue can be misleading, I find.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/16925840
> 
> 
> That's the point. You buy the HP because you want things brighter. If you adjust the contrast and brightness for the HP sample, your projector's black level hasn't changed (because the contrast hasn't changed), and you'll see the best blacks your projector can deliver.



You'll get the best blacks your projector can deliver _on the HP screen_...NOT the best blacks your projector can deliver.


You calibrated a projector to get the deepest black levels/highest contrast it can deliver without distortions. Whatever your screen. So if you've done so on a neutral gain screen...your black levels aren't going any lower - you've already hit bottom.


If you now project on to a much higher 3.0 gain HP screen then yes indeedy your black levels rise significantly. No...you can't calibrate your black levels to be as they were before! They will remain raised (so long as they were properly calibrated on the neutral gain screen). But you WILL have the same contrast. You seem to be slipping between the idea of maintaining contrast, which the HP screen will do, and maintaining black levels, which the HP screen will, in general, NOT do.


Unless you happen to have a projector with precisely variable iris, like the RS20, in which case you may be able to dial down overall brightness/black levels to the same as you had with the neutral gain screen. But most projectors, that I'm aware of, don't offer such flexible iris performance.


And the main point is that you still wouldn't be able to achive _black levels_ as deep, if you want to see the deepest possible from your projector, on the HP screen as with a lower gain screen, even if you had a variable iris. Because a projector's black level can only go so low. It will be lower on a lower gain screen, higher black level as you raise the gain of the screen. Basic physics.







> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/16925840
> 
> 
> Even as I type this, I'm certain that someone, very soon, will post something about how the HP raises/hurts/damages black levels - because they've "seen it with their own eyes."



That's because it's true. In most cases (e.g. without a flexible iris control) the HP will raise the black levels along with all the other frequencies. That's _what it does_. It's sillly to argue against it. (Again, all this is in the context of relative differences between screen gains).


As to whether this "damages/hurts" black levels, that becomes an issue for the eye of the beholder. A lot of people report higher black levels because _they are noticing the fact their black levels are higher than they were on their previous lower gain screen_. This is accurate reporting. But whether this bothers folks is a question for the individual. Most people report the pluses of the brighter, punchier image outweighing slightly higher black levels. And in a lot of mixed content, one doesn't notice higher black levels.

But in lower APL content, people for whom deep black levels is paramount may notice the raised black levels and be bothered by it.


I have watched my Panasonic projector on both neutral gain screen material and on my HP screen material - same size image. The black levels were raised on the HP screen vs the neutral gain screen. No calibration could mitigate this fact. Lots of times the image looked more impressive on the HP screen, other times, especially movies with lots of dark scenes, images looked more convincing on the neutral gain screen.


If you are in a situation where you have iris control on your projector to keep the same black levels, or you don't really notice raised black levels in your set up, that's swell and consider yourself lucky. But I think it goes too far to sort of impugn, even in a general sense, the reports of other people

whose situations, or sensitivity to screen issues are different than yours. Not to that basic physics back up the point most times black levels will be raised if you go from a lower gain screen to the HP.


Cheers,


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/16927728
> 
> 
> Essentially: that's because it does raise black levels in the projected image. (In the relative terms that I think most people understand the issue).
> 
> 
> 
> Even HP owners do it, though they claim the "other benefits" outweigh the "negative impact on black levels."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because screens and projectors are different. One is active, the other passive. Projectors being active can increase contrast; screens being passive do not (for now, taking room issues out of the equation for simplicity's sake).
> 
> 
> A projector can have increased contrast from, say, the previous model you owned, and hence achieve a _deeper black level for the same given peak brightness_.
> 
> 
> Or, alternately, the same projector can be made to produce the same black level, but it's increased contrast means it achieves a higher peak brightness.
> 
> So you get a brighter image without raising the black level.
> 
> 
> Whereas a screen is a passive device, doesn't change contrast, and making a brighter image it will raise _all frequencies equally_ So your black levels _do rise_. (The RS20 projector is not only brighter than the previous model, it can achieve a bit higher contrast...so see above).
> 
> 
> So comparing projectors to screens on this issue can be misleading, I find.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll get the best blacks your projector can deliver _on the HP screen_...NOT the best blacks your projector can deliver.
> 
> 
> You calibrated a projector to get the deepest black levels/highest contrast it can deliver without distortions. Whatever your screen. So if you've done so on a neutral gain screen...your black levels aren't going any lower - you've already hit bottom.
> 
> 
> If you now project on to a much higher 3.0 gain HP screen then yes indeedy your black levels rise significantly. No...you can't calibrate your black levels to be as they were before! They will remain raised (so long as they were properly calibrated on the neutral gain screen). But you WILL have the same contrast. You seem to be slipping between the idea of maintaining contrast, which the HP screen will do, and maintaining black levels, which the HP screen will, in general, NOT do.
> 
> 
> Unless you happen to have a projector with precisely variable iris, like the RS20, in which case you may be able to dial down overall brightness/black levels to the same as you had with the neutral gain screen. But most projectors, that I'm aware of, don't offer such flexible iris performance.
> 
> 
> And the main point is that you still wouldn't be able to achive _black levels_ as deep, if you want to see the deepest possible from your projector, on the HP screen as with a lower gain screen, even if you had a variable iris. Because a projector's black level can only go so low. It will be lower on a lower gain screen, higher black level as you raise the gain of the screen. Basic physics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because it's true. In most cases (e.g. without a flexible iris control) the HP will raise the black levels along with all the other frequencies. That's _what it does_. It's sillly to argue against it. (Again, all this is in the context of relative differences between screen gains).
> 
> 
> As to whether this "damages/hurts" black levels, that becomes an issue for the eye of the beholder. A lot of people report higher black levels because _they are noticing the fact their black levels are higher than they were on their previous lower gain screen_. This is accurate reporting. But whether this bothers folks is a question for the individual. Most people report the pluses of the brighter, punchier image outweighing slightly higher black levels. And in a lot of mixed content, one doesn't notice higher black levels.
> 
> But in lower APL content, people for whom deep black levels is paramount may notice the raised black levels and be bothered by it.
> 
> 
> I have watched my Panasonic projector on both neutral gain screen material and on my HP screen material - same size image. The black levels were raised on the HP screen vs the neutral gain screen. No calibration could mitigate this fact. Lots of times the image looked more impressive on the HP screen, other times, especially movies with lots of dark scenes, images looked more convincing on the neutral gain screen.
> 
> 
> If you are in a situation where you have iris control on your projector to keep the same black levels, or you don't really notice raised black levels in your set up, that's swell and consider yourself lucky. But I think it goes too far to sort of impugn, even in a general sense, the reports of other people
> 
> whose situations, or sensitivity to screen issues are different than yours. Not to that basic physics back up the point most times black levels will be raised if you go from a lower gain screen to the HP.
> 
> 
> Cheers,



Lots of words, but to re-state: having a higher gain screen is identical to having a brighter pj, for a given CR. And most everybody seems to want the pj to be brighter (given its CR).


----------



## Joseph Clark

I didn't mean to impugn anyone, Rich, but you're absolutely right that my tone in these posts has been far too negative, especially for someone who doesn't have a complete understanding of all the issues on the subject. I usually don't do that, but my mood has been really ratty this weekend.


Everybody - I'm sorry.


I really don't think you and I are saying anything very different, Rich. There are so many variables with screens and projectors. I did want to ask one thing, though. You say...


"And the main point is that you still wouldn't be able to achive black levels as deep, if you want to see the deepest possible from your projector, on the HP screen as with a lower gain screen, even if you had a variable iris. Because a projector's black level can only go so low. It will be lower on a lower gain screen, higher black level as you raise the gain of the screen. Basic physics."


You are saying, aren't you, that you wouldn't be able to achieve an absolute black level as low on an HP screen (using, say, a filter, brightness controls, whatever) as on a neutral gain screen? Given that what you used to reduce overall brightness didn't affect contrast (and maybe even if it did), why couldn't you? Why would it not be possible to reduce the overall HP screen brightness to the same level as a unity gain screen and achieve the same black level?


Again, I'm mainly bored tonight, so if everyone just wants to drop this, I'm all for it. Right now, I really don't get how what I've said is wrong, but I'm fully prepared to declare my ignorance on the topic. I have no problem saying, "Oh, now I get it."


----------



## noah katz

Right, all you need to do is use a ND filter to get BL as low as you want.


----------



## Joseph Clark

And that's basically all I'm saying. You can use whatever means you want to get the HP to the black level you're comfortable with, and the contrast and colors don't change (or "suffer") because of it. The image won't be washed out or the colors muted any more by an HP than by any other screen, if you don't want them to be. It's just that the HP gives you the ability to go bigger, or to use a dimmer projector. That's its strength. That's why I use it. If I didn't need those qualities, I'd use a unity gain screen and not have to deal with a cone at all.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/16927728
> 
> 
> A projector can have increased contrast from, say, the previous model you owned, and hence achieve a _deeper black level for the same given peak brightness_.
> 
> 
> Or, alternately, the same projector can be made to produce the same black level, but it's increased contrast means it achieves a higher peak brightness.
> 
> So you get a brighter image without raising the black level.



Indeed this is true. But you are not speaking of simply increasing a projector's brightness. You are throwing increased CR into the mix and in that case I completely agree. That is something a projector can offer that a screen cannot.


But consider my setup. My RS1 is too dim in low power mode. So I turn it up to full power. Absolute black levels suffer. But CR does not change and because I really do need the extra brightness I do this anyway. This is exactly why and how one would use an HP screen; just to turn up the brightness.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/16927959
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't think you and I are saying anything very different, Rich. There are so many variables with screens and projectors. I did want to ask one thing, though. You say...
> 
> 
> "And the main point is that you still wouldn't be able to achive black levels as deep, if you want to see the deepest possible from your projector, on the HP screen as with a lower gain screen, even if you had a variable iris. Because a projector's black level can only go so low. It will be lower on a lower gain screen, higher black level as you raise the gain of the screen. Basic physics."
> 
> 
> You are saying, aren't you, that you wouldn't be able to achieve an absolute black level as low on an HP screen (using, say, a filter, brightness controls, whatever) as on a neutral gain screen?



That's right. The assumption being, of course, that someone is actually using the added gain of the HP screen to get a brighter image than on a unity gain screen. (That is - having the projector and themselves in the right viewing arrangement to get the benefit of gain on the HP screen).

_For a given projected image_, if the HP screen is making the image brighter than a unity gain screen, then the black levels are getting brighter as well.


Crank your projector's brightness as low as it will go. Project that "black" on a unity gain screen, then on the HP - it'll be brighter on the HP.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/16927959
> 
> 
> Given that what you used to reduce overall brightness didn't affect contrast (and maybe even if it did), why couldn't you? Why would it not be possible to reduce the overall HP screen brightness to the same level as a unity gain screen and achieve the same black level?




So the deal is: all things being equal, and relative to a unity gain screen (or lower gain screen) the HP screen is going to raise the black levels. Fact. Then you can ask how do we want to deal with that fact?


Well, one way to lower the overall brightness and hence the black level too, is to view the screen off-axis (either mounted high or sitting off to the side).

If you go enough off axis the screen starts matching the reflectivity of a unity gain screen (I've done the comparison). But most people buying the HP screen are not, of course, buying it to use it this way. We are presuming one is getting some appreciable gain in how they are using the HP.


Another method is, as has been mentioned, lowering the brightness at the projector end by adding an ND filter. That can do it.


Or: If you have a projector that gives you control over it's iris, like the JVC RS20. Then you can lower the overall light from the projector end to get back to the same brightness, and hence same black level, as you'd have with a unity gain screen.


This was actually one of the benefits of the HP screen paired with the RS20, long discussed in the projector forum. The more you dial down the projector's iris, the higher contrast you get out of the projector. That means if you start with a unity gain screen with a certain peak brightness (say 15 fL) you'll have, say 25,000:1 contrast at Iris position open to 11. But replace that same screen with the higher gain HP screen and now you can crank that iris way down to achieve the same brightness you had on the unity gain screen, but now your contrast will have gone up, say to 38,000:1 (pulling numbers outta my arse here).


So the only ways I know of matching the same black level/brightness between and HP and lower gain screen is to either view the HP off axis and lose a bunch of it's gain in the process, or to lower brightness at the projector end via ND filters or iris control.


You have the Sharp ZK20000 don't you? I seem to remember it has some level of iris control, doesn't it? If you found you had to crank the iris more close once you got your HP screen then you in all likelihood also gained more actual contrast as well. Which must look stunning.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/16929647
> 
> 
> Indeed this is true. But you are not speaking of simply increasing a projector's brightness. You are throwing increased CR into the mix and in that case I completely agree. That is something a projector can offer that a screen cannot.
> 
> 
> But consider my setup. My RS1 is too dim in low power mode. So I turn it up to full power. Absolute black levels suffer. But CR does not change and because I really do need the extra brightness I do this anyway. This is exactly why and how one would use an HP screen; just to turn up the brightness.



Absolutely. The only issue was that Joseph was initially confusing things by also inserting the claim that black levels aren't affected. Which is all I've been concerned with.


I personally love the effect of increased brightness. Pretty much every time I switch a projector from low bulb into high bulb mode I find I prefer high bulb and have a hard time going back.


Since I couldn't deal with some of the HP issues I've tried to get some amount of gain while preserving as much off-angle uniformity as possible, hence I've gone with the Stewart ST 130 and it's 1.3 gain. That 30 percent extra gain, over a unity gain screen, is the equivalent of putting many projectors into the high-bulb mode. Not huge, but it will be an appreciable gain in brightness for me.


----------



## FLBoy

I find this issue easier to understand if I think of black as the lowest level of white that a projector can project. It then becomes clear what screen gain and screen area will do to the black level: the exact same things they will do to the white level. That is, the black level and the white level are both directly proportional to screen gain and both inversely proportional to screen area.


So, if you don't change anything on your projector, does buying a new screen with a gain of 2.0 raise your black (and white) levels higher than those of your old 1.0 gain screen? Not necessarily. We haven't said anything yet about the screen area. Suppose, for example, your new screen is twice the area of your old screen. The black and white levels would be unchanged compared to your old screen.


Saying that the HP raises the black level compared to a 1.0 gain screen is misleading IMHO. More accurately, the HP affects the black level and the white level by the same, identical factor; and that factor can increase, decrease, or not change the black and white levels depending on the relative areas of the two screens.


----------



## Joseph Clark

I think we're all saying basically the same thing here.










I now have a Sharp XV-Z20000 (and, yes, the HP/Sharp are very good together). I used to have a Sharp XV-Z9000 and then (for a painful 2 1/2 year period) a crappy Optoma H79 (great image, but the projector was a nightmare to keep working). Both of those older projectors were 720p and much brighter than the new Sharp 20k. The 20k image was so dim that I felt it was completely unacceptable on my Stewart Firehawk (1.3 gain).


I wasn't confused about the black level issue, though I didn't state it well. When I installed the HP after finding the Firehawk unacceptably dim, I had the new Sharp calibrated so that I could achieve a black level that was every bit as deep as what I had with the older projectors (no filter needed - just calibration controls). New projector, new screen - black levels every bit the equal (or better) than the old projector/old screen. Anybody should be able to do that with an HP.


The point is that black levels don't have to be raised for the user if they switch to an HP. You can get them as low as you want, without doing any damage whatsoever to the contrast or color. When people say that they love their HP, but that it does raise the black level, it sounds like an admission of a basic screen defect. It sounds like they're saying that the HP gives them the gain they want, but they have to settle for higher black levels - that you don't get one without the other. That's not true. With the HP, as with any screen, you don't get deep black levels only if choose not to get deep black levels. If you want a brighter image and higher black levels, that's great, but it's not the HP forcing that to happen.


With me, the HP didn't raise my black level (from Optoma H79/Firehawk levels). The HP made it *possible* for me to use a projector that I really like, at a screen size that I want. With my Firehawk that wasn't even possible. Had I kept the Firehawk (I still have it in my basement, BTW - anyone want to buy it?







), I'd have had to buy a brighter projector.


That's why, when I hear a post that seems to indicate that having an HP forces the user to live with an elevated black level, I get all twitchy. That's only if they want to live with an elevated black level, because they can get it as low as they want pretty easily.


OK, so maybe that's just me misreading the posts, but that was what prompted me to get this discussion started. It may have been a waste of time, but it helped me clarify my thoughts and express myself a little better.


No harm, no foul. I think we're all pretty much on the same page.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/16929810
> 
> 
> I find this issue easier to understand if I think of black as the lowest level of white that a projector can project. It then becomes clear what screen gain and screen area will do to the black level: the exact same things they will do to the white level. That is, the black level and the white level are both directly proportional to screen gain and both inversely proportional to screen area.
> 
> 
> So, if you don't change anything on your projector, does buying a new screen with a gain of 2.0 raise your black (and white) levels higher than those of your old 1.0 gain screen? Not necessarily. We haven't said anything yet about the screen area. Suppose, for example, your new screen is twice the area of your old screen. The black and white levels would be unchanged compared to your old screen.
> 
> 
> Saying that the HP raises the black level compared to a 1.0 gain screen is misleading IMHO. More accurately, the HP affects the black level and the white level by the same, identical factor; and that factor can increase, decrease, or not change the black and white levels depending on the relative areas of the two screens.



Now, if I weren't so ignorant I'd be able to say things this succinctly and articulately.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/16930360
> 
> 
> No harm, no foul. I think we're all pretty much on the same page.



I agree. The RUCKUS caused by implicit "relative" vs. explicit "relative" in our discussions! (I know that's not a sentence.)


----------



## FLBoy

Thanks, Joe. (I blush.) It helps if you write patent applications for about 10 years.










BTW, "ignorant" is not a word that comes to mind when I read your posts. "Knowledgeable," "helpful," and "polite" are.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/16929810
> 
> 
> I find this issue easier to understand if I think of black as the lowest level of white that a projector can project. It then becomes clear what screen gain and screen area will do to the black level: the exact same things they will do to the white level. That is, the black level and the white level are both directly proportional to screen gain and both inversely proportional to screen area.
> 
> 
> So, if you don't change anything on your projector, does buying a new screen with a gain of 2.0 raise your black (and white) levels higher than those of your old 1.0 gain screen? Not necessarily. We haven't said anything yet about the screen area.



Hence my qualifications _"for any given projected image"_ and _"all other things being equal"_ when discussing whether a higher gain screen raises black levels vs a lower gain screen.


Good point about changing the size, though. That's one I didn't think of when suggesting ways to keep the same black level with an HP screen.

(Although, given how most projector zooms work, changing the size will change the contrast ratio being output by the projector).


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/16931121
> 
> 
> Hence my qualifications _"for any given projected image"_ and _"all other things being equal"_ when discussing whether a higher gain screen raises black levels vs a lower gain screen.



If you had said "for any given projected image *size*," you would have a better argument; and you actually said "all things being equal," which is pretty vague and indefinite. That could even mean that the black levels of both the unity gain screen and the HP screen are equal--something absolutely contradictory to your conclusion.



> Quote:
> Good point about changing the size, though. That's one I didn't think of when suggesting ways to keep the same black level with an HP screen.
> 
> (Although, given how most projector zooms work, changing the size will change the contrast ratio being output by the projector).



I'm surprised you didn't think of that, given that one of the main reasons people need a higher gain screen is that they want to go to a bigger screen. I would also remind you that one does not have to change the zoom to fill a larger screen. One might simply move the projector further back, if one has the room to do so. And I did qualify with "if you don't change anything on your projector."


Sorry, but I will have to stand by my statement that saying that the HP raises the black level is misleading. One needs to be specific about when the HP raises the black level and when it does not.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/16932138
> 
> 
> If you had said "for any given projected image *size*," you would have a better argument; and you actually said "all things being equal," which is pretty vague and indefinite.



I thought it was obvious what I meant...for "any given projected image" to me means of the same size. If you change the size, for instance by enlarging it, you don't have that same "given projected image" anymore. You'd have a bigger one, a dimmer one (as measured from the screen to projector), and likely one with slightly different contrast (if you are using the projector's zoom, which many would do to get the larger image).


That's _why_ the qualification _"for any given projected image"_ is there...in italics. You change the size for instance by enlarging it, it's not that same "given projected image" anymore.


If we are going to get pedantic: I used that phrase advisedly because to my mind it's actually more precise than "for any given image *size*." Why? Because the addition of "size" puts an emphasis on the stated variable: "size"...and could just as easily be picked upon like "But you can have images of the same size which have different contrast (different projectors, or different settings on a projector etc)...so that's not being precise and is leaving out other variables."


Whereas "any given projected image" actually, logically, covers all the variables. Adding a qualification ("size" or "contrast" or "sharpness") skews toward a single variable.


As to the other nit-pick, I forgot the word "other"...but it's clear the phrase I was going for was "all _other_ things being equal." (For what could "all things being equal" possibly mean otherwise, given the direction of my argument and my concentration on the variable of higher screen gain? ). If you read with the mind of trying to understand understand the point being made, this would be obvious. If you read with the mind of "he's forgotten a word, so let's bend over backwards to find an interpretation of his argument that he clearly doesn't mean...." then I think one gets the response like this:




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/16932138
> 
> 
> That could even mean that the black levels of both the unity gain screen and the HP screen are equal--something absolutely contradictory to your conclusion.



No, it couldn't possibly mean that. Why would I contradict the very point I'm obviously making? Someone would have to be pretty dim to derive that conclusion from what I wrote (and you aren't dim, so you aren't really drawing that conclusion).




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/16932138
> 
> 
> I'm surprised you didn't think of that, given that one of the main reasons people need a higher gain screen is that they want to go to a bigger screen.



I didn't think of it because my emphasis had been on "all other things being equal" to make the technical point. A point that begged to be made given Joseph's generalization about black levels being unaffected.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/16932138
> 
> 
> I would also remind you that one does not have to change the zoom to fill a larger screen. One might simply move the projector further back, if one has the room to do so. And I did qualify with "if you don't change anything on your projector."



Sure. But, again, I was never talking about enlarging the image. My points all assumed, and qualified, everything being equal when swapping in the HP screen. I qualified all the scenarios I gave, even when talking about ways to keep the same black level when swapping in the HP screen. You've added another way - enlarging the image to the degree necessary to maintain the same black levels - but that doesn't make anything I wrote incorrect, since I qualified the scenarios I was talking about.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/16932138
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I will have to stand by my statement that saying that the HP raises the black level is misleading. One needs to be specific about when the HP raises the black level and when it does not.



Yes...which is why I was specific in doing so. So...I'm happy to agree with your statement, but would point out it's not necessary to declare it in my direction.


Cheers,


----------



## Joseph Clark

You know, I think it might be better just to leave this issue alone right now. I know I started it and contributed to lengthening it way beyond where it should have gone, but I still think we're on the same page basically. For the sake of people coming into this thread to try to make heads or tails of things, it's probably best just to say we all understand the HP screen basics pretty well and drop it, don't you think? There's no telling how many people were driven away trying to understand my posts.


----------



## FLBoy

This horse is dead. I'm outtahere!


----------



## Elkhunter

I called Da-Lite this morning to order another HP sample. They shipped a 2ft x2ft sample via UPS ground today. I should have it by next Tuesday.


Almost every reply to my post has stated that the blacks aren't affected by the HP's gain. I say that there's a HUGE affect, based on my first sample.


I can think of only two reasons for our different opinions:

1. You don't have a light cannon like my Panny 200 (your using an HP in order to get a bright image on a 110+" screen, with less than 400 lumens).

2. Your HT isn't a true batcave, where just one LED will light up the room. I've even taped the cool looking OLED displays of my TiVo S-3's.).


I'll be taking a second look with this second sample next week. Note that my Panny is bright enough on my old 110" boc screen. It just isn't bright enough for this lumens freak at 159" (over twice the surface area of the 110").


After viewing the 159" zoomed image for the past month, I can't go back to a 110". For contrary to the popular myth, size does matter.


She's just being kind when she says it doesn't matter. I'm not rich, so I guess she really does love me after all.


----------



## Arizona Dan

I have been reading about the Da_Lite HP screen for a few weeks. I am in the planning stages and made a sketch showing the side view of my room and possible layout. Please see attachment.


It would be great if I could get some feedback on whether this layout will work for this screen. I am looking at the JVC RS-10 and was wondering how this set up would work with the HP screen. I would also like to get a few suggestions for projectors at the low end of the price range that would work for this set up.


Thanks in advance for any and all help.


Please let me know if the attachment worked.



Dan


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Elkhunter* /forum/post/16945278
> 
> 
> I called Da-Lite this morning to order another HP sample. They shipped a 2ft x2ft sample via UPS ground today. I should have it by next Tuesday.
> 
> 
> Almost every reply to my post has stated that the blacks aren't affected by the HP's gain. I say that there's a HUGE affect, based on my first sample.
> 
> 
> I can think of only two reasons for our different opinions:
> 
> 1. You don't have a light cannon like my Panny 200 (your using an HP in order to get a bright image on a 110+" screen, with less than 400 lumens).
> 
> 2. Your HT isn't a true batcave, where just one LED will light up the room. I've even taped the cool looking OLED displays of my TiVo S-3's.).
> 
> 
> I'll be taking a second look with this second sample next week. Note that my Panny is bright enough on my old 110" boc screen. It just isn't bright enough for this lumens freak at 159" (over twice the surface area of the 110").
> 
> 
> After viewing the 159" zoomed image for the past month, I can't go back to a 110". For contrary to the popular myth, size does matter.
> 
> 
> She's just being kind when she says it doesn't matter. I'm not rich, so I guess she really does love me after all.



Sorry for any contribution I made to confusion about this issue last week. My point, however poorly made, was that you can achieve a deep black level with an HP by using iris, filters, etc. The other point I was trying to make was simply that the HP makes a large screen like your 159" a possibility for some people, unlike lower gain screens. With my Sharp, I couldn't make a 109" Firehawk screen bright enough without compromising the picture quality the projector was capable of. Even with an HP, I don't think I'd be close to getting a bright enough image with my Sharp at 159". If your projector is a light cannon and can give you a bright enough image at that size, you should be able to achieve a black level that's very satisfying, and as low as you had it before, if you want to. (Hope I didn't just beat that poor dead horse again.)


BTW, I'm jealous of that screen size. 110" is the absolute max I can go in my home theater. 159" would be incredible.


----------



## deanzsyclone




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Elkhunter* /forum/post/16945278
> 
> 
> I called Da-Lite this morning to order another HP sample. They shipped a 2ft x2ft sample via UPS ground today. I should have it by next Tuesday.
> 
> 
> Almost every reply to my post has stated that the blacks aren't affected by the HP's gain. I say that there's a HUGE affect, based on my first sample.
> 
> .



Their not affected, see my earlier post to understand why. FYI tonight I just spent 3 hours with a brand new zero hour epson 6500ub with a lumen output per manufacturer of 1600 lumens on high, which high was the setting we used, on my 119" HP. It looked phenomenal! Contrast was fantastic. Blacks were NOT affected.


I'm done repeating this same info. Ignore it if you choose.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Arizona Dan* /forum/post/16945414
> 
> 
> It would be great if I could get some feedback on whether this layout will work for this screen. I am looking at the JVC RS-10 and was wondering how this set up would work with the HP screen. I would also like to get a few suggestions for projectors at the low end of the price range that would work for this set up.



The attachment worked for me, but it is two dimensional. To accurately determine the gain of the HP one generally must work in three dimensions. Feel free to play with my All Screen Gain Calculator linked below. The default screen parameters are for the HP.


The HP will work well with most any PJ that has adequate vertical lens shift. This includes most LCD and LCOS PJs. Many of the DLP PJs require a fixed offset, which positions them too far from viewers' eye level to work well with the HP. I personally have used the HP with the RS10 and the Epson 1080 Home. Both worked well, the RS10 producing a sharper picture with better blacks.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Elkhunter* /forum/post/16945278
> 
> 
> Almost every reply to my post has stated that the blacks aren't affected by the HP's gain. I say that there's a HUGE affect, based on my first sample.



Please go back to the previous page and read my post #1702 in this thread. It describes what happens with the HP and any other gain screen about as well as I know how to say it.


The short answer: If the gain of your BOC is approximately 1.0, and you double your screen area with a screen gain of 2.0, then you will have no change in either your absolute white level or your absolute black level.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/16933803
> 
> 
> This horse is dead. I'm outtahere!



No problem FLBoy, good call. I completely understand that you wish to make sure people aren't making inaccurate statements about the HP screen, so your input is appreciated. Semantic quibbles aside I think we are all on the same page about this anyway.


----------



## noah katz

If you're putting the sample on top of your old screen, look at the HP by itself and see what you think.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/16947421
> 
> 
> No problem FLBoy, good call. I completely understand that you wish to make sure people aren't making inaccurate statements about the HP screen, so your input is appreciated. Semantic quibbles aside I think we are all on the same page about this anyway.



What do you mean by "semantic quibbles"??? (Just kidding.)


----------



## Joseph Clark

You know, FLBoy, what might be really helpful? Take your screen calculators and create some illustrations (and/or photographs) to go with them to help people visualize what's going to happen in their own home theaters with different screens and projector positions. That's pretty much the approach Tryg took with this thread at the beginning and it's been very successful.


For me, a picture really is worth a thousand words. Video could help, too, as I was trying to say when I talked about how the brightness of my HP and SS samples changed when I moved my head from lens level down about 3 feet. We all know that the same basic questions come up over and over again.


Although it might be a month or so before I could help out much (I'm involved in some projects right now) I'd be glad to take some photos or videos. Illustrations, not so much. What do you think?


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/16948808
> 
> 
> You know, FLBoy, what might be really helpful? Take your screen calculators and create some illustrations (and/or photographs) to go with them to help people visualize what's going to happen in their own home theaters with different screens and projector positions.



I could certainly do some simple two-dimensional line drawings if that would help. I'm not much of an artist or photographer, and I threw out my video camcorder after it rotted down from lack of use lol. Do you have some specific examples in mind of things that would be clearer with a drawing?


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/16949477
> 
> 
> I could certainly do some simple two-dimensional line drawings if that would help. I'm not much of an artist or photographer, and I threw out my video camcorder after it rotted down from lack of use lol. Do you have some specific examples in mind of things that would be clearer with a drawing?



I think everything is made clearer by drawings or photos. Someone with the appropriate skills could create a couple of drawings (side and top views) for different screen/projector configurations. One set would be for a typical configuration in which an HP would work well, compared to another set in which an angular reflective screen would work well. The drawings would have measurements for the seating positions and projector/screen distances, which could be plugged into your calculator.


For instance, in one configuration we could have a typical setup in which the projector is ceiling mounted and the viewer (say, 12' back) with his head 4' below the lens and a couple of feet off to the side. We could use a unity gain screen and an HP as examples. Using your calculator, we'd get the gain numbers for the unity gain screen and the HP.


In a second set of side/top drawings, we could lower the projector to a position down 3-4' and redo the numbers in your calculator.


It wouldn't need to be too complicated. If we pick a typical size for a room and a fairly common seating arrangement, it could give people a quick visual reference that would answer almost immediately some basic questions.


----------



## Joseph Clark

What would be really cool, of course, would be an interactive environment where elements could be placed in 3D space, with the viewer, the screen and the projector all movable. Setup would involve selecting the screen and the projector. This could get complicated, of course, but the options could be limited to the more common pieces of gear. It could be similar to the Projection Calculator from ProjectorCentral. 


I couldn't do this right now, but there might be someone out there who'd be up to the programming for a project of this kind. I've done some Director programming in the past, and I don't think it would be overly challenging, but it would take someone with better skills than I have at this point. If no one wants to do it, I might tackle it down the line a bit.


Meanwhile, a few simple drawings would help a lot of people, I think. I know when I was first researching home theater, a tool like this would have been extremely valuable - and certainly a lot more helpful than many of the posts I've made about the HP and black level lately.


If someone does have the programming skills to tackle such a project, I'm sure many of us here would like to have some input on how it would look and function. Anyone interested?


----------



## FLBoy

Joe, I'll see if I can come up with a few drawings along the lines of your 5:50 PM post to make the screen gain calc easier to use. It will take a few days, as I too have some other projects I'm working on.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/16950865
> 
> 
> Joe, I'll see if I can come up with a few drawings along the lines of your 5:50 PM post to make the screen gain calc easier to use. It will take a few days, as I too have some other projects I'm working on.



Thanks. I've always wanted to ask if the FL stands for foot lamberts, or are you a pilot?


I just might motivate myself enough to tackle this project in a month or two. It's been a while since I used Director (Macromedia back then, but Adobe now). I think all the math functions I'd need would be in Lingo, the scripting language. I'm already getting some ideas in my head about how it might look. I like to have a project in mind when I tackle something I'm not quite sure how to do. I taught myself Director back in 1999 by doing a CD Rom on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I wanted to learn Director, but I always find it easier to do when I set some goals. I forced myself to do things in the CD Rom that I hadn't a clue about how to approach. In the case of Buffy, one of the things was to create a trivia game that kept track of scores and gave appropriate answers to the user as they answered questions. It also played video and audio clips and displayed photos, things that could work to illustrate differences in screens, too.


Buffy is still my favorite TV show of all time. Learning Director by doing the Buffy project was a lot of fun. Something like that can be a real chore if I go into it with just a tutorial or book to teach me.


----------



## noah katz

I'm not sure pictures are going to help.


I think the problem is most people's lack of grasp of the relationship between CR, brightness, and black level, and even more than that, the nature of our vision perception,.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/16951392
> 
> 
> I'm not sure pictures are going to help.
> 
> 
> I think the problem is most people's lack of grasp of the relationship between CR, brightness, and black level, and even more than that, the nature of our vision perception,.



I don't think pictures will do much of anything to help people understand those concepts, Noah. I just think pictures or illustrations of the rooms (not screen shots) might prevent some people from buying the wrong screen, or make it less likely that they would make home theater design decisions that would be foolish - such as ceiling mounting a projector for use with an HP screen, whose gain would be destroyed by a ceiling mount.


If people make the wrong decisions initially, they've wasted time and money and might never get the results they want without redesigning or buying new equipment. I've read plenty of posts that tell me this sort of thing happens all too ofter. A friend of mine had an "installer" about to talk him into doing a ceiling mount for his Pearl with an HP screen, until I showed him my room and told him why it was a bad idea. When I first talked to my buddy about the HP, I told him not to ceiling mount, but until he saw my room, he didn't really get it.


But, hey, I'm all ears. Are drawings just a bad idea? What do you guys think?


----------



## noah katz

"foolish - such as ceiling mounting a projector for use with an HP screen, whose gain would be destroyed by a ceiling mount."


IMO "ceiling" mount is often too quickly dismissed.


My pj is in a closet behind the back wall, 7' from the floor, which functionally qualifies it as a ceiling mount.


I estimate I'm getting about 1.8 gain, along with the brightness uniformity, light rejection, and freedom from showing waves.


This is with a throw of 2.2:1 and seating about halfway back.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/16950965
> 
> 
> Thanks. I've always wanted to ask if the FL stands for foot lamberts, or are you a pilot?



Heh, when I first became a member of this forum, I don't think I knew what a foot-Lambert was. The FL was meant to stand for Florida. I'm not a native Floridian, but I've spent most of my adult life here, and I was happy to be back after a five-year hiatus in TX.


You're not the first to see the "y" either. (A member once responded to one of my posts, addressing me as FlyBoy.) In my wilder days I did learn to fly and eventually became an instrument rated private pilot, but I haven't flown in almost 40 years--except as an airline passenger. Since it's been so long, I don't think of myself as a pilot any more, although technically I'm still licensed. [/OT]


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/16952277
> 
> 
> "foolish - such as ceiling mounting a projector for use with an HP screen, whose gain would be destroyed by a ceiling mount."
> 
> 
> IMO "ceiling" mount is often too quickly dismissed.
> 
> 
> My pj is in a closet behind the back wall, 7' from the floor, which functionally qualifies it as a ceiling mount.
> 
> 
> I estimate I'm getting about 1.8 gain, along with the brightness uniformity, light rejection, and freedom from showing waves.
> 
> 
> This is with a throw of 2.2:1 and seating about halfway back.



Point taken. For me, a high mount destroys too much gain for the HP to be of much benefit. I'm also someone who often points out that the HP is a beautiful, affordable screen with good qualities over and above high gain. OK, so the individual variables mean my idea probably wouldn't help that many people.


I think maybe if you took the idea and combined it with a prediction of the actual foot-lamberts coming off the screen (along with a slider that went from, say, "Man, I'm blind!" to "Dude, where are my sunglasses?"), it might help. But, that's way too complicated, and, we're back to confusing the average Joe looking for easy answers.


Thanks, Noah. You just saved me a lot of time.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/16953355
> 
> 
> Heh, when I first became a member of this forum, I don't think I knew what a foot-Lambert was. The FL was meant to stand for Florida. I'm not a native Floridian, but I've spent most of my adult life here, and I was happy to be back after a five-year hiatus in TX.
> 
> 
> You're not the first to see the "y" either. (A member once responded to one of my posts, addressing me as FlyBoy.) In my wilder days I did learn to fly and eventually became an instrument rated private pilot, but I haven't flown in almost 40 years--except as an airline passenger. Since it's been so long, I don't think of myself as a pilot any more, although technically I'm still licensed. [/OT]



Oh, I didn't see a "Y" there. Lately, it's my writing that's dyslexic, not my reading. I mean one thing but write another.










Now that you have so much AVS seniority, you can claim that FL stands for Florida, foot-lambert AND flyboy. I'll never look at your name the same way again.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/16953473
> 
> 
> I'll never look at your name the same way again.



LOL


----------



## noah katz

"Thanks, Noah. You just saved me a lot of time. "


You're welcome










Seems that the HP gain calculator, wherever it is, ought to be stickied.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/16955030
> 
> 
> "Thanks, Noah. You just saved me a lot of time. "
> 
> 
> You're welcome
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems that the HP gain calculator, wherever it is, ought to be stickied.



Good idea. Why don't you request that?


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/16955030
> 
> 
> "Thanks, Noah. You just saved me a lot of time. "
> 
> 
> You're welcome
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems that the HP gain calculator, wherever it is, ought to be stickied.



Thank you Noah. There's a link to it in my sig. I changed the name to All Screen Gain Calculator when I added angular reflective capability to the original retro only.


----------



## jostenmeat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/16953436
> 
> 
> Point taken. For me, a high mount destroys too much gain for the HP to be of much benefit. I'm also someone who often points out that the HP is a beautiful, affordable screen with good qualities over and above high gain. OK, so the individual variables mean my idea probably wouldn't help that many people.



Just so you know, many here use ceiling with this screen, myself included. As with Noah's setup, the relative lengthwise distance might make the angle not so large to begin with. Then how about people with multi rows? I have 2 rows, ceiling mounted at 6' (_and that's after I raised it some more with the new bulb!_), and to be quite honest, the difference in perceived brightness between center seating in the two rows is very minimal to me, perhaps not even discernible. The bigger angle comes at the extreme sides of the seating, only really noticeable to me at the extremes of the front row (2 rows of four). YMMV.


Setup, "big picture", is everything. BTW, I used to have it on top of a bookshelf, pretty much at identical height. The mount was not only for the cleaner look, but so the LFE wouldn't shake my picture anymore.


----------



## noah katz

"I changed the name to All Screen Gain Calculator when I added angular reflective capability to the original retro only."


Ah, when I saw "All" I assumed it meant just regular screens.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/16956525
> 
> 
> Ah, when I saw "All" I assumed it meant just regular screens.



Oops, maybe "All" wasn't such a good choice. Others may have thought the same thing. I also added a new feature to the second generation calculator. The calculator now simultaneously computes the gain not only at the screen center but also at the left and right edges of the screen, so it gives a snapshot of the horizontal gain uniformity. You can do some really interesting things with that by playing around with the PJ throw.


----------



## sharpnine

I have been using a HP screen in my home theater/family room for about five years. I love it and it works great--I couldn't be happier with it. The room has a problem keeping light out during the daylight hours, but the HP screen makes it still usable. You can sit down in the sweet spot if you need to, to get maximum brightness. At night it doesn't really matter where you sit--it's all good. I have a table mounted projector (actually under the top of a coffee table) so you can sit right behind it.

I think it's all about contrast ratio, not absolute brightness. You've probably heard that the black text in a newspaper, when viewing outside in the sunlight, reflects more light than the white part of the paper when viewed indoors. But that doesn't mean the paper looks bad or washed out, when viewed outside. In fact some may see it as having even more contrast and be easier to read. The HP screen doesn't change contrast--it just boosts brightness. It allows it to shed ambient light, not be reducing ambient light but by increasing the bright parts. In the evening I can easily (and quite often) watch a movie with a light on in the room. The lights are positioned to the side, where they fill the room with low-medium light (good enough to read by) without having great effect on the picture quality unless you were to be sitting way off to the side where the light source is.


Sorry if I reiterated stuff others have said (I probably did)--I didn't read all the posts in this huge thread.


I am getting a new projector tomorrow and look forward to seeing even better picture quality.


----------



## noah katz

"It allows it to shed ambient light, not be reducing ambient light but by increasing the bright parts. "


Actually the directionality does allow it to reduce ambient from everywhere except the viewing position, increasing on-screen CR over a non-directional screen.


----------



## mjg100




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chad T* /forum/post/16927361
> 
> 
> Yeah, I think you're getting a bit worked up when (I think) we're basically all saying the same thing with different words. I haven't re-read the thread, but I don't really recall people saying that a HP affects black/white representation in a non-linear fashion (if that's what you're indeed saying). It simply makes things brighter.
> 
> *The simplest way that I know to say it is that if you put an all black image on a 1.0 or 1.1 gain screen, then put the same image on a HP screen (properly setup to get a good amount of gain), then blacks WILL appear more washed out because the image has been made brighter by the positive gain.
> *
> 
> BTW, I have tried several different screens (see my sig) and I use pretty much the same black/white level calibration settings on my Epson HC720 for all of the screens.



That is a lot of the problem. People buy a small swatch of HP screen and stick it on their existing screen for a comparison. Invariably they end up placing the HP sample on a dark section of the image and the HP sample looks brighter than their existing screen. This leads them to think the HP image will be washed out. I agree that black level is raised, but so is the white level and contrast is not any less than it was. Then all of these instant experts come on here and try to tell others that the black levels on HP screens is not any good. If they would go see a full sized HP screen that is properly set up then they would become a believer. My Marantz VP-12S4 and 106" HP screen looks like a giant plasma TV and I am very happy with it. For a living room set up I can't imagine using anything else.


----------



## Scrimpin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jostenmeat* /forum/post/16955905
> 
> 
> Just so you know, many here use ceiling with this screen, myself included. As with Noah's setup, the relative lengthwise distance might make the angle not so large to begin with. Then how about people with multi rows? I have 2 rows, ceiling mounted at 6' (_and that's after I raised it some more with the new bulb!_), and to be quite honest, the difference in perceived brightness between center seating in the two rows is very minimal to me, perhaps not even discernible. The bigger angle comes at the extreme sides of the seating, only really noticeable to me at the extremes of the front row (2 rows of four). YMMV.
> 
> 
> Setup, "big picture", is everything. BTW, I used to have it on top of a bookshelf, pretty much at identical height. The mount was not only for the cleaner look, but so the LFE wouldn't shake my picture anymore.



I am curious how many others are using their HP as ceiling mount. I used the Gain Calculator spreadsheet and got results in the 1.45-1.5 range with a ceiling mounted application which seems still to be quite reasonable especially knowing that I can extend my bulb life by moving the projector down to table mount later on. The HP is sounding like a pretty good option.


What is the material like to handle?? I would prefer to buy the fabric (or a basic B pull down model) and mount fabric to my own frame.


----------



## GoCaboNow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Scrimpin* /forum/post/16974322
> 
> 
> I am curious how many others are using their HP as ceiling mount. I used the Gain Calculator spreadsheet and got results in the 1.45-1.5 range with a ceiling mounted application which seems still to be quite reasonable especially knowing that I can extend my bulb life by moving the projector down to table mount later on. The HP is sounding like a pretty good option.
> 
> 
> What is the material like to handle?? I would prefer to buy the fabric (or a basic B pull down model) and mount fabric to my own frame.



You can also order the fabric with the snaps already on them. I think they called it a da-snap replacement screen or something? You just have to be really careful with the high power screen material, compared to standard material if you are going to work it into your own frame. If you torque it a little the micro beads will come loose leaving white lines to the naked eye and a black line to the projector. Good luck! I love mine mounted at eye level


----------



## noah katz

I think many have found that it's cheaper to buy a pulldown HP and take out the fabric than to buy the fabric alone.


----------



## GoCaboNow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/16977767
> 
> 
> I think many have found that it's cheaper to buy a pulldown HP and take out the fabric than to buy the fabric alone.



When I was looking, it was something like $200-300ish more for the fabric over a similar 116" wide pull down. This brought it into the electric range so I opted for the electric.


----------



## Elkhunter

You're not going to believe this. The door bell rang a few minutes ago. It was the UPS guy with my second HP sample from Da-Lite.


This one is twice as big as the first sample that I had (2'x2' vs 1'x1'). I'll get the sample tacked to the wall after dinner tonight.


Based on the first sample that I looked at a year ago, the blacks are going to suck.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Elkhunter* /forum/post/16978354
> 
> 
> Based on the first sample that I looked at a year ago, the blacks are going to suck.



Not if you turn your lamp down, close your manual iris or go to a bigger screen. (HWGA







)


----------



## xb1032

...or buy a better projector.


----------



## Chad T




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Elkhunter* /forum/post/16978354
> 
> 
> Based on the first sample that I looked at a year ago, the blacks are going to suck.



After the ad nauseum black level discussion in the last 100 or so posts, I have to wonder if that comment is said with humor.


----------



## Joseph Clark

I didn't say a word.


----------



## Chadci

What's a fair asking price for a 2.5 year old 119" manual pull down with black case? It's in perfect shape, but, I need to go with a smaller size... and possibly an electric if I can swing it.


----------



## xb1032




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chadci* /forum/post/16981130
> 
> 
> What's a fair asking price for a 2.5 year old 119" manual pull down with black case? It's in perfect shape, but, I need to go with a smaller size... and possibly an electric if I can swing it.



i found a 119' 16:9 HP Model C online for $499 shipped (white case). About $15-$20 for a black case. I would discount from there.


----------



## Chadci




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xb1032* /forum/post/16984164
> 
> 
> i found a 119' 16:9 HP Model C online for $499 shipped (white case). About $15-$20 for a black case. I would discount from there.



Yeah, shipping is going to be killer. When I bought this screen I sold a 92" Graywolf and the estimates were way off... I ended up losing money on that sale.


----------



## xb1032




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chadci* /forum/post/16987255
> 
> 
> Yeah, shipping is going to be killer. When I bought this screen I sold a 92" Graywolf and the estimates were way off... I ended up losing money on that sale.



I have an Elite screen that I am trying to sell as well. I'm hoping I can sell it locally to avoid shipping costs.


----------



## Twinsen

I just received my 106" Da Lite High Power Model B Pull-Down and it's absolutely AMAZING with my BenQ W5000. Well...only amazing when I stand on a latter to put my head next to the projector. So now I have to figure out how I'm going to mount the projector to work with the screen. I may just fashion a drop-extension rather than creating a shelf mount. I need a new house with a longer throw distance. Hate my current theater room's limitations!


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Twinsen* /forum/post/16989574
> 
> *I need a new house* with a longer throw distance. Hate my current theater room's limitations!



The home theater sickness has progressed to an alarming degree when you start talking like that!


----------



## Twinsen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/16989683
> 
> 
> The home theater sickness has progressed to an alarming degree when you start talking like that!



LOL!!! Well, ever since I got my BenQ w5000 about 6 months ago, it was one of my first thoughts. My current setup just doesn't do the w5000 justice. My last projector was a Panasonic AE500U. It would throw a 116" image at 14". Didn't know that the w5000 was much larger than the AE500, so I lost about an " of throw distance with just the size alone. So at about 13" it throws 92". Which still isn't BAD, but I know it would be much larger at maybe 17-18" at least.


So I'm clearing up my credit and preparing for re-financing my current home, then I will start looking for a new home with the primary focus of my future entertainment room.


----------



## maxleung

13" away from the screen to get 92"? Whoa, that's a really short throw!


----------



## FLBoy

Twinsen: You don't need to trade houses to get a larger image!







You just need to trade your projector for one with a larger zoom ratio. My JVC RS10, for example, can zoom up to a 126-inch diagonal at a throw of 12.5 feet.


----------



## Twinsen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maxleung* /forum/post/16994528
> 
> 
> 13" away from the screen to get 92"? Whoa, that's a really short throw!



lol, I wish! You know I meant 13'!











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/16995184
> 
> 
> Twinsen: You don't need to trade houses to get a larger image!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just need to trade your projector for one with a larger zoom ratio. My JVC RS10, for example, can zoom up to a 126-inch diagonal at a throw of 12.5 feet.



I do need to trade houses. I love my BenQ w5000! Especially now that I have dropped the projector down to the middle of the HiPower screen. It is SO much brighter and has more pop than before! But again...lost 2", now I have a 90" image. Still very much worth it!


----------



## AcademyDL

Hi all.

I have a Sanyo Plv-z60

1200 Lumens for those who may not know.

Mostly run on creative cinema or Brilliant cinema.

looking for a brighter experience and want to restore some of the

contrast that Im loosing on the brighter settings.

Also, want to preserve the bulb if possible.


Seriously considering the High Power Da-Lite


current setup:

Throw is 17'6" from a book shelf setup onto 106" screen


I sit about 11' feet back from screen and projector is about 2' feet

above my head level.

Is this going to be to high?


Add a little more info..


projector is about 5' feet from the floor

and bottom of viewable screen is at eye level

What do you think my Gain would be with this setup?


Seating is directly in front of screen. (no side seating)

Problem with moving the projector lower is that if I move at all then

I am blocking my projectors line of sight to the screen.


What do you guys suggest? Is the High Power a good candidate for me?

experience appreciated.


Best Regards,

-Justin


----------



## AcademyDL

Da-Lite High power model differences?


is the

Model B

or C

more susceptible to sagging or wrinkling?



-Any of you with the Model B having problems with sagging or

wrinkling uneven stretching?


Same question for the Model C owners.


Can you owners chime in on your screen quality status?


-What size your Screen is and if you own a model "B" or "C"


-Also how long you have owned yours would be valuable information


----------



## LMeister




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thrang* /forum/post/14904716
> 
> 
> I do love my high power screen, but I'm on my third one from Da-Lite - perhaps a bad run, but I've had faint horizontal banding on mine. This latest is the best of the three, and it's something I can ignore in most instances, but it's there. Da-Lite sent a rep out to see it, and confirmed it, but could never tell me what it was.
> 
> 
> While it's a poor way of showing it, I put up a video that, if you look carefully, you can see the issue. It's noticeable in lighter, more solid areas, and is confirmed not projector or reflection related
> 
> http://gallery.me.com/gbastug#100236



Thrang,


Just curious if your HP screen continued to exhibit this behavior over time. Mine just began to do this as well. I notice it particularly on a white screen background and have eliminated projector and ambient light. I searched this thread but could not find whether this was resolved.


My first theory was that we went away on vacation for several days and I may have retracted the screen. It's as if there's a minute detent in the material all the way across the screen. This explains the line, but the entire region above this line seems 'dimmer'.


Thanks


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AcademyDL* /forum/post/17023791
> 
> What do you think my Gain would be with this setup?



Use my All Screen Gain Calculator (linked below) to find out. The default screen parameters are for the High Power. Just enter your HT geometry values.


----------



## Scrimpin

I found your spreadsheet to be very helpful. I did some modifications for my own use to calculate the gain and uniformity at each seating position which then enabled me to find an optimal projector height and distance from screen for all seats in the house. What really surprised me (and lead me to go with an angular reflective screen vs HP) was how difficult it is to place the projector with a HP screen if you have two levels of seats. My findings were that if my goal was to maintain screen uniformity in both rows side to side (12 ft room) the best I could accomplish with the HP was in the 1.2-1.3 gain range front row which gave about 1.4-1.5 in back row. Still not too shabby but not really taking advantage of the HP's significant high gain potential.


----------



## thrang




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LMeister* /forum/post/17025217
> 
> 
> Thrang,
> 
> 
> Just curious if your HP screen continued to exhibit this behavior over time. Mine just began to do this as well. I notice it particularly on a white screen background and have eliminated projector and ambient light. I searched this thread but could not find whether this was resolved.
> 
> 
> My first theory was that we went away on vacation for several days and I may have retracted the screen. It's as if there's a minute detent in the material all the way across the screen. This explains the line, but the entire region above this line seems 'dimmer'.
> 
> 
> Thanks



In my case, they replaced it a final time, after having told me they made some minor changes in the formulations - this one is by far the best - extremely difficult to ever see any banding.


Mind you, mine is fixed, so I could not blame a roller. I was told a few others had complained along with me, and they made this change in formulation/application to address the issue - this is going back about four or five months....


----------



## AcademyDL




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thrang* /forum/post/17028179
> 
> 
> In my case, they replaced it a final time, after having told me they made some minor changes in the formulations - this one is by far the best - extremely difficult to ever see any banding.
> 
> 
> Mind you, mine is fixed, so I could not blame a roller. I was told a few others had complained along with me, and they made this change in formulation/application to address the issue - this is going back about four or five months....



When you received yours did you notice the changes?

Could you tell what improvements were made in the design to prevent this

from happening?


Like a reinforced backing or something like that?


----------



## thrang




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AcademyDL* /forum/post/17029829
> 
> 
> When you received yours did you notice the changes?
> 
> Could you tell what improvements were made in the design to prevent this
> 
> from happening?
> 
> 
> Like a reinforced backing or something like that?



I could not see any physical changes, other than the (near) elimination of the artifact.


I always looked at the issue as some anomaly during the application of the material (is it rolled on in liquid form?), drying, or storage of the production rolls that caused the subtle but repetitive darkening. I never got a clear answer as to what the root cause was, nor can I tell from inspecting the screen what they did, but was just pleased it was finally fixed - Da-Lite worked well with me on the issue...


----------



## johnifehr

I got hp, video spectra 1.5 and glass beaded samples from da-light and tested them last night (i'm comparing to 106" 1 gain matte white) and must say wow that hp on whites is like a flashlight shining you in the eyes and colors were outstanding ,but the black levels were also increased quite abit and against black masking it was obvious to the eye, the glass beaded, pure junk, gain hardy noticable but sparkles were, The Video Spectra 1.5 had a noticable gain in whites and color but blacks were hardly affected, If I do decide between these 3 I would have to say the Video Spectra is the clear winner as it had the best balance between the blacks and whites, although non dark scenes the hp looked the best but given 60 percent of films have lots of dark scenes its hard giving up the dark blacks that match the black felt masking around the screen.


----------



## Joseph Clark

I have a question. I know that the gain an HP delivers does not mean that the black levels of any projector have to suffer, as long as I use several different methods to prevent it. My question is, if I don't need the HP's gain, which screens will deliver a comparable level of detail, and color and brightness uniformity, yet be angular reflective?


I love the many non-brightness related advantages of the HP and I'm considering putting another projector in a secondary room if and when a 3D film standard emerges within the next year or so. Ceiling mounting such a projector is going to be just about the only viable alternative, and the short throw, seating position and projector height mean the HP won't work well there. The screen size will be relatively small, so brightness probably won't be an issue. I was wondering which angular reflective screens would give an image comparable to what the HP can deliver, and at close to the same price. Any suggestions?


(Although the first paragraph contains a not-so-subtly hidden crack about black level, my question is genuine.)


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/17037188
> 
> 
> I was wondering which angular reflective screens would give an image comparable to what the HP can deliver, and at close to the same price. Any suggestions?



Based on reviews here and on a sample that I have (I've not seen the full sized screen), I would seriously consider the Carada in Brilliant White for use with a ceiling mounted PJ. Of course this presumes you are looking for a fixed frame. BTW, I don't much care for their CCW material, because of its translucency.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/17038262
> 
> 
> Based on reviews here and on a sample that I have (I've not seen the full sized screen), I would seriously consider the Carada in Brilliant White for use with a ceiling mounted PJ. Of course this presumes you are looking for a fixed frame. BTW, I don't much care for their CCW material, because of its translucency.



Thanks. I'll check it out.


----------



## sharpnine

For about 10 years I used a draper matte white (1.0 gain) pulldown screen. Around five years ago I got a high-power fixed (perm-wall) screen, the same size, and mounted it to the wall where the pulldown had been. The pulldown comes down a couple inches from the wall, and could still be pulled down without bumping into the high-power, so I left it in place thinking that depending on the situation I might want to view the matte white screen. I makes it very easy to compare--any time I can pull down the matte white half way or all the way.


I have done this many times but never actually chosen to watch anything on the matte white. The high-power always looks as good or better to me, from every viewing angle. From the side angles it doesn't look much different--from the center it looks very much better. I would have taken the pulldown off years ago except I am lazy and it is not noticeable, mounted under a custom-built overhang (and I don't think it would be worth trying to sell it). Black levels are definitely important to me, and I would choose the matte white if it gave any better (perceived) black levels, but it doesn't.


----------



## noah katz

"My question is, if I don't need the HP's gain, which screens will deliver a comparable level of detail, and color and brightness uniformity, yet be angular reflective?... Ceiling mounting such a projector is going to be just about the only viable alternative, and the short throw, seating position and projector height mean the HP won't work well there."


Joseph, I'm not quite following - the only thing that won't work is the gain aspect, and I thought you don't need it.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/17040544
> 
> 
> "My question is, if I don't need the HP's gain, which screens will deliver a comparable level of detail, and color and brightness uniformity, yet be angular reflective?... Ceiling mounting such a projector is going to be just about the only viable alternative, and the short throw, seating position and projector height mean the HP won't work well there."
> 
> 
> Joseph, I'm not quite following - the only thing that won't work is the gain aspect, and I thought you don't need it.



My head would be about 5 feet below the lens. I'd lose most of the HP's gain in that setting. I might even be in negative gain territory. An angular reflective screen would work better. I just wanted to know which screen fabrics might have a surface that's as free of artifacts (sparklies, non-uniformity issues, grain, etc.) as the HP. Clear?


----------



## johnifehr

The video spectra is a 1.5 gain and is angular reflective, the hp even with my head 4 feet below projector was still extremely bright, the only way it dimmed was when I went off to the side


----------



## noah katz

gotcha


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *johnifehr* /forum/post/17041201
> 
> 
> The video spectra is a 1.5 gain and is angular reflective, the hp even with my head 4 feet below projector was still extremely bright, the only way it dimmed was when I went off to the side



What were your throw and viewing distance?


----------



## johnifehr

throw 10 feet 6 inches and veiwing 11 foot 6.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *johnifehr* /forum/post/17041899
> 
> 
> throw 10 feet 6 inches and veiwing 11 foot 6.



Your HP gain would have been less than 1.0 with that geometry and the PJ 4' above your head. Off to the side the gain would have dropped to about 0.7.


The HP is certainly usable at low gain, but I would hardly characterize it as "extremely bright."


----------



## johnifehr

beleive me you it was way brighter than my 1 gain screen not even close, but the black levels are not acceptable for me. Even my wife was amazed how extremely bright the whites were.


----------



## FLBoy

John, you had to be standing by your existing 1.0 gain screen and holding a sample of the HP material up against it to see what you saw. That way, your line of sight to the sample and the projector's line of sight to the sample would have been nearly parallel, and you would have seen nearly the maximum possible gain on the HP sample.


If I'm right thus far, try letting your wife hold the HP sample in place while you go and sit down in your normal viewing position. You should then see the gain of the HP sample drop to about 1.0 if your PJ is 4' over your head. Please let us know the results so we can clear up this mystery.


----------



## johnifehr

I actually hung all three samples the hp, video spectra and the glass beaded against my screen and watched a movie on it 1/2 hour through wife asked me to take them down cause it was to annoying for her but it really showed me where each screen shined the most, and the hp was just crazzy bright especially the whites, and the video spectra was still way dimmer than the hp which is even angular, but still brighter than my matte white. The top of the screen is level with the lens, and I have used your calculator in the past and I came up with 1.2 gain but it is definetly way more to the eye, yeah I know thats odd but mine or my wifes eyes both seen it and I went and tried playin around with it last night again and the hp is just way brighter than all the screens at my normal veiwing, I would definetly buy it if The blacks didn't suffer, but I wish I could really experiment with a full hp screen then adjust the projector to the screen just to see if the blacks could be made acceptable.


----------



## astronomer

I used a 92-inch-diagonal HDTV format Video Spectra screen very successfully for years with my 1280 x 720p Sanyo PLV-Z2 projector, but when I replaced it with a PLV-Z2000 1920 x 1080p projector I noticed fuzzy, shimmering approximately vertical bars in some areas, depending on brightness and contrast. It just turns out that the characteristic matte roughness scale for this size screen is close enough to the pixel separation distance with 1920 pixels that Moire patterns result--I found this very distracting. It was possible to adjust the zoom by several % either way and eliminate the problem entirely, but that's not a satisfactory solution! I evaluated the free samples from Da-Lite and then purchased a High Power screen--which is glass beaded, not dimpled matte--and the distance from bead to bead is much smaller than the 1080p pixel size; this works perfectly. I find the drop in brightness with viewing angle not to be a problem with the projector sitting on a table at a height of 1.5 feet, with an offset to the center of our chairs of about 3 feet. It would, of course, be worse with a ceiling mount. My advice is to beware any of the Da-Lite matte screens with dimpled surfaces with the 92-inch diagonal and 1920 x 1080 pixels. A larger screen size would be fine.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *johnifehr* /forum/post/17044694
> 
> 
> I would definetly buy it if The blacks didn't suffer, but I wish I could really experiment with a full hp screen then adjust the projector to the screen just to see if the blacks could be made acceptable.



If a screen (any screen) adds too much brightness to your image, lowering black levels is one of the easiest things in home theater to do. The HP is no different than any other screen in this regard.


----------



## FLBoy

John, I really can't explain the unexpected results--unless your PJ is lower than I think it is, or your seating is unusually high. If you hung the samples at the top of your screen, the HP would have a slight bump in gain, but not enough to take it past the Video Spectra. Is the VS hung in the center of your screen (R to L) and about halfway between your PJ height and your viewing height? That's where it should be the brightest.


Regarding the black level issue, I think you would find that to be much less of a problem on a full HP screen. As long as you have a lower gain screen as the background for a higher gain sample, the black level of the lower gain screen will make you perceive anything higher as gray--if that makes sense.


----------



## noah katz

"the hp is just way brighter than all the screens at my normal veiwing, I would definetly buy it if The blacks didn't suffer, but I wish I could really experiment with a full hp screen then adjust the projector to the screen just to see if the blacks could be made acceptable."


While direct comparison sounds like the best to compare, in fact it's very misleading because of the way our eyes work; google on optical illusions and look at the ones related to contrast perception.


The HP's blacks will look a lot darker in isolation.


----------



## Joseph Clark

I think the perfect screen would be completely black (that is, it didn't reflect any light striking it from the front), with the light coming from behind each pixel at whatever level it needed to. That would represent as nearly perfect (infinite) contrast as possible. How one might achieve that perfect pixel "shutter" I don't know, but it would eliminate the projector from the equation. One of these days, I think we'll have a flat TV wallpaper that will achieve this. I might even live to see it.


----------



## Alex solomon

I just bought a JVC RS2 and I am torn between Carada BW and the HP. My screen is going to be between 106-110", throw distance @17', seating distance @16'. The HT room is totally dark with dark wall and ceiling. I want to place the PJ on a wall mount. anywhere from 2.5' feet above the seating position all the way to the 8 ' ceiling. I could also mount it on the ceiling but prefer to wall/shelf mount it. Questions:


Is the HP going to be TOO bright for my room? Is HP a better choice than the Carada BW for my setup and room?


Would I be giving up a good amount of balck level with the HP? If so, would a ND filter help?


I am a sucker for brightness but would not want to give up black level either. One of the reason I got the RS2 among many is for it's black level. I want that Kuro plasma picture @ 110". Help, please HELP!!!


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alex solomon* /forum/post/17045650
> 
> 
> I just bought a JVC RS2 and I am torn between Carada BW and the HP. My screen is going to be between 106-110", throw distance @17', seating distance @16'. The HT room is totally dark with dark wall and ceiling. I want to place the PJ on a wall mount. anywhere from 2.5' feet above the seating position all the way to the 8 ' ceiling. I could also mount it on the ceiling but prefer to wall/shelf mount it. Questions:
> 
> 
> Is the HP going to be TOO bright for my room? Is HP a better choice than the Carada BW for my setup and room?
> 
> 
> Would I be giving up a good amount of balck level with the HP? If so, would a ND filter help?
> 
> 
> I am a sucker for brightness but would not want to give up black level either. One of the reason I got the RS2 among many is for it's black level. I want that Kuro plasma picture @ 110". Help, please HELP!!!



Use FLBoy's "All Screen Gain Calculator" (see above) to find out what sort of gain you would get with the two screens. There's no such thing as too bright with the HP. If it's too bright after you add the screen, you can use ND filters and/or your projector's brightness/contrast controls to get the black level where you want it. There are very happy JVC/HP users here.










We had a lengthy discussion about this not so long ago. The fact is that the oft-repeated question about the HP damaging black level has made the myth so widespread that there's probably no way to eliminate it. But it's just that - a myth. Do a thread search on black levels if you want to read more than you'd ever want to about the issue.


----------



## Alex solomon

^^^^Thanks, JC.


----------



## FLBoy

Alex: I use a 100" HP with the RS10. It's not too bright IMO. I run on low lamp power and medium lens aperture. My HT is quite small with only two main viewing positions. When company comes over, they get the two main seats, and we locals drag up additional "off sweet spot" seats.


I have read a few of your earlier posts in another thread. You seem to have a larger, multi-level HT. With the HP you will be able to "tune" your PJ position to maximize the gain for two seats in any row. All other seats inevitably will have substantially lower gain.


With the Carada BW you will get a more consistent gain from seat to seat. It won't be nearly as great as the HP in the best seats, however. That's the choice you have to make. Hope this helps.


----------



## noah katz

"If it's too bright after you add the screen, you can use ND filters and/or your projector's brightness/contrast controls to get the black level where you want it."


You can, but only at the expense of CR - lowering contrast reduces brightness w/o lowering black level, and if the black level can be lowered w/o crushing blacks it wasn't set properly to begin with.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/17046045
> 
> 
> "If it's too bright after you add the screen, you can use ND filters and/or your projector's brightness/contrast controls to get the black level where you want it."
> 
> 
> You can, but only at the expense of CR - lowering contrast reduces brightness w/o lowering black level, and if the black level can be lowered w/o crushing blacks it wasn't set properly to begin with.



I was talking about adjusting both contrast and black level after adding an HP. Say, for instance, the HP gave you a gain of 2.5 compared to your previous screen's gain of 1. The previous black level adjustment on your projector might have been fine (black not crushed), but not after the overall light level was raised by a factor of 2.5. Both contrast and brightness would need to be adjusted. Given a contrast/brightness recalibration after adding the new screen, are you saying that the CR would suffer?


At the risk of continuing a train of thought that probably shouldn't leave the station again, I don't get that.


----------



## Alex solomon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/17046008
> 
> 
> Alex: I use a 100" HP with the RS10. It's not too bright IMO. I run on low lamp power and medium lens aperture. My HT is quite small with only two main viewing positions. When company comes over, they get the two main seats, and we locals drag up additional "off sweet spot" seats.
> 
> 
> I have read a few of your earlier posts in another thread. You seem to have a larger, multi-level HT. With the HP you will be able to "tune" your PJ position to maximize the gain for two seats in any row. All other seats inevitably will have substantially lower gain.
> 
> 
> With the Carada BW you will get a more consistent gain from seat to seat. It won't be nearly as great as the HP in the best seats, however. That's the choice you have to make. Hope this helps.



My main objective is to maximize the picture quality at the main seat, my seat, which is located at the center of the room. As long as I can get a plasma like picture without sacrificing black level, I will go for it. I will mount the PJ and use it with my existing 92" Da-Lite white matte. That would give me an idea what the Carada BW would look like since the gain close to the Da-lite. If not happy I will jump ship to the HP. Does the HP require special placement? If this thread has all that info, I will read it from the begining. Thank you all for your help.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alex solomon* /forum/post/17046243
> 
> 
> My main objective is to maximize the picture quality at the main seat, my seat, which is located at the center of the room. As long as I can get a plasma like picture without sacrificing black level, I will go for it. I will mount the PJ and use it with my existing 92" Da-Lite white matte. That would give me an idea what the Carada BW would look like since the gain close to the Da-lite. If not happy I will jump ship to the HP. Does the HP require special placement? If this thread has all that info, I will read it from the begining. Thank you all for your help.



That should work. Sounds like you'll be in a good position to achieve decent gain with an HP. FLBoy's gain calculator will give you more precise numbers, after you do the math based on your seating position. The way the HP works is that it bounces the most light back to the source it came from (the lens). The closer you can get your head to that line of projection, the greater the gain. The further off to the side you go, the less gain you'll see. Similarly, if you raise the projector up several feet over your head, the gain will drop. Most people try to mount the projector close to eye level, but higher mounts can work, too. Again, use the gain calculator.


Some people don't need the HP's gain for their projectors. If you're in that camp, that's great. The HP does have other good qualities, though, such as the ability to shed ambient light from the side, and a beautiful, neutral surface. It doesn't call attention to itself. From where I sit, the only downside to the HP is that you have to sit in the "cone" of brightness to get the best gain. Even if you don't, the other qualities may make it a good choice.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alex solomon* /forum/post/17046243
> 
> 
> My main objective is to maximize the picture quality at the main seat, my seat, which is located at the center of the room. Does the HP require special placement?



Just what Joe said above. Place the projector lens close to your eyes at the main seat. You can either shoot at eye level between two main seats, or just above head level at one main seat. That will give you the highest gain--generally around 2.3. Fan noise will be a concern that close to the PJ, so make sure you have a quiet PJ and run the lamp at low power.


As Joe pointed out, you can always trim the brightness, if necessary, with an ND filter (or lens aperture adjustment, if your PJ has one). I do agree with Noah, though, that once the PJ brightness (black level) and contrast (white level) are set properly, they should not be affected by screen gain. Happy viewing!


----------



## Alex solomon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/17046703
> 
> 
> Just what Joe said above. Place the projector lens close to your eyes at the main seat. You can either shoot at eye level between two main seats, or just above head level at one main seat. That will give you the highest gain--generally around 2.3. Fan noise will be a concern that close to the PJ, so make sure you have a quiet PJ and run the lamp at low power.
> 
> 
> As Joe pointed out, you can always trim the brightness, if necessary, with an ND filter (or lens aperture adjustment, if your PJ has one). I do agree with Noah, though, that once the PJ brightness (black level) and contrast (white level) are set properly, they should not be affected by screen gain. Happy viewing!



My PJ is the JVC RS2. I hope it is quite. If I mount it just above my head it would be a inches away from my ears !!!! This PJ is so huge it will take up 20-22" of space from the wall. My seat is located 2' from the rear wall. Unless it is a whisper quite PJ, that would bother me a lot more than the loss of gain.


----------



## Alex solomon

Which Da-lite model comes with 2" masking borders on all sides? Is it the Model B or the DELUXE model B? Does AVS carry one of these?


----------



## Joseph Clark

My apologies, Noah. You are absolutely right that there is a point past which lowering the brightness control on a projector will crush blacks. There's no way around that (and it would affect contrast, just as you said). If the HP creates an image that's too bright, the only way to maintain the deepest possible black levels is to use a neutral density filter (or perhaps an iris or lamp setting). My comment, obviously, was not accurate. Sorry.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alex solomon* /forum/post/17046777
> 
> 
> My PJ is the JVC RS2. I hope it is quite. If I mount it just above my head it would be a inches away from my ears !!!! This PJ is so huge it will take up 20-22" of space from the wall. My seat is located 2' from the rear wall. Unless it is a whisper quite PJ, that would bother me a lot more than the loss of gain.



My PJ is the JVC RS10. It sits about 3 feet behind me at eye (and ear) level. I run the lamp on Normal (low power). I do not hear the fan at all. I have read that the RS2 is a quiet PJ as well, but you still might want to keep at least a foot or two between it and your head for reasons of both noise and heat.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alex solomon* /forum/post/17046787
> 
> 
> Which Da-lite model comes with 2" masking borders on all sides? Is it the Model B or the DELUXE model B? Does AVS carry one of these?



DELUXE.


AVS carries all Da-Lite models AFAIK.


----------



## Alex solomon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/17049367
> 
> 
> DELUXE.
> 
> 
> AVS carries all Da-Lite models AFAIK.



FLBoy to the rescue... once again. Thanks.


----------



## Zipplemeyer

Try the Pure Cinema preset with the HP. I'm guessing that with your 1 gain screen you do not use Pure Cinema due to lack of brightness, am I correct? When I demoed a Z2000 a while back the combination of the dim Pure Cinema setting with the gain boost of the HP gave a great image. Pure Cinema is the best, most color accurate, most natural preset on any of the Sanyos and the HP allows you to use it.


Moe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *johnifehr* /forum/post/17042685
> 
> 
> beleive me you it was way brighter than my 1 gain screen not even close, but the black levels are not acceptable for me. Even my wife was amazed how extremely bright the whites were.


----------



## johnifehr

I use a tweaked brilliant mode mainly but I do occassionaly use pure cinema, depending on what movie, I always have used eco mode which is still plenty bright enough but in pure cinema i do use high lamp, but there's something else missing in pure cinema, and I mostly prefer my Brilliant settings, Color is very good and accurate. One Screen I still would like to try is the Pearlescent from Da-light seems less screen texture than video spectra, both have 1.5 gain. HP just seems overkill, to much. My room is 100% light controlled too. Would like a screen with a happy medium. probably wouldn't even be looking at different screen if mine wouldn't have developed waves which it did quite a while ago but now its just distracting.


----------



## IanS

Hi all:


I am a newb, setting up my first projector. From reading, and checking out a few rooms in local HT shops, there are a couple of things that 'I think I think':


1. I prefer DLP over LCD - it just seems to have more 'impact', even if I'm not sure why


2. The High Power screen looks and sounds fantastic. I think it is what I am looking for to get 'impact'.


My problem is that my room only has 14'3" from wall to wall, and I'm on a budget. If I get something like an Infocus X10, I can only get up to a 92" screen, and from what I can tell reading here, the 36% offset will kill all advantages the High Power delivers. So what are my options for dealing with fixed offset DLP pj's and a HP screen? What is the poor man's DLP/High Power setup?


Thanks a lot.


----------



## noah katz

"the 36% offset will kill all advantages the High Power delivers."


only the gain, there are 3 others


----------



## Donhou

I just pulled the trigger and ordered HP 106" model B.

I really wanted much bigger (119" or 133"), but model C delivery costs to Europe were insane!!!


My purchase desision was inspired by this great thread. I`m really exited about this screen!!!!


----------



## xb1032




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Donhou* /forum/post/17077579
> 
> 
> I just pulled the trigger and ordered HP 106" model B.
> 
> I really wanted much bigger (119" or 133"), but model C delivery costs to Europe were insane!!!
> 
> 
> My purchase desision was inspired by this great thread. I`m really exited about this screen!!!!



I know the feeling. I wanted a bigger screen as well and ended up with a 106"er. Maybe some day.


----------



## nirvy111

When I equalise my HP screens gain with a white painted wall I really don't see any difference whatsoever in image quality between the two surfaces. When utilising the full gain of the HP there's no comparison, the image looks sharper with better color and more contrast but it would seem it' all due to the increased gain. I'm not sure what that means exactly but it made me wonder if all commercials screens, even the expensive ones are all about gain and not much else.


----------



## greg1292

Thanks for all the info on this thread about the high power screen.


I just installed a 159" screen in my basement and works great with my crt projector. Crt owners don't be scared just buy it!!!!!!!!!


Color shift no problem and I have no off axis viewing so cone doesn't effect my setup. Stay within 4ft left or right of the green crt and the picture is great.About 3 theater chairs wide! Contrast modulation is used to tweek in the image but not a must.


The impact of the image is hard to describe but T-REX from King Kong was chomping out of the screen with an almost 3d feel







My daughter jumped out of here seat a couple of times during the movie. White and black levels are improved as well as focus of the image.


All I am trying to say if your a crt person and on axis and want that wow factor then get hipower.

Off axis viewers or ceiling mount applications find a different screen.


Once again thanks for the great info and I hope this helps some people out!


----------



## IanS

I was wondering if you guys think that the impact and benefits of a high power, with pj near head level, are worth switching to LCD over?


I find I prefer the image of a DLP, but I cannot afford a DLP with lens shift. So the only way for me to get an image onto a HP from near head height would be by using an LCD pj. Are the benefits, of a HP worth it? I was thinking of something like the Viewsonic Pro8100. The majority of my viewing is sports TV, both HD and SD.


Thanks.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *IanS* /forum/post/17116139
> 
> 
> I was wondering if you guys think that the impact and benefits of a high power, with pj near head level, are worth switching to LCD over?
> 
> 
> I find I prefer the image of a DLP, but I cannot afford a DLP with lens shift. So the only way for me to get an image onto a HP from near head height would be by using an LCD pj. Are the benefits, of a HP worth it? I was thinking of something like the Viewsonic Pro8100. The majority of my viewing is sports TV, both HD and SD.
> 
> 
> Thanks.




I find that the HP screen kicks up even LCDs projectors to a DLP-like "pop" in the image. Even my poor old Panasonic AE900 projector with a bulb about to die took on a super vivid look on the HP screen.


Every time I've seen any projector on a neutral gain screen and then on the HP screen it was like seeing a different projector - there was a jump in image sharpness, image vividness, clarity, realism etc. If I wanted to impress someone with just how clear and vivid a projected HD image can be, the HP screen would be my choice for such a demo.


----------



## nirvy111




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *IanS* /forum/post/17116139
> 
> 
> I was wondering if you guys think that the impact and benefits of a high power, with pj near head level, are worth switching to LCD over?
> 
> 
> I find I prefer the image of a DLP, but I cannot afford a DLP with lens shift. So the only way for me to get an image onto a HP from near head height would be by using an LCD pj. Are the benefits, of a HP worth it? I was thinking of something like the Viewsonic Pro8100. The majority of my viewing is sports TV, both HD and SD.
> 
> 
> Thanks.



I think mostly what the HP screen does is increase brightness of the image and depending on how you set it up gain could be more than double than most angular reflective white screens. So if you want to get some idea of what your image can look like using the HP screen drop the image size by half. This is what I did before buying this screen and I knew straight away it was the way to go.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nirvy111* /forum/post/17119780
> 
> 
> I think mostly what the HP screen does is increase brightness of the image and depending on how you set it up gain could be more than double than most angular reflective white screens. So if you want to get some idea of what your image can look like using the HP screen drop the image size by half. This is what I did before buying this screen and I knew straight away it was the way to go.



If you can, it's best to reduce the size by moving the projector closer to the screen. Most (if not all) projectors have a substantial lumen drop when "zoomed" to a smaller image, so take that into account.


----------



## noah katz

"I find I prefer the image of a DLP, but I cannot afford a DLP with lens shift."


If you're willing to tolerate a moderate amount of keystone, which can be absorbed by your screen's border, there might be some viable candidates.


There's an online keystone calculator somewhere.


----------



## IanS




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/17123189
> 
> 
> "...If you're willing to tolerate a moderate amount of keystone, which can be absorbed by your screen's border, there might be some viable candidates...



Interesting. The upcoming Mitsubishi HC3800 (DLP), with it's shortish throw, quality glass lens and low audible noise, has caught my eye. I wonder if I could use keystone correction to mid-height mount it and use a High Power screen?


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *IanS* /forum/post/17123246
> 
> 
> Interesting. The upcoming Mitsubishi HC3800 (DLP), with it's shortish throw, quality glass lens and low audible noise, has caught my eye. I wonder if I could use keystone correction to mid-height mount it and use a High Power screen?



As long as we're accepting compromises here you can deal with some of that keystoning by tipping the top of the screen in a little. Because the screen is retro-reflective that won't change the sweet spot.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/17123274
> 
> 
> As long as we're accepting compromises here you can deal with some of that keystoning by tipping the top of the screen in a little. Because the screen is retro-reflective that won't change the sweet spot.



Yes, some folks tilt the screen in a little and the projector up a little to compensate for a fixed offset. I've read that there are some limits to how much you can do that, but it might even result in a better viewing environment. Has anyone here tried that little trick? I'd be interested in knowing how well it works and how you tilted the screen.


----------



## noah katz

I wonder if I could use keystone correction to mid-height mount it and use a High Power screen?


Try it

http://www.stephenmason.com/misc/projectorkeystone.html


----------



## finthen

Anyone using an ND filter on their Pro8100 or similar (w/ lens shift), with a DaLite High Power screen ?


P. Centrals calculator shows 26fl for my application, which is at 75% bulb life brightness ; I'm wondering if at 100% & new what fl this would translate to and if that might necessitate a filter ???


Those numbers are in normal mode, which is full power, correct? So, eco mode should step those fl# down 21% with the 8100, I believe...(?)


Sitting @ 12' & 16', PJ @ 15.5' rear shelf @ 50'', w/ 100" HP screen , very good light control in room @ 17'X10.5' w/7.5' flat white ceiling & plan to dark drape rear wall ...


Alternately (than possible ND filter & preferred shelf mount) I could drop mount with 3' extension @ 15' slightly off center 4 degrees ...


Any shared thoughts on the usage of filters would be appreciated ...


And I'll continue using the AVS search function, of course










EDIT: O.K., I'm now sorted out in my thinking on this subject enclosed, for now... I think...


----------



## nirvy111




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *IanS* /forum/post/17123246
> 
> 
> Interesting. The upcoming Mitsubishi HC3800 (DLP), with it's shortish throw, quality glass lens and low audible noise, has caught my eye. I wonder if I could use keystone correction to mid-height mount it and use a High Power screen?



I'm using a HP screen with a Mits hc1100, with the projector mounted about a foot above my head I have to use 17 steps of keystone to straighten the image and I don't see any issues, the image to my eyes looks no less sharp or detailed when not using keystone. Also the 3800 has less offset than the 1100 so less keystone will be needed.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nirvy111* /forum/post/17129477
> 
> 
> I'm using a HP screen with a Mits hc1100, with the projector mounted about a foot above my head I have to use 17 steps of keystone to straighten the image and I don't see any issues, the image to my eyes looks no less sharp or detailed when not using keystone. Also the 3800 has less offset than the 1100 so less keystone will be needed.



Keep in mind that the HC1100 is a 720p projector. Perhaps there are more noticeable artefacts with a 1080p?


----------



## noah katz

"Perhaps there are more noticeable artefacts with a 1080p?"


At a given viewing distance the smaller pixels would make it less so, assuming the same quality of video processing.


----------



## Donhou

I got my 106" HP model b last week.


I now realize that this is only kind a material to use in my white walled living roomish viewing space. Truly a great performer when you got some ambient light to deal with.

Notorious viewing cone was also not big of a problem i expected. I get brighter picture where ever i`m sitting on my 10` sofa compairing my old quoted 1.5 gain (propably closer to 1.0 gain) fixed screen. My projector is 1-2 feet above my head.


Now the cons:


The waves. There`s vertical waves in my screen. I see them mainly in bright white pics and in panning scenes. Watching football is pain because of this. A BIG bummer!!!


It sucks, but i guess this is something i have to learn to live with. There`s no going back to matt white i`m afraid. Maybe i upgrade to a fixed HP screen some day...


----------



## mjg100




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Donhou* /forum/post/17170127
> 
> 
> I got my 106" HP model b last week.
> 
> 
> I now realize that this is only kind a material to use in my white walled living roomish viewing space. Truly a great performer when you got some ambient light to deal with.
> 
> Notorious viewing cone was also not big of a problem i expected. I get brighter picture where ever i`m sitting on my 10` sofa compairing my old quoted 1.5 gain (propably closer to 1.0 gain) fixed screen. My projector is 1-2 feet above my head.
> 
> 
> Now the cons:
> 
> 
> The waves. There`s vertical waves in my screen. I see them mainly in bright white pics and in panning scenes. Watching football is pain because of this. A BIG bummer!!!
> 
> 
> It sucks, but i guess this is something i have to learn to live with. There`s no going back to matt white i`m afraid. Maybe i upgrade to a fixed HP screen some day...



I would call the supplier. The screen should not be like that. How big of a screen are we talking about? My 106" HP is almost 2 years old and it does not have any waves.


----------



## IanS




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mjg100* /forum/post/17170368
> 
> 
> ... My 106" HP is almost 2 years old and it does not have any waves.



Is it a pulldown? or fixed frame? Do you know how realistic it is for a pulldown that is regularly rolled up and down to stay wave-free after 2 years?


Thank you.


----------



## jostenmeat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *IanS* /forum/post/17171058
> 
> 
> Is it a pulldown? or fixed frame? Do you know how realistic it is for a pulldown that is regularly rolled up and down to stay wave-free after 2 years?
> 
> 
> Thank you.



I'm assuming it's a pulldown, because fixed means no waves. All screens will have waves within 2 years, AFAIK. . .


FWIW, mine is 159", and I've noticed waving on certain scenes, however, I don't watch any football on it. The only sports I think I've seen on it is the UFC best of '08 BD, and I couldn't detect any waving.


Scenes I can remember with waving are Ratatouille when Remy discovers he's in Paris. WallE, early in the movie, when there's a large scale pan past the super large BNL store on Earth. A slow panning scene early on in No Country For Old Men.


However, when I mention the above, no one I've asked, not a single soul, has noticed it when I posed the question, and no one has ever brought it up. Maybe they're all too blown away.


I've stopped asking, because why make them look for it. I've had a DGA film director, as well as a former employee of ToddAO come over, and again, they never mentioned a thing about it. Nor anyone else who's filled up the 8 seats.


I do believe that the waving is more easily discernable at the extreme edges of the seating. The more on-axis you are, the less offensive any waving will be, speaking from my own personal experience.


----------



## IanS

jostenmeat:


Thanks for the details. I think I will go for a High Power pulldown then. Any reason for choosing one model over another, they seem to have many models:


Model B

Model B with tension

Model B with CSR

Model C

Model C with CSR


I see that the Model C allows you to go larger. But if I decide to stick with 106", any reason not to go with the basic Model B?


I will be rolling and unrolling my screen constantly, as it will sit in front of a french-doored alcove in our main room. Any model recommendation for this kind of heavy rolling usage?


Thanks a lot..


----------



## Donhou

Is anyone using horizontal lens shift with high power or is it preferred to install PJ ALWAYS centre of the screen?

I have installed my pj now centre of the screen and in the centre position of my viewing sofa, but if i will upgrade to a bigger screen i would have to mount my pj away from my centre position of my sofa to get it to centre line to my bigger screen.


So wich is better? To have my PJ mounted in the centre of my seating area (have to use horizontal lens shift) to get as even cone to all viewers or my mount it in the centre line of my screen?


I hope you understood my question







.


----------



## ctviggen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *IanS* /forum/post/17172620
> 
> 
> jostenmeat:
> 
> 
> Thanks for the details. I think I will go for a High Power pulldown then. Any reason for choosing one model over another, they seem to have many models:
> 
> 
> Model B
> 
> Model B with tension
> 
> Model B with CSR
> 
> Model C
> 
> Model C with CSR
> 
> 
> I see that the Model C allows you to go larger. But if I decide to stick with 106", any reason not to go with the basic Model B?
> 
> 
> I will be rolling and unrolling my screen constantly, as it will sit in front of a french-doored alcove in our main room. Any model recommendation for this kind of heavy rolling usage?
> 
> 
> Thanks a lot..



I purchased a manual pulldown Model C even for a 92 inch screen. I thought the larger roller would be better. I would like to tell you that it's been perfect, but I haven't yet installed it (will do so soon), and it's still in the box.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Donhou* /forum/post/17207812
> 
> 
> Is anyone using horizontal lens shift with high power or is it preferred to install PJ ALWAYS centre of the screen?
> 
> I have installed my pj now centre of the screen and in the centre position of my viewing sofa, but if i will upgrade to a bigger screen i would have to mount my pj away from my centre position of my sofa to get it to centre line to my bigger screen.
> 
> 
> So wich is better? To have my PJ mounted in the centre of my seating area (have to use horizontal lens shift) to get as even cone to all viewers or my mount it in the centre line of my screen?
> 
> 
> I hope you understood my question
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



I think you would want to optimize the gain for the center of your sofa. That would mean placing the PJ on a straight line from the screen center passing above the center of the sofa. You may want to verify this with my gain calculator linked below.


----------



## hrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *IanS* /forum/post/17172620
> 
> 
> jostenmeat:
> 
> 
> Thanks for the details. I think I will go for a High Power pulldown then. Any reason for choosing one model over another, they seem to have many models:
> 
> 
> Model B
> 
> Model B with tension
> 
> Model B with CSR
> 
> Model C
> 
> Model C with CSR
> 
> 
> I see that the Model C allows you to go larger. But if I decide to stick with 106", any reason not to go with the basic Model B?
> 
> 
> I will be rolling and unrolling my screen constantly, as it will sit in front of a french-doored alcove in our main room. Any model recommendation for this kind of heavy rolling usage?
> 
> 
> Thanks a lot..



The High Power, being a heavy material, is not available in a tensioned format.


----------



## IanS

They sell a version that appears to ahve some kind of simple 'tension' bar. I have no idea what effect it has, as I've never actually seen any version in real life.


----------



## Onk Yo

I'm trying to figure out if I can make the High Power screen work for me but I fear that I cannot. Here's my scenario:


My screen will be either a 92" or 106", so either 45" or 52" wide.

Placed so that bottom is 24" high. (I think, feels right in my imagination)

Eye height sitting on couch is about 31".


So... if I have the PJ at mid-screen height it's going to be 46.5"/50".


Now here's the problem. I will most likely have to mount the PJ on a high ceiling, 136", and that is in the middle of an open area between the living room and dining room. So I would have to be able to lower it down when needed. I can't find anything that can do this. I found the huge lifts that come down from the ceiling but I don't want this and it doesn't suit my needs. Also, my ceiling is my roof.


So I wanted to know a few things:


1) At what point to you need to turn the PJ upside down or right side up?


2) How high can I have my PJ and still reap some benefits of High Power?


3) Does anyone know if it's possible that I can find or put together some sort of PJ mount that would be able to extend down but just on a pole, not a whole lift?


4) I might be able to have my PJ 23' back from the screen in which case I can mount it on a wall. How can I calculate how high the throw/light will be as it travels across the room to find out if heads will be in the way?


Thank you and goodnight. You've been a great audience.



ENCORE: I found this Da-lite material review on another forum. The really great thing about it is it has 6 different screen patches you can compare at the same time. You can see the High Power performing excellent alongside the others even though the PJ is ceiling mounted. Later he takes the PJ down to review the High Power as it's meant to be used.
http://www.hometheatershack.com/foru...al-review.html 


The Video Spectra looks pretty good. I might just go with that. $100 cheaper too!


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Onk Yo* /forum/post/17239918
> 
> 
> 1) At what point to you need to turn the PJ upside down or right side up?
> 
> 
> 2) How high can I have my PJ and still reap some benefits of High Power?
> 
> 
> 3) Does anyone know if it's possible that I can find or put together some sort of PJ mount that would be able to extend down but just on a pole, not a whole lift?
> 
> 
> 4) I might be able to have my PJ 23' back from the screen in which case I can mount it on a wall. How can I calculate how high the throw/light will be as it travels across the room to find out if heads will be in the way?



1) Height generally doesn't matter, but most ceiling mounts require the PJ to be upside down. However, if the PJ is a budget DLP with a fixed offset, it will have to be upside down at one exact height depending on the size of the screen.


2) Please use my All Screen Gain Calculator linked below for the answer (at least as to the gain). Some will say the HP's resistance to showing waves, the rejection of off-axis light, and the excellent brightness uniformity will still be present. I tend to think that the more the HP's gain approaches that of a 1.0 matte white screen, the more it behaves like one. (Of course, 1.0 gain screens *do* have excellent brightness uniformity.)










3) I haven't been able to find a long enough telescoping extension pole, but if someone does finally make one, they will sell a bunch of them!


4) A line from the bottom of the screen's viewing area that just clears the head of your tallest viewer and extends to the projector's lens center will determine that. You can solve the problem with either a scale drawing or a simple geometric calculation (if you are not mathematically challenged).


----------



## Onk Yo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/17240915
> 
> 
> 1) Height generally doesn't matter, but most ceiling mounts require the PJ to be upside down. However, if the PJ is a budget DLP with a fixed offset, it will have to be upside down at one exact height depending on the size of the screen.
> 
> 
> 2) Please use my All Screen Gain Calculator linked below for the answer (at least as to the gain). Some will say the HP's resistance to showing waves, the rejection of off-axis light, and the excellent brightness uniformity will still be present. I tend to think that the more the HP's gain approaches that of a 1.0 matte white screen, the more it behaves like one. (Of course, 1.0 gain screens *do* have excellent brightness uniformity.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3) I haven't been able to find a long enough telescoping extension pole, but if someone does finally make one, they will sell a bunch of them!
> 
> 
> 4) A line from the bottom of the screen's viewing area that just clears the head of your tallest viewer and extends to the projector's lens center will determine that. You can solve the problem with either a scale drawing or a simple geometric calculation (if you are not mathematically challenged).



Thank you!


I tried your gain calculator. Seems I would benefit even with the PJ on the ceiling, although I'm a bit perplexed by something. When I put in a value that raises the screen up to being closer to the PJ it lowers the gain. Shouldn't that be opposite? If I "lower" the PJ the gain goes up. I attached a couple pics. The gain also goes up when I make the throw longer. Is that right? Also, I left in the centerscreen value that was there, I assumed it was the correct one. How do you find that value for a screen? I was doing a calc for the Video Spectra but don't know what that would be. Even so, my calc for the VS has the gain for the off axis substantially different than on axis which concerns me. The HP is pretty uniform for that.


ANGULAR REFLECTIVE


LEFT CENTER RIGHT

31.56 7.82 31.56

0.95 1.37 0.95



I have a feeling I'm going to go with HP anyway. I may get more out of it later if my set up changes and I need a manual retractable screen and this is supposed to avoid waves better than others, maybe completely?

.


----------



## mjg100




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/17240915
> 
> 
> 1) Height generally doesn't matter, but most ceiling mounts require the PJ to be upside down. However, if the PJ is a budget DLP with a fixed offset, it will have to be upside down at one exact height depending on the size of the screen.
> 
> 
> 2) Please use my All Screen Gain Calculator linked below for the answer (at least as to the gain). Some will say the HP's resistance to showing waves, the rejection of off-axis light, and the excellent brightness uniformity will still be present. I tend to think that the more the HP's gain approaches that of a 1.0 matte white screen, the more it behaves like one. (Of course, 1.0 gain screens *do* have excellent brightness uniformity.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3) *I haven't been able to find a long enough telescoping extension pole, but if someone does finally make one, they will sell a bunch of them!*
> 
> 
> 4) A line from the bottom of the screen's viewing area that just clears the head of your tallest viewer and extends to the projector's lens center will determine that. You can solve the problem with either a scale drawing or a simple geometric calculation (if you are not mathematically challenged).



They have been making them for years. www.peerlessmounts.com/dyn/Products/BrowseProduct.aspx/tn/317/u/t/categoryID/193 Buy this for extension: www.peerlessmounts.com/dyn/Products/BrowseProduct.aspx/sp/429 You can buy an extension pole from Peerless or you can buy some 1-1/2" black iron pipe and make your own. They make from 6" to 12' www.peerlessmounts.com/dyn/Products/BrowseProduct.aspx/sp/568 


I have installed these type of mounts for several years.


----------



## FLBoy

mjg100: Thanks for your response, but I don't think those are going to work for Onk Yo. Unless I'm wrong, Onk Yo wants to have the PJ way up high and out of the way when it is not in use, and then be able to bring the PJ down to near seated eye level when in use. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think the 6" adjustment range of the Peerless units will be nearly enough to do that.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Onk Yo* /forum/post/17242442
> 
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> 
> I tried your gain calculator. Seems I would benefit even with the PJ on the ceiling, although I'm a bit perplexed by something. When I put in a value that raises the screen up to being closer to the PJ it lowers the gain. Shouldn't that be opposite? If I "lower" the PJ the gain goes up. I attached a couple pics. The gain also goes up when I make the throw longer. Is that right? Also, I left in the centerscreen value that was there, I assumed it was the correct one. How do you find that value for a screen? I was doing a calc for the Video Spectra but don't know what that would be. Even so, my calc for the VS has the gain for the off axis substantially different than on axis which concerns me. The HP is pretty uniform for that.



You're welcome! The values you are asking about look OK to me. The thing to remember about retroreflective screens like the HP is this:


The projector lens has a first line of sight to some point on the screen, say centerscreen. A viewer has a second line of sight to the same point on the screen. The angle between the first and second lines of sight determines the gain, smaller angles corresponding to higher gains and larger angles corresponding to lower gains. If you think about it in this way, you will understand why the gain behaves the way it does.


Angular reflective screens, such as the Video Spectra, behave more like a mirror, in that the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflectance. A viewer on axis (horizontally) with the screen center and the projector will get the maximum gain at centerscreen. The left and right edges of the screen will have substantially lower gain, because much of the light is reflected away from the viewer and towards the side walls of the room. Short throws and higher gains exacerbate this issue and can result in visible hot spotting on angular reflective screens.


Retroreflective screens generally are known for their excellent across-screen gain uniformity for a given seating position. They are also known for wide swings in gain from seat to seat.


If you would like to see more info about the theory behind my screen gain calculator, please see post #6 in the screen gain calculator thread linked below.


ETA- I forgot to answer your question about centerscreen gain at the max viewing angle. The most reliable way to determine this is to look at a published graph of gain versus viewing angle. The angle at which the gain drops to one-half the maximum on-axis gain should correspond to the maximum viewing angle. Some manufacturers publish these graphs on their web pages. Others will supply them upon request. Still others seem to be unwilling to release them publicly. A few, unfortunately, exaggerate either the max viewing angle, the gain, or both in their printed marketing information.


----------



## mjg100




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/17243412
> 
> 
> mjg100: Thanks for your response, but I don't think those are going to work for Onk Yo. Unless I'm wrong, Onk Yo wants to have the PJ way up high and out of the way when it is not in use, and then be able to bring the PJ down to near seated eye level when in use. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think the 6" adjustment range of the Peerless units will be nearly enough to do that.



The inner pipe has adjustment holes every 2". The inner pipe and outer pipe are about the same length. Minimum drop would be 3' plus projector mount and projector. Maximum drop would be 5'-6" plus projector mount and projector. In other words you have 30" of drop in 2" increments. Smaller pipe will place the projector closer to the ceiling, but it will also give you less drop. There is a way around this if you have attic space above your room. You just let the inner pipe extend into the attic area. My brother does this in his HT room. He uses the 3' extension. Fully collapsed the bottom of his projector can be 7' above his floor. Ceiling is 8'. Lowered he can have the bottom of the projector 4'-6" above the floor. Total of 30" of drop in 2" increments.


I use this same mount in my downstairs room, except I use it as a pedestal. Here is a picture of the projector lowered:







[/IMG]

Here is a picture with it raised for use with my High Power screen. It is not fully raised.







[/IMG] Since my projector is heavy (nearly 30 pounds) I installed 45 pound gas springs inside the pedestal so that I can raise and lower the projector using two fingers. This setup works very well for a family room setup using an HP screen. As you can see I do not have any light control so projector is only used at night time. I use my dedicated room for most viewing.


----------



## mjg100




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Onk Yo* /forum/post/17239918
> 
> 
> I'm trying to figure out if I can make the High Power screen work for me but I fear that I cannot. Here's my scenario:
> 
> 
> My screen will be either a 92" or 106", so either 45" or 52" wide.
> 
> Placed so that bottom is 24" high. (I think, feels right in my imagination)
> 
> Eye height sitting on couch is about 31".
> 
> 
> So... if I have the PJ at mid-screen height it's going to be 46.5"/50".
> 
> 
> Now here's the problem. I will most likely have to mount the PJ on a high ceiling, 136", and that is in the middle of an open area between the living room and dining room. So I would have to be able to lower it down when needed. I can't find anything that can do this. I found the huge lifts that come down from the ceiling but I don't want this and it doesn't suit my needs. Also, my ceiling is my roof.
> 
> 
> So I wanted to know a few things:
> 
> 
> 1) At what point to you need to turn the PJ upside down or right side up?
> 
> 
> 2) How high can I have my PJ and still reap some benefits of High Power?
> 
> 
> 3) Does anyone know if it's possible that I can find or put together some sort of PJ mount that would be able to extend down but just on a pole, not a whole lift?
> 
> 
> 4) I might be able to have my PJ 23' back from the screen in which case I can mount it on a wall. How can I calculate how high the throw/light will be as it travels across the room to find out if heads will be in the way?
> 
> 
> Thank you and goodnight. You've been a great audience.
> 
> 
> 
> ENCORE: I found this Da-lite material review on another forum. The really great thing about it is it has 6 different screen patches you can compare at the same time. You can see the High Power performing excellent alongside the others even though the PJ is ceiling mounted. Later he takes the PJ down to review the High Power as it's meant to be used.
> http://www.hometheatershack.com/foru...al-review.html
> 
> 
> The Video Spectra looks pretty good. I might just go with that. $100 cheaper too!



You can buy a Peerless mount with 3" extension pole. With your 11'-4" ceiling the bottom of the projector (raised all the way) would be about 8' above the floor. the bottom of the projector fully lowered would be about 5'-6" above the floor. You would need to make provisions so that the projector could not hit the floor when the you pulled the pin to raise and lower. You could do this by simply installing a cable inside the tubes (allowing maximum drop) or you could install a gas spring inside the tubes so that the projector will raise when the pin is pulled. You would still need to hold onto the projector when raising it back up so that it did not get jarred hard when fully retracted by the gas spring.


I use this same mount as a pedestal. I have gas springs in it so that I can raise and lower my with two fingers. My projector is heavy, almost 30 pounds. Click on the downstairs link in this post and you can see the pedestal in lowered and raised position. I use mine with a 106" High Power screen also.


----------



## craftech

The screen material seems highly impractical given the necessity of mounting it at eye level. Insane for a ceiling mount and possibly very noisy for behind the head mount as pictured above not to mention the shadows every time someone gets up.


It seems like the only real solution (short of not buying a HP screen in the first place) is mounting it on a table in front of the viewers like in the old days of the Kodak Carousel Slide Projector.


John


----------



## noah katz

"if the PJ is a budget DLP with a fixed offset, it will have to be upside down at one exact height depending on the size of the screen."


IMO this is overly restrictive, if a person is willing to accept a bit of inconsequential keystoning.


Here's a handy tilt/keystone calculator; I think it would be a great addition to the links in your signature.


"Some will say the HP's resistance to showing waves, the rejection of off-axis light, and the excellent brightness uniformity will still be present. I tend to think that the more the HP's gain approaches that of a 1.0 matte white screen, the more it behaves like one."


I don't see how any of the other advantages are lessened by viewing from a lower gain position.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *craftech* /forum/post/17245215
> 
> 
> The screen material seems highly impractical given the necessity of mounting it at eye level. Insane for a ceiling mount and possibly very noisy for behind the head mount as pictured above not to mention the shadows every time someone gets up.
> 
> 
> It seems like the only real solution (short of not buying a HP screen in the first place) is mounting it on a table in front of the viewers like in the old days of the Kodak Carousel Slide Projector.
> 
> 
> John



It would be highly practical in my situation if I didn't opt for an AT screen with identical LCR speakers. The projector is in a sound isolated projection booth and shoots right over the heads of the audience. Yes, if someone gets up, they cast a shadow, but who the heck watches standing up?? And, it even adds to the "theater" experience IMHO.


My setup is not unique. Even similar situations are common with shelf mounted projectors at the rear of the room. The projectors do need to be quiet in that case, but with the HP you only need the quieter "lo" setting anyway.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mjg100* /forum/post/17244392
> 
> 
> The inner pipe has adjustment holes every 2". The inner pipe and outer pipe are about the same length. Minimum drop would be 3' plus projector mount and projector. Maximum drop would be 5'-6" plus projector mount and projector. In other words you have 30" of drop in 2" increments. Smaller pipe will place the projector closer to the ceiling, but it will also give you less drop. There is a way around this if you have attic space above your room. You just let the inner pipe extend into the attic area. My brother does this in his HT room. He uses the 3' extension. Fully collapsed the bottom of his projector can be 7' above his floor. Ceiling is 8'. Lowered he can have the bottom of the projector 4'-6" above the floor. Total of 30" of drop in 2" increments.



Thanks for clearing this up for me. I stand corrected. I had only visited the first Peerless link in your earlier post. This time I visited all three. The last link does indeed show a telescoping mount that appears to do what Onk Yo needs. My apologies to both of you.


----------



## craftech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/17245327
> 
> 
> It would be highly practical in my situation if I didn't opt for an AT screen with identical LCR speakers. The projector is in a sound isolated projection booth and shoots right over the heads of the audience. Yes, if someone gets up, they cast a shadow, but who the heck watches standing up?? And, it even adds to the "theater" experience IMHO.
> 
> 
> My setup is not unique. Even similar situations are common with shelf mounted projectors at the rear of the room. The projectors do need to be quiet in that case, but with the HP you only need the quieter "lo" setting anyway.



Well, I certainly wasn't referring to people "watching standing up". There are those who have to go to the bathroom, or the kitchen, or to go answer a phone call, etc. If six or seven people are watching, it's a little distracting I would think. Or maybe not? Mine's on the ceiling which is nice, but I would like a brighter screen than my DIY Wilsonart Designer White 120 inch screen.

But I definitely don't want to take down the projector or lower it next to people's ears and heads. Too bad, because the HP sounds like it would otherwise really fit the bill.


John


----------



## notoriousmatty

I currently own a rs2 with a carada classic white screen. Only 96 inches. It was always so dim that I began to hate my projector that was one of the highest reviewed out there. I ordered a sample of High Power and i sat there amazed at what it did. I cant wait to order and install this screen. It makes the projector look like my plasma screen.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *craftech* /forum/post/17245554
> 
> 
> Well, I certainly wasn't referring to people "watching standing up". There are those who have to go to the bathroom, or the kitchen, or to go answer a phone call, etc. If six or seven people are watching, it's a little distracting I would think. Or maybe not? Mine's on the ceiling which is nice, but I would like a brighter screen than my DIY Wilsonart Designer White 120 inch screen.
> 
> But I definitely don't want to take down the projector or lower it next to people's ears and heads. Too bad, because the HP sounds like it would otherwise really fit the bill.
> 
> 
> John



Maybe a hushbox?


With regard to people leaving... for me it's a show-stopper. I even bring up the lights so people don't brain themselves on the riser steps. And, it's one of the advantages over going to a commercial cinema. You can actually stop the presentation so those with TBS don't have to miss the story.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/17245300
> 
> 
> "if the PJ is a budget DLP with a fixed offset, it will have to be upside down at one exact height depending on the size of the screen."
> 
> 
> IMO this is overly restrictive, if a person is willing to accept a bit of inconsequential keystoning.
> 
> 
> Here's a handy tilt/keystone calculator; I think it would be a great addition to the links in your signature.
> 
> 
> "Some will say the HP's resistance to showing waves, the rejection of off-axis light, and the excellent brightness uniformity will still be present. I tend to think that the more the HP's gain approaches that of a 1.0 matte white screen, the more it behaves like one."
> 
> 
> I don't see how any of the other advantages are lessened by viewing from a lower gain position.



Agreed on your first point. I'll pass on adding the tilt/keystone calculator to my links. (Perhaps some DLP owner will agree to do that?)


As to your second point, agreed in regard to brightness uniformity--but I said that already. Regarding rejection of off-axis light and resistance to showing waves, allow me to offer the following food for thought.


The HP screen has two layers that have different optical characteristics. A first layer diffuses light and behaves much like a matte white screen having a gain of about 0.7. A second layer includes glass beads that reflect light back towards the source of the light. The first and second layers interact to give the HP a gain of 2.8 for an imaginary viewer whose line of sight to a point on the screen is exactly parallel (error angle = 0 degrees) to the line of sight from a light source to the same point on the screen.


As the two lines of sight diverge from parallel to an error angle of about 30 degrees, the screen gain drops rapidly until the glass beaded second layer is adding negligibly to the light reflected by the first layer, and the screen gain levels off near 0.7, or that of the first layer alone. It is important to note that in the discussion above, what determines the screen gain is the error angle between the line of site of the viewer and the line of sight of the light source. It matters not whether the light source is a projector or an unwanted ambient light source. What matters is the direction from which the light is coming, relative to the viewer's position.


Now let's see why the HP performs well in off axis ambient light when compared to a 1.0 gain matte white screen. Consider an installation in which the projector is close enough to the viewer's eyes to produce a practicable HP gain of 2.1. (A gain of 2.8 won't happen, because at 0 error angle either the viewer's head would be blocking the projector, or the projector would be blocking the viewer.) Let's also assume an off-axis ambient light source is present and has an error angle greater than 30 degrees with the viewer's line of sight to the screen.


For the HP, the screen gain with respect to light from the projector is 2.1, and the gain with respect to the ambient light source is 0.7. In other words, the gain for the projector is 3 times that for the ambient light source. For the matte white screen, the screen gain with respect to the projector is 1.0, and the gain with respect to the ambient light source is also 1.0. It is well accepted in front projector land that a way to deal with ambient light is to make the desired image brighter than the ambient light on the screen. In this example the HP is 3 times better at that than the matte white screen.


What happens if we change the above example by raising projector to reduce the HP's gain to 1.0 for light from the projector? The HP's advantage over the matte white screen for this scenario would be 1.0/.7 = 1.4 times that of the matte white for dealing with ambient. This is less than half the advantage with the projector positioned for a gain of 2.1. Projector position does affect the rejection of off-axis ambient light relative to the projected image.


Now as to not showing waves, the glass beads will reflect light back to the source, even if the HP screen surface is rotated slightly away from perpendicular to the light beam. If that is also true of a matte white screen, then I would agree with you that as the gain from the glass beaded layer decreases, the waves still might not show. I think I would say that if a matte white, 0.7 gain screen will not show waves, then neither would the HP at low gain. It could be something that happens only with angular reflective screens. Not sure. Maybe some matte white pull-down screen owners can help. Do you folks ever see waves?


----------



## noah katz

It's obvious when I move off to the side with room lights on one side of the room the retroreflectivity is there in a big way.


I don't see why the retroreflecting nature should vary much with any reasonable viewing angle.


I think the gain falloff must be from interactivity between the glass spheres and the diffusion surface.


----------



## mjg100




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *craftech* /forum/post/17245215
> 
> 
> The screen material seems highly impractical given the necessity of mounting it at eye level. Insane for a ceiling mount and possibly very noisy for behind the head mount as pictured above not to mention the shadows every time someone gets up.
> 
> 
> It seems like the only real solution (short of not buying a HP screen in the first place) is mounting it on a table in front of the viewers like in the old days of the Kodak Carousel Slide Projector.
> 
> 
> John



Never said it was perfect. Pretty much every HT has some type of compromises. Our family room setup is for us. When someone needs to get up for some reason we pause the movie. Have you seen a good HP setup? It is a very good way to go if you have ambient light, an older projector with lower lumen output or you want a larger screen. Read the High Power thread and you will see that the High Power has a larger following than any other screen.


Added:

I was jumping between AVS and Theater Shack and got up to do something in the middle of this post and forgot where I was. Edited for clarity.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/17247067
> 
> 
> I don't see why the retroreflecting nature should vary much with any reasonable viewing angle.



Not trying to be argumentative or difficult here, but I don't understand what you are getting at. Could you please rephrase this more clearly?


----------



## Onk Yo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/17243687
> 
> 
> You're welcome! The values you are asking about look OK to me. The thing to remember about retroreflective screens like the HP is this:
> 
> 
> The projector lens has a first line of sight to some point on the screen, say centerscreen. A viewer has a second line of sight to the same point on the screen. The angle between the first and second lines of sight determines the gain, smaller angles corresponding to higher gains and larger angles corresponding to lower gains. If you think about it in this way, you will understand why the gain behaves the way it does.



Yeah, it dawned on me when I woke up. Somewhat sad, but at least I'm not thinking of work first thing in the morning.







I realized I was changing the viewer's angle vertically. Makes sense.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mjg100* /forum/post/17244508
> 
> 
> You can buy a Peerless mount with 3" extension pole. With your 11'-4" ceiling the bottom of the projector (raised all the way) would be about 8' above the floor. the bottom of the projector fully lowered would be about 5'-6" above the floor. You would need to make provisions so that the projector could not hit the floor when the you pulled the pin to raise and lower. You could do this by simply installing a cable inside the tubes (allowing maximum drop) or you could install a gas spring inside the tubes so that the projector will raise when the pin is pulled. You would still need to hold onto the projector when raising it back up so that it did not get jarred hard when fully retracted by the gas spring.
> 
> 
> I use this same mount as a pedestal. I have gas springs in it so that I can raise and lower my with two fingers. My projector is heavy, almost 30 pounds. Click on the downstairs link in this post and you can see the pedestal in lowered and raised position. I use mine with a 106" High Power screen also.



I guess once I have the screen (and the PJ) I'll see what the ideal/best compromise height is and go from there. My PJ is only 16.5 lbs. I thought about how I'll have to have a safety to keep it from crashing to the floor by accident.







I like the gas spring idea although I have to admit I'm not sure exactly how it works.


I do like how that ceiling mount piece fits across the ceiling joists. That at least saves the step of putting a wood block between them.


Thanks for all the advice.










Oh! What about cables/cords? Do they fit inside the pole? Will they if there's a gas lift in there?


----------



## noah katz

"I don't understand what you are getting at. "


If I understood you correctly, you were saying that all retroreflectivity advantages decrease along with gain as viewing angle increases.


I was trying to say that that's not the case in my experience.


Your scenario where the retroflectivity could be a disadvantage w/ambient light coming from a particular direction is possible, and if that were someone's situation maybe the HP isn't the right screen.


----------



## mjg100




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *craftech* /forum/post/17245554
> 
> 
> Well, I certainly wasn't referring to people "watching standing up". There are those who have to go to the bathroom, or the kitchen, or to go answer a phone call, etc. If six or seven people are watching, it's a little distracting I would think. Or maybe not? Mine's on the ceiling which is nice, but I would like a brighter screen than my DIY Wilsonart Designer White 120 inch screen.
> 
> But I definitely don't want to take down the projector or lower it next to people's ears and heads. Too bad, because the HP sounds like it would otherwise really fit the bill.
> 
> 
> John



If there is a little bit of noise in the room (with 7 people there will be noise) you do not hear the projector. if you pause the movie and everybody is quiet then you can hear the projector, then if the projector is paused people are probably talking so the projector is not a distraction. Besides I would much rather have a little projector noise (when the movie is muted) and have a bright punchy picture rather than a dim image. Also keep in mind with a High Power people are able to have large screen sizes and run thier projectors on the low lamp setting. Without the High Power many have to use the lamp in high output mode which in turn makes more noise and the lamp does not last as long.


----------



## mjg100




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Onk Yo* /forum/post/17248294
> 
> 
> Yeah, it dawned on me when I woke up. Somewhat sad, but at least I'm not thinking of work first thing in the morning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realized I was changing the viewer's angle vertically. Makes sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess once I have the screen (and the PJ) I'll see what the ideal/best compromise height is and go from there. My PJ is only 16.5 lbs. I thought about how I'll have to have a safety to keep it from crashing to the floor by accident.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like the gas spring idea although I have to admit I'm not sure exactly how it works.
> 
> 
> I do like how that ceiling mount piece fits across the ceiling joists. That at least saves the step of putting a wood block between them.
> 
> 
> Thanks for all the advice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh! *What about cables/cords? Do they fit inside the pole? Will they if there's a gas lift in there*?



Yes, you can run the cords/cables inside the tubes. No, I do not think you have room for the cords/cables and the gas spring.


----------



## andy133

I have a 133" HP Cosmo Electrol for almost a year now paired with a JVC RS1. The results are stunning for several reasons.


First and most important, it tolerates ambient light better than grey screens (as compared through the usual sample patch of various materials). I also have white walls and they do not matter much.


Second, the texture is almost non existent. All this year, I have not been able to detect any sparkles or texture while watching even the brightest scenes. This is in stark contrast to the Video Spectra which is one of the coarsest and sparkling materials that Dalite makes. I have not seen the JKP Affinity but I cannot think how it can be much better than HP's texture. The grains in HP are far smaller than the pixel I project. For any screen larger than 60" I think texture should be invisible. Really High Def.


Third, gain. Amazing and enjoyable. As it has been said several times in these threads, the deepest blacks are not as black as in grey screens. But it is the contrast that matters. Night sky with stars pops out on you. With todays high contrast projectors I see no issue with blacks. Also, I can run my lamp low power and save some decibels of noise.


Fourth, uniformity and complete lack of waves. Of course, people on the sides get a dimmed view. But it is still quite uniform, and in a dark room it does not matter--you get used to lower light.


The only negative is that I cannot ceiling mount the projector. I move it to a back counter when it is movie night. Oh well, it makes for even a more special evening.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/17248420
> 
> 
> If I understood you correctly, you were saying that all retroreflectivity advantages decrease along with gain as viewing angle increases.



In post #1851 what I was attempting to show is that the immunity to washout from off-axis ambient light decreases as screen gain to projected light decreases (because of projector position). I also was saying that brightness uniformity remains good even with low screen gain, and that I'm not sure how the freedom from waves is affected. More succinctly, as the error angle increases between the projector line of sight and the viewer line of sight, the HP acts increasingly more like a 0.7 gain matte white screen.


----------



## FLBoy

andy133: +1


I could not have said it better than you did!


----------



## noah katz

"... the immunity to washout from off-axis ambient light decreases as screen gain to projected light decreases (because of projector position)."


Depends; the immunity remains for a viewer on one side of the room if the light source is on the other side of the room.


"I also was saying that brightness uniformity remains good even with low screen gain"


Agreed


"... and that I'm not sure how the freedom from waves is affected."


I don't believe it is.


"...as the error angle increases between the projector line of sight and the viewer line of sight, the HP acts increasingly more like a 0.7 gain matte white screen."


Per above, only as far as gain is concerned.


BTW, where are you getting .7 from?


The definition of a reference matte white screen is perfect diffusivity with gain of 1.


----------



## FLBoy

"BTW, where are you getting .7 from?"


A graph of screen gain versus viewing angle for the High Power I obtained from Da-Lite.


"The definition of a reference matte white screen is perfect diffusivity with gain of 1."


Yes, it is. I stretched the definition. It was easier than saying "a screen with the diffusivity of a matte white screen but having a gain of 0.7." So shoot me.


----------



## craftech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/17245825
> 
> 
> Maybe a hushbox?



What is a hushbox?


John


----------



## noah katz

"Depends; the immunity remains for a viewer on one side of the room if the light source is on the other side of the room."


Now that I think about it, this can be generalized to something similar to gain, except that the goal is to maximize the viewer-screen-ambient light source angle.


"A graph of screen gain versus viewing angle for the High Power I obtained from Da-Lite."


What's the significance of .7 over any other number on the graph?


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *craftech* /forum/post/17251225
> 
> 
> What is a hushbox?
> 
> 
> John



A box with sound insulation to put the projector in. Usually the cooling air source is ducted into it and then back to a remote location.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *craftech* /forum/post/17251225
> 
> 
> What is a hushbox?


 Here's a link. Many build their own.


----------



## FLBoy

"Now that I think about it, this can be generalized to something similar to gain, except that the goal is to maximize the viewer-screen-ambient light source angle."

Yep. That's why I tell folks with white walls and ceiling to darken the rear of the room with drapes or paint.


"What's the significance of .7 over any other number on the graph?"

The gain is asymptotic to that value at viewing angles greater than 30 degrees.


----------



## TheTonik

Would the High Power screen (92") create too bright of an image for a completely dark theater room?


Edit: FYI, still have yet to purchase the screen or projector. The projector is down to a JVC RS10, RS15, or a Panny 3000.


----------



## noah katz

"The gain is asymptotic to that value at viewing angles greater than 30 degrees."


Ah, didn't know that, thanks.


"Would the High Power screen (92") create too bright of an image for a completely dark theater room?"


With the JVC's you mention you could use the iris to reduce brightness, which also gives you reserve for lamp dimming over time.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/17251837
> 
> 
> With the JVC's you mention you could use the iris to reduce brightness, which also gives you reserve for lamp dimming over time.



AND better contrast! It's a great thing to be able to do!


----------



## thrang




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/17252686
> 
> 
> AND better contrast! It's a great thing to be able to do!



Yes, my HD750 is 22 feet away from my HP, and I am on Normal bulb mode, typically with the iris around -10 to -13 depending upon source material. Looks fantastic.


----------



## noah katz

"AND better contrast! It's a great thing to be able to do!"


Yes, on/off CR anyway; apparently ANSI CR is lowered somewhat with the iris closed down because light reflects off the back of it.


----------



## TheTonik

Ok, so if I get either of the JVC's I can control the iris to control brightness. But what about the Panny 3000? Would the High Power screen make it too bright?


----------



## pjreid

Hi Guys


I'm considering getting a High Power screen purely for it's ambient/reflected light rejecting properties. I started a thread over on a UK forum, but it's not had any replies from anyone with experience on the subject (probably as they're tricky to come by here/not an obvious choice). Could you cast your experienced eyes over it to see if my thoughts make sense?


I'll post a link to the thread in a couple of posts time (I haven't posted here 3 times yet so it won't let me







)


----------



## pjreid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pjreid* /forum/post/17254265
> 
> 
> I'll post a link to the thread in a couple of posts time (I haven't posted here 3 times yet so it won't let me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )



...nearly there...


----------



## pjreid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pjreid* /forum/post/17254274
> 
> 
> ...nearly there...



...last one (hopefully







)...


----------



## pjreid

...made it!

http://www.avforums.com/forums/proje...y-discuss.html 


Thanks in advance


Paul


----------



## FLBoy

_Here's a rough outline of my setup: The (106 inch diagonal) screen is around 11ft from the PJ (a JVC HD100), which is around 3ft above the sofa on the back wall. Room's about 13ft wide, white ceiling, blue walls, no chance of re-decorating (marriage is a give and take thing ).


Really happy with the PJ; great blacks and plenty bright enough. Only gripe is that during lighter scenes the black level (unsurprisingly) lifts as the room lights up (most noticeable on the black bars of scope movies).


The safe bet would be to go for something like the Beamax M-series with the high contrast grey surface, which I guess would give a similar image to now (without the waves).


But...there's a bit of me that says this might actually improve things: Get a high gain, retro-flective screen like the Da-lite high power & ND filter it back down to the same brightness as it is now (I don't actually want a brighter image). By my reckoning this will improve contrast in brighter scenes as stray room light will be reflected back where it came from. But will this be an improvement over a grey sceen, which would appear darker when lit up by stray light anyway?


Also, would this compromise black levels in dark scenes? (I'd hope not as the ND filter should lower the bottom end as well) It's certainly a higher risk strategy


Anyone seen/tried anything similar?_


I'm using the High Power very successfully with my JVC RS10 in a room with white walls and ceiling. The narrow viewing cone keeps most of the light from the screen off the ceiling and walls; and, as you noted, any light that does get there is reflected back where it came from. The result is that I maintain excellent black levels and intrascene CR.


One change I would suggest in your setup would be to lower the PJ closer to seated eye level to increase the screen gain. It is the ratio of screen gain for the desired light (the projector) to the gain for the undesired light (walls and ceiling) that determines how well the screen will perform in a light colored room. Another change I would recommend would be to darken the wall behind your sofa somehow (if it is not a dark blue), as the HP will happily amplify any reflected light from that direction. Feel free to use my screen gain calculator linked below to evaluate some lower projector positions. The default screen parameters are for the HP.


----------



## pjreid

Thanks for the gain calc. Very useful










I typed in my numbers and I get a gain of 1.44 (without lowering the PJ...which my wife would veto







). To be honest though, I'm happy with the brightness of my old 1.1 gain HCMW.


Main thing for me is not to compromise black levels (in fact, the whole reason for going HP would be to improve them on scenes with a mix of shadows & brighter areas).


So, I guess to do this I'd need to get the gain down to around 1.1 again. An ND2 filter would be too dark, so I guess I need something like an ND1.25 which would give me a gain of 1.12. Does that sound about right? Does such a filter even exist?


----------



## FLBoy

You're welcome. A gain of 1.44 doesn't exercise the full potential of the HP, but my guess is that it will give you better results than the HCMW--if your wall behind the sofa is dark enough. (I use very dark green draperies on my rear wall that I close during movies.) As to brightness, I would try it first before worrying about an ND filter. If you use the darkest cinema mode and low lamp power (if available), you may find it to be just fine without an ND filter. In any case you can always add one later. I don't know what strengths are available, as I have never felt the need to use one.


----------



## transendance

A question in this regard (gain levels).


What happens to the image quality when using a HP out of its high gain sweet spot?


(One may ask then why the high power, simply put lets say thats the one I own, and that I wish to audition a projector with limited or no lens shift, in83 for instance.)


The question is in a set up like that, how would the screen compare to a basic ~1.0 - 1.4 gain screen like the many offerings from elite or carada.


In other words when reduced to performing at approx 1.0 gain levels does the high power image equal the other screens or are there othertrade offs to consider?


Any input in this regard would be very much appreciated.


----------



## craftech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/17251285
> 
> Here's a link. Many build their own.



Thanks to both of you. Seems pretty neat.


John


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *transendance* /forum/post/17260093
> 
> 
> A question in this regard (gain levels).
> 
> 
> What happens to the image quality when using a HP out of its high gain sweet spot?
> 
> 
> (One may ask then why the high power, simply put lets say thats the one I own, and that I wish to audition a projector with limited or no lens shift, in83 for instance.)
> 
> 
> The question is in a set up like that, how would the screen compare to a basic ~1.0 - 1.4 gain screen like the many offerings from elite or carada.
> 
> 
> In other words when reduced to performing at approx 1.0 gain levels does the high power image equal the other screens or are there othertrade offs to consider?
> 
> 
> Any input in this regard would be very much appreciated.



I love my HP in my (usually) two-viewer HT. In my particular situation I would not trade it for any other screen at any price.


Nothing happens to the image quality when using the HP out of its high gain sweet spot, unless you are using it in a room with light colored walls and ceiling (as I am), or have another source of off-axis ambient lighting. If so, the ANSI CR may deteriorate at low gain, due to cross-reflected screen light (or other ambient light) overpowering the weakened projected image.


Having said that, I probably would not use the HP under any condition if I had a wide, multi-row, multi-level theater, because of the seat-to-seat gain variation that would occur. But that's just me. I strive for consistency.


----------



## pyro2003

I cannot match local models back to Da-lite High Power, does it come in electrical and fixed acoustic transparent versions ? Does the gain get much worse ? For the latter I"m looking at SMX and Seymour as suggestd in this forum


thanks


----------



## FLBoy

Electrical yes, fixed yes, AT no.


----------



## noah katz

"I probably would not use the HP under any condition if I had a large, multi-row, multi-level theater, because of the seat-to-seat gain variation that would occur."


In my long, narrow room with the pj at the back it's not an issue from any seating position (all are within the screen width).


----------



## mjg100

UMR did some testing on various screen materials. I found it interesting that UMR got 1.82 gain for the high power. UMR's test projector was ceiling mounted above the top of the screen. It looks like the HP screen is not as weak in this area (ceiling mounted) as many think. Link to thread with report: www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1183353


----------



## transendance

Thank you all for the input! Some coincidence that UMR thread the same day it seems.


He does say however that the high power was "the least color neutral" of the screens


tested! Reason for concern?


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *transendance* /forum/post/17266380
> 
> 
> He does say however that the high power was "the least color neutral" of the screens
> 
> 
> tested! Reason for concern?



I've NEVER heard an actual user complain about this. In fact, quite the opposite.


----------



## pyro2003




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/17263656
> 
> 
> Electrical yes, fixed yes, AT no.



thanks FLBoy, I suppose I'll have to go electric or manual due to 2-channel music uses and behind screen sound absorption treatments. Tricky part is to make it look as nice as fixed screen setup (drop cloth etc)


----------



## GoCaboNow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/17263059
> 
> 
> Having said that, I probably would not use the HP under any condition if I had a large, multi-row, multi-level theater, because of the seat-to-seat gain variation that would occur. But that's just me. I strive for consistency.



I have three rows (3,4,3) with all seating being within the 116" wide hp screen. The image/brightness difference from the "outside" seats to the central seats is so small to be hardly noticed even when I am looking for it. No way does a frequent guest notice a difference when quickly changing seats (not sure when that would happen but IF it did







) I mostly sit in a center seat and when I do sit in what should be the most off axis seat there is no impact to me either. There is no impact the image is "dimmer" or sub standard than where I normally sit. Never crosses my mind. Within the screen, IMO, the image differential is played up too much. For a family room application with seating 15-20' wide I could certainly see the variation being a concern. For me, the much more difficult issue was how to get the pj down to maximise the gain and not affect the viewers in the various rows. FLboys calculator was very helpful in planning out if I could make the HP screen work for my application.


We all have our concerns and it is great that this hobby lends itself for the individual to customize what means the most to them.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GoCaboNow* /forum/post/17273424
> 
> 
> I have three rows (3,4,3) with all seating being within the 116" wide hp screen. The image/brightness difference from the "outside" seats to the central seats is so small to be hardly noticed even when I am looking for it.



Guess I should have used all caps for the word "large"!










Seriously, you have a beautiful theater, and I can see that you have placed all ten seats to work well with the HP. Congrats!


----------



## GoCaboNow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/17273710
> 
> 
> Guess I should have used all caps for the word "large"!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, you have a beautiful theater, and I can see that you have placed all ten seats to work well with the HP. Congrats!



Thanks! Right, large!







I was reacting to the multi row and level part. I probably would have missed large even in caps anyways...I keep forgetting how wide 4 or 5 normal seats can be.


----------



## craftech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mjg100* /forum/post/17264897
> 
> 
> UMR did some testing on various screen materials. I found it interesting that UMR got 1.82 gain for the high power. UMR's test projector was ceiling mounted above the top of the screen. It looks like the HP screen is not as weak in this area (ceiling mounted) as many think. Link to thread with report: www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1183353



???????????????????????

_Da-Lite High Power demonstrated a significant

color shift depending on the viewing angle.........................................

High Power - This material was the least color neutral of those tested. It appeared to be a very smooth surface. The color shifts induced by this

material may be strong enough to bother some people. The color errors observed were not just a white balance shift that would be easily corrected.
*This is a retroreflective material that works best when the projector is mounted near the viewers head. The ceiling mounting in this theater is more

common and shows the reduction in performance from this orientation.* This product did contain some sparkling elements that are visible when

viewed at closer distances. The gain of this material would aid in increasing the image brightness for projectors with lower light output than the

screen size desired._


John


----------



## KMR

I have a bit of a problem. I'm moving next week, but I can't seem to get my screen to roll back up inside the case. When I pull down on the screen and then let it go back up, the locking mechanism(?) in the case catches it every time.


What am I doing wrong? Any help is much appreciated.


I have Model C pulldown, if that matters.


----------



## Chadci

Sometimes I have to pull mine slightly forward to get it to go back up


----------



## KMR

I've tried pulling forward a bit as well, but to no avail. =/


----------



## AaronS

Have you tried holding on to the bottom instead of just letting go? I haven't had a manual Da-lite screen and understand they have a mechanism to allow you to just release it, but maybe if you kept a hand on it to allow it to move a little slower, it might not engage the latch. I had another brand where that was pretty much a requirement all the time. My HP is electric, so I don't have the issue of course...


----------



## maxleung

KMR, I had the exact same problem as you - for 4 days I couldn't get it to roll all the way up.


Then, suddenly, I could do it every time. Either I finally figured it out by subtle feel or the mechanism "broke in" and now it works.


----------



## Alex solomon

KMR,


The trick is to pull and release quick without pause.


----------



## GoCaboNow

When I had my manual I would use the quick jerk and release with my release pushing the screen up. Sometimes it would not release and the screen would flop a bit as i pushed back up, but not very often.


----------



## ryoohki

I just installed my Model B, High Power 106' 2 days ago. It's way superior to my Elunevision 106'. To my surprise, my blacks are way better and the CR is way superior too. The almost none texture is very cool too!. Glad i bought it!


----------



## Murilo

Good to hear, im currently switching from the elunevision to the highpower. Also went with a model B with extra backdrop. I had two electric screens from elunevision mounted already, one was masked 2:35:1 and the other 16:9.


I have a professional installer who works for a local company that sold runco projectors and stewart screens. He did not want to drill new mounting holes for an electric on my wall unit, hes confident with the extra backdrop i ordered he will be able to cut the extra black backdrop im not going to be using, at the top and place it evenly on my elunevision roller so he can use my existing electric cases he already mounted.


This should save me close to 700 dollars, i cant believe da-lite chargers over 300 and some for 12 volt trigger and ir remote.


At least the elune vision were good for their cases, ir and 12 volt trigger always worked great, i just wasnt to thrilled with the fabric anymore especially since i couldnt clean it.


----------



## mikewilkinson

Awesome review..

Nicely described with pictures.Thank you for sharing this post..


----------



## mjg100




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *craftech* /forum/post/17304511
> 
> 
> ???????????????????????
> 
> _Da-Lite High Power demonstrated a significant
> 
> color shift depending on the viewing angle.........................................
> 
> High Power - This material was the least color neutral of those tested. It appeared to be a very smooth surface. The color shifts induced by this
> 
> material may be strong enough to bother some people. The color errors observed were not just a white balance shift that would be easily corrected.
> *This is a retroreflective material that works best when the projector is mounted near the viewers head. The ceiling mounting in this theater is more
> 
> common and shows the reduction in performance from this orientation. This product did contain some sparkling elements that are visible when
> 
> viewed at closer distances.* The gain of this material would aid in increasing the image brightness for projectors with lower light output than the
> 
> screen size desired._
> 
> 
> John



In my book 1.82 is still considered significant gain. Do you not think 1.82 is significant gain? I would like to know just how close UMR is talking about when he said you can see some sparkling elements when viewed at close distances. I guess I could say that the other screens show pixel structure when viewed at closer distances. I and many other have these screen and no one complains about seeing sparkles. I view a 106" 1.78 screen from 10'-6" to 11'-6".


----------



## Joseph Clark

This is the first analysis of the HP that I've seen that claims it creates a significant color shift. I don't know about that, except to say that my old Stewart Firehawk was far, far worse in terms of color consistency. I'd really like to have access to more screens for direct A/B, but just like projectors, that's not in the cards for me.


As to sparkles, I occasionally notice a sparkly element, which has in every case been nothing more than a speck of something reflective on the surface that a simple buffing removed. I've never noticed a sparkle that I couldn't remove that way. Again, my Stewart Firehawk fabric exhibited a glistening that was obviously created by the fabric itself.


----------



## craftech

What is a "Top Black Drop" on the Da-Lite High Power screens


Example:

_Da-Lite 98031 - High Power Model B Manual Screen with *Top Black Drop* - 52" x 92"_


John


----------



## GoCaboNow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *craftech* /forum/post/17468098
> 
> 
> What is a "Top Black Drop" on the Da-Lite High Power screens
> 
> 
> Example:
> 
> _Da-Lite 98031 - High Power Model B Manual Screen with *Top Black Drop* - 52" x 92"_
> 
> 
> John



I assume this is a black border direclty on the screen at the top end of the screen? Some screens will give a 18" black drop or something so I think the screen drops 54", 52" screen material and a 2" black border above. That is what I would guess but I would contact Da-lite to make absoluteley sure.


----------



## Dr. Spankenstein

Has anyone had any issues or helpful tips for mounting a Model C pull-down WITHOUT the floating mount kit?


Would it make sense to mount a horizontal strip securely to the studs and then mount the screen to the strip?


----------



## Murilo

Got my highpower samples. Compared to elunevsion glass beaded. First thing thats clear, is the clearness of the high power material. It looks more like a plasma screen, giving you that looking through a window impression, very impressive and something i have actually been looking for in a screen, i posted recently how my plasma has a clearness my screen does not, the highpower seems to be able to do this.


At my offset, and angle I was not getting much gain beyond the elunevision. It was slightly brighter. I will have to lower my projector another inch. I noticed when I lowered it another inch i seemed to be right in the viewing cone then, and the gain didnt drop off much at all. At this point its definately brighter then the glass beaded. And if any of you have the projector just above your head, the gain increase is huge. I think its big yet even with 2 feet between my head and the projector. Sitting right below the projector the gain was again huge, a little to much for me (blacks and everything seem to elevated) you probably need to use a really dim projector to want to use the highpowers full gain, or if you have a really big screen. I will say when i was just slightly out of the viewing cone, the gain was on par then with my glass beaded (whites were still a bit brighter), but if you can lower your projector even an inch or whatever just to get in the viewing cone, the gain increase can be big. The inch drop on my projector made a big difference,


Very happy with it, cant wait for mine to come.


----------



## Warbie

I'm considering using an 120" high power screen with my ceiling mounted RS0. The problem i'm facing at the moment is the 750 can't quite power my current screen (1.1 gain) and there are no options in europe for something around 1.5, which is what i'm after. Is attempting to use an HP screen in this way completely flawed thinking?


Any other suggestions for decent screens with a gain of around 1.5 - 2.0 would also be appreciated.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Warbie* /forum/post/17501034
> 
> 
> I'm considering using an 120" high power screen with my ceiling mounted RS0. The problem i'm facing at the moment is the 750 can't quite power my current screen (1.1 gain) and there are no options in europe for something around 1.5, which is what i'm after. Is attempting to use an HP screen in this way completely flawed thinking?
> 
> 
> Any other suggestions for decent screens with a gain of around 1.5 - 2.0 would also be appreciated.



It might work for you. You should use FLBoy's (see his posts a little earlier and click on the link under his name) screen gain calculator and find out what your gain would be from that mounting position. Do the measurements for your configuration and plug the numbers into the calculator -simple. Of course, you have to take into account how things will change when your lamp ages.


----------



## Warbie

Thanks for that - i'll check it out.


----------



## matrixj3

i have an old draper motorized glass bead screen that needs to be replaced and was wondering, if my draper is a white screen with glass beads will i loose brightness because the HP screen is a little on the gray side with glass beads? i have an epson 720 which is ceiling mounted. When i stand up the screen brightens up by 30% which is ok since the 720 is a light canon with my black ceiling and walls with total light control...just wanting the same pop i get with the draper..and i don't want to loose contrast and shadow detail because of the grey color of the HP screen...

.btw how gray is it?

thanks all! ;-)


----------



## DrMark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/17464330
> 
> 
> This is the first analysis of the HP that I've seen that claims it creates a significant color shift. I don't know about that, except to say that my old Stewart Firehawk was far, far worse in terms of color consistency. I'd really like to have access to more screens for direct A/B, but just like projectors, that's not in the cards for me.
> 
> 
> As to sparkles, I occasionally notice a sparkly element, which has in every case been nothing more than a speck of something reflective on the surface that a simple buffing removed. I've never noticed a sparkle that I couldn't remove that way. Again, my Stewart Firehawk fabric exhibited a glistening that was obviously created by the fabric itself.



I occasionally notice *one* sparkly element. If I move my head an inch or so to either side, it goes away.


--Mark


----------



## thrang




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DrMark* /forum/post/17518395
> 
> 
> I occasionally notice *one* sparkly element. If I move my head an inch or so to either side, it goes away.
> 
> 
> --Mark



Ditto here.


----------



## Joseph Clark

As soon as I say it doesn't, it does. I'm using a different projector with my HP, and there is one sparkly I can't get to disappear. It is visible only from a limited point of view. Move to one side or the other (by a few inches) and it disappears. But buffing doesn't remove it. It's the first time I've seen that happen.


----------



## threed123

I thought I would share my experience with the High Power. I had one for a floor mounted CRT projector--120" diagonal 3x4. The projector was rated about 600 lumens max, but using half that (yes that low), and it actually did the job nicely. Nice brightness to the edge, no hot spots. I then converted to a Benq PE8700, rated 1000 ansi lumens, and ceiling mounted it. Problem was the projector could only really do about 600 lumens without blowing the picture out ( disclaimer--I'm really only guessing, and did not measure it). That combined with the retro-reflection, ceiling mount, I felt the image too dark. I then got a 127" diag 16x9 Draper M2500 rated at 2.5 gain angular reflective. It did the job, but does hot spot (the HP did not) and has "tire tracks" in certain spots and more noticeable surface. That said, the color is fantastic, no warm/yellow shift that I experienced on the HP--which I only noticed when I compared the screens side by side.


I now have an Optoma HD70 rated at 1000 ansi, and it is at least twice as bright as my PE8700--these old projectors were way over-rated in brightness in my opinion.


And my next bet: I'm going to get an Optoma HD20 (or similar) and a High Power 159" 16x9 screen. I will cut the material off the screen and mount it on a wooden frame as a permanent screen. The HP material is free-hanging so it should be easy to do without having to stretch the material flat. I figure that the increase in resolution (1080p vs. 720p) plus the screen size and gain should create an awe inspiring immersion. Although the projector will be ceiling mounted, the gain should still be around 1.5 and kill any ambient light.


Why would I do this?

- The color shift can be dealt with through some color balancing of the projector.

- The material is so forgiving that it can be off-loaded from the screen handler without the need for stretching.

- The seam of the 159" screen is at the top and will be hidden by a border (yes the resulting screen will be a couple of inches smaller, but I can live with that.

- I will not see "tire tracks" or screen surface as I did on the M2500.

- It will be a relatively cheap proposition for a giant screen (I can get the Model C screen for much less than $1,000--interesting that when I got a quote for material only the cost was $1,400).

- I have the advantage of having this screen once, so I know what to expect.


I would like to see pics of an installation of this screen to get a perspective of the relative screen size to environment--anyone willing to share pics?


Bob


----------



## edpowers




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *matrixj3* /forum/post/17516855
> 
> 
> i have an old draper motorized glass bead screen that needs to be replaced and was wondering, if my draper is a white screen with glass beads will i loose brightness because the HP screen is a little on the gray side with glass beads? i have an epson 720 which is ceiling mounted. When i stand up the screen brightens up by 30% which is ok since the 720 is a light canon with my black ceiling and walls with total light control...just wanting the same pop i get with the draper..and i don't want to loose contrast and shadow detail because of the grey color of the HP screen...
> 
> .btw how gray is it?
> 
> thanks all! ;-)



The HP is not gray and contains no glass beads.


----------



## lightguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *craftech* /forum/post/17304511
> 
> 
> ???????????????????????
> 
> _Da-Lite High Power demonstrated a significant
> 
> color shift depending on the viewing angle.........................................
> 
> High Power - This material was the least color neutral of those tested. It appeared to be a very smooth surface. The color shifts induced by this
> 
> material may be strong enough to bother some people. The color errors observed were not just a white balance shift that would be easily corrected.
> *This is a retroreflective material that works best when the projector is mounted near the viewers head. The ceiling mounting in this theater is more
> 
> common and shows the reduction in performance from this orientation.* This product did contain some sparkling elements that are visible when
> 
> viewed at closer distances. The gain of this material would aid in increasing the image brightness for projectors with lower light output than the
> 
> screen size desired._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John



In that posting he states that he did the review with no personal benefit to himself other than for accumulation and sharing of knowledge. Very very commendable.

He also states that the projector should ideally be mounted just above the head.

And it is informational to those who would ceiling mount their projectors using HP material.


That said I feel it is a discredit to the HP screen to test it in a mode that it is not designed for.



When I visit local high end HT stores and view their "Boutique" screens I cannot but help feeling that the High Power blows them all away. (using my uncalibrated eyeballs).


As I have posted elsewhere; on my 133" screen viewing in a "bat cave" at 12';

I dont watch movies, I live them. Thanks in part to the presence that the High Power screen avails.


----------



## matrixj3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edpowers* /forum/post/17521146
> 
> 
> The HP is not gray and contains no glass beads.



cool! going to buy one of the the electric versions...thanks!!


----------



## Dr. Spankenstein

I have now joined the ranks of dazzled High Power owners!


Just had a viewing of "UP" on Blu-ray after watching it the night before on my laminate screen....unbelievable!!!


Now while the black level was slightly raised, the percieved contrast created from the newfound brightness was staggering!! Color reproduction looked great! I saw no color shift and red was well represented. White was exceptional!


Using a VW60 from 19' to a 133" HP. PJ mounted so the lens was 48" off the floor, the center of the image was also 48" and eyeballs at approx. 45" yielded almost maximum gain. Screen surface was very nice and smooth. Actually I saw quite a lot of sparklies on the WA laminate screen which was not present on the HP.


The unfortunate part is that it arrived damaged (slightly crumpled case) and I am dubious as the integrity of the retraction mechanism. I just informed the online retailer I purchased from this morning and they have already processed an advance replacement!

Kudos to Bill Manning @ AVsuperstore!


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dr. Spankenstein* /forum/post/17528306
> 
> 
> I have now joined the ranks of dazzled High Power owners!
> 
> 
> Just had a viewing of "UP" on Blu-ray after watching it the night before on my laminate screen....unbelievable!!!
> 
> 
> Now while the black level was slightly raised, the percieved contrast created from the newfound brightness was staggering!! Color reproduction looked great! I saw no color shift and red was well represented. White was exceptional!
> 
> 
> Using a VW60 from 19' to a 133" HP. PJ mounted so the lens was 48" off the floor, the center of the image was also 48" and eyeballs at approx. 45" yielded almost maximum gain. Screen surface was very nice and smooth. Actually I saw quite a lot of sparklies on the WA laminate screen which was not present on the HP.
> 
> 
> The unfortunate part is that it arrived damaged (slightly crumpled case) and I am dubious as the integrity of the retraction mechanism. I just informed the online retailer I purchased from this morning and they have already processed an advance replacement!
> 
> Kudos to Bill Manning @ AVsuperstore!



Thinking about a model C 159" myself, do you have any pics of the setup?


----------



## Dr. Spankenstein

I was looking at that size as well, but logic prevailed! I only have a 13'06" wide room and I wanted my towers to have some breathing room on the sides and back.


Don't have any pictures on hand, but will post some soon. Where the screen is currently mounted is not where it will ultimately be. I plan on suspending it 18" from the front wall to accomodate a newly calculated throw for a CIH set-up.


Sorry, what projector will you be using?


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dr. Spankenstein* /forum/post/17529659
> 
> 
> I was looking at that size as well, but logic prevailed! I only have a 13'06" wide room and I wanted my towers to have some breathing room on the sides and back.
> 
> 
> Don't have any pictures on hand, but will post some soon. Where the screen is currently mounted is not where it will ultimately be. I plan on suspending it 18" from the front wall to accomodate a newly calculated thow for a CIH set-up.
> 
> 
> Sorry, what projector will you be using?



InFocus SP7210 for now, hopefully the SP8602 will be it's replacement. Just not a lot of mid-range DLP options right now.


Room is 16ft wide, so should be enough room for it. Definitely enough seating distance for whatever size I go with, the room is ~25ft deep. If not, I can always use the fabric I'm sure, and mask down to a better size.


The fixed screens are just so much more expensive!


----------



## WOLVERNOLE




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dr. Spankenstein* /forum/post/17529659
> 
> 
> I was looking at that size as well, but logic prevailed! I only have a 13'06" wide room and I wanted my towers to have some breathing room on the sides and back.
> 
> Don't have any pictures on hand, but will post some soon. Where the screen is currently mounted is not where it will ultimately be. I plan on suspending it 18" from the front wall to accomodate a newly calculated thow for a CIH set-up.
> 
> Sorry, what projector will you be using?



Dr.- I will plan for a 106" HP in about a month. Can a "first-timer" handle the installation of an HP fixed screen with one other "rookie?" Is it a tricky hang?

Thanks for any advice.


----------



## Dr. Spankenstein

You hit the nail on the head in regards to fixed screen prices!


Here's to hoping your not a big stickler! This is a VERY revealing screen and I don't rightly know how a 720 PJ will look when shown on that size screen.


Another big plus from the retro-reflective screen was huge reduction in reflected light on my side walls and ceiling.


----------



## edpowers

I currently have a 106" HP manual pulldown but need a bigger screen for my new room. I'm trying to decide whether I want to go with a Cosmopolitan Electrol motorized 119" 16:9 or a fixed 119" Cinema Contour screen. I'm leaning towards the fixed screen, but having a really hard time justifying the price difference between the manual pulldowns. Has anybody built their own custom fixed frame for the High Power (using material from a manual pulldown)? If so, how did you fasten the high power material to the frame? I love the look of the Cinema Contour but I'd rather put the extra $800 towards my new projector.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dr. Spankenstein* /forum/post/17529848
> 
> 
> You hit the nail on the head in regards to fixed screen prices!
> 
> 
> Here's to hoping your not a big stickler! This is a VERY revealing screen and I don't rightly know how a 720 PJ will look when shown on that size screen.
> 
> 
> Another big plus from the retro-reflective screen was huge reduction in reflected light on my side walls and ceiling.



Hopefully it's passable until I can replace it, I've thrown a 12ft wide image with it, and it does the job- though I'm sure being so dim hides a lot of flaws of 720 that large.


The reflected light reduction is a huge benefit for my room, all white walls and an angled vaulted ceiling (which would be a nightmare to paint). Hopefully it gives me some daytime use as well.


Only thing I'm worried about is off-axis viewing, I'd hate for such a large room and screen to only be good for 2-3 people huddled together.


----------



## Dr. Spankenstein




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WOLVERNOLE* /forum/post/17529796
> 
> 
> Dr.- I will plan for a 106" HP in about a month. Can a "first-timer" handle the installation of an HP fixed screen with one other "rookie?" Is it a tricky hang?
> 
> Thanks for any advice.



Well, not really...just had to continue the Robert Palmer reference!


It was exceedingly simple! While it is rather unweildy and a bit heavy (~70lbs), I merely held it in place with a level balanced on top of the case while my wife marked the spots for the screws. Placed the screen down, drove in 2 wood screws and lifted it back onto the hanging keys. It was somehow unlevel when it was rehung, but i was able to support the screen case with one shoulder while I removed the screw and drove it in at a higher position.

2 people for the 106" dia should be cake!


I don't know how they engineer these things, but I'm almost certain there has to be the potential for sag since this thing is only supported at the extreme ends (gonna have to put my mind to a solution for that one!)


----------



## ctviggen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lightguy* /forum/post/17521764
> 
> 
> In that posting he states that he did the review with no personal benefit to himself other than for accumulation and sharing of knowledge. Very very commendable.
> 
> He also states that the projector should ideally be mounted just above the head.
> 
> And it is informational to those who would ceiling mount their projectors using HP material.
> 
> 
> That said I feel it is a discredit to the HP screen to test it in a mode that it is not designed for.
> 
> .



What if, like me, you're going to use it in that mode? I'm ceiling mounting my projector (once my room is finally finished), and I'll be using a 92 inch HP screen.


----------



## Dr. Spankenstein




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17529977
> 
> 
> Only thing I'm worried about is off-axis viewing, I'd hate for such a large room and screen to only be good for 2-3 people huddled together.



It's really not that bad. I did some quick 'n dirty figures last night since I have heard this concern repeatedly in this thread.


My first row is ~12ft from the screen and my room is 13.5ft wide. This would create a 68 degree angle from the center of the screen to either side of the room. (Halve that for the degree off-axis you would be viewing from=34 degrees. Da-lite lists this for 30 degrees) I saw nothing like a halving of the brightness. Granted, when you are within 5-10 degrees of center it is primo, but even at the sides of the room, it's no slouch.


There are easy calculators for angles based on the length of 3 sides. I'd say if you can keep everyone within a 70 degree cone, you'll still be awful impressed (provided you are set-up optimally for screen-to-projector height and viewing height) FLboy's calculator is a great help in determining your potential gain.


----------



## matrixj3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Scrimpin* /forum/post/16877273
> 
> 
> Regarding the HP, if projector should be at or near viewer eye level, how have you folks addressed projector noise. I would think it more of an issue compared to a ceiling mount........or is a couple feet above eye level still acceptable. I'm thinking that a projector at eye level pretty much needs to be in fron, beside or directly behind the viewer but a couple feet higher and you have flexibility to move it back quite a bit further.



i just moved my epson 720 within two feet of seating, i have it in a hush box..can't hear it period!


----------



## Dr. Spankenstein

In response to some questions, here are some pics of my set-up. Mind you, the screen will not remain in this position.
















http://sgrcyq.bay.livefilestore.com/...SKsqw/Back.jpg 


Here are two shots taken with the same manual settings (f8 for 1.6sec, ISO80) to show the effectiveness of the ambient light rejection-All lights are on):










Lights off:










A couple screenshots:


















Easily the best money I've spent in a long time!


As info, this bulb has 1000+ hours and is in Low lamp mode!


----------



## lightguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edpowers* /forum/post/17529910
> 
> 
> I currently have a 106" HP manual pulldown but need a bigger screen for my new room. I'm trying to decide whether I want to go with a Cosmopolitan Electrol motorized 119" 16:9 or a fixed 119" Cinema Contour screen. I'm leaning towards the fixed screen, but having a really hard time justifying the price difference between the manual pulldowns. Has anybody built their own custom fixed frame for the High Power (using material from a manual pulldown)? If so, how did you fasten the high power material to the frame? I love the look of the Cinema Contour but I'd rather put the extra $800 towards my new projector.



I wrestled with the exact same dilemma.

From my extensive research I WOULD NOT GO THIS LARGE WITH A PULL DOWN. Motorized the same. You will experience wrinkles/warp eventually.

I went with a 133" Perm-Wall for a few bucks more than a C and a lot less than a Contour. The best bang for the buck. About a grand retail.


You can custom order a 144" (the largest High Power screen available in 16:9 with a one piece screen thus not spliced) for about $200 more.


----------



## lightguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ctviggen* /forum/post/17530011
> 
> 
> What if, like me, you're going to use it in that mode? I'm ceiling mounting my projector (once my room is finally finished), and I'll be using a 92 inch HP screen.



From everything I have read and researched; you may not be happy.

Then again you may be. If you critically look for defects you will find them. Dont look.


Can you extend the pole ?

I have seen projectors on roller carts in the middle of large rooms behind the seats. This works.


----------



## matrixj3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dr. Spankenstein* /forum/post/17536302
> 
> 
> In response to some questions, here are some pics of my set-up. Mind you, the screen will not remain in this position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://sgrcyq.bay.livefilestore.com/...SKsqw/Back.jpg
> 
> 
> Here are two shots taken with the same manual settings (f8 for 1.6sec, ISO80) to show the effectiveness of the ambient light rejection-All lights are on):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lights off:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A couple screenshots:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easily the best money I've spent in a long time!
> 
> 
> As info, this bulb has 1000+ hours and is in Low lamp mode!



Thanks for the pics! Nice setup...i was going to go with the electrol but went with the 106 in HP model b $268 with free shipping. i am keeping my glass bead electric screen just to do the 2 movie screen thing and i like the "eltectric pop" it gives...but i can't clean it...can't wait to get my HP in!


So now it's a 50 inch plasma on wall, then the 110 draper glass bead drops down in front of that and then the new HP pull down drops in front of both!...makes me wonder how many different screens i can add to my theater! lol


----------



## DrMark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ctviggen* /forum/post/17530011
> 
> 
> What if, like me, you're going to use it in that mode? I'm ceiling mounting my projector (once my room is finally finished), and I'll be using a 92 inch HP screen.



Whether the projector is ceiling mounted or floor mounted (on a stand) is immaterial to the decision of whether to get a high-power screen or not. What matters is the angle between the projector lens and the viewer's eyes. The closer the projector is to the height of the viewer's eyes, the better (smaller angle).


I have my projector ceiling mounted at a lens height of 82" from the floor, the center of the screen is 53", and my eyes are 44". This gives me a gain of about 1.45. The screen performs wonderfully in this configuration.


You can compute what the gain will be for you by using the All Screen Gain Calculator.


--Mark


----------



## jostenmeat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DrMark* /forum/post/17544975
> 
> 
> Whether the projector is ceiling mounted or floor mounted (on a stand) is immaterial to the decision of whether to get a high-power screen or not. What matters is the angle between the projector lens and the viewer's eyes. The closer the projector is to the height of the viewer's eyes, the better (smaller angle).



+1. Thank you.


Some might have it ceiling mounted, but have a long room, or that the seating is relatively closer. The angle is then naturally reduced.


I have mine ceiling mounted with two rows. When I put in a new bulb, I actually RAISE the PJ to reduce the retroreflective effect a bit. Perhaps halfway through the bulb's life, I will lower it again to the original position.


----------



## simonpickard

Hi there,


I was wondering if someone out there could do me a big favor.

I live in Syndey, Australia and am looking to get the matte white Hi power screen.

I'm finding it hard to find anyone out here that sells this screen so might have to pay to get one shipped from the USA. However before I do this I'd like to see what I'm paying the crazy postage for.


I was therefore wondering if someone out there with a Sample wouldn't mind posting it over to me here in Sydney?


I'll work out a way to pay postage (shouldn't cost much anyhow), so if you think you can help please PM me.


Regards,

Simon


----------



## threed123

Simon, Contact someone at AVScience. I'm sure they can get a larger sample for you. If not these guys sell the material at a discount. It's actually cheaper to buy a screen then to buy the material for a screen, but for a smaller piece it's okay.

http://store.cousinsvideo.com/79952.html 


Also, you will confuse if you ask for Matte White High Power as Matte White is a 1.0 gain material and High Power is the 2.8 gain, so only need to refer to it as Dalite High Power.


Here's an AU company. I don't know anything about them but appears they sell Draper screens: http://www.gilkon.com.au/entertainment.asp 


Hope this helps.


Bob


----------



## lightguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *simonpickard* /forum/post/17555445
> 
> 
> Hi there,
> 
> 
> I was wondering if someone out there could do me a big favor.
> 
> I live in Syndey, Australia and am looking to get the matte white Hi power screen.
> 
> I'm finding it hard to find anyone out here that sells this screen so might have to pay to get one shipped from the USA. However before I do this I'd like to see what I'm paying the crazy postage for.
> 
> 
> I was therefore wondering if someone out there with a Sample wouldn't mind posting it over to me here in Sydney?
> 
> 
> I'll work out a way to pay postage (shouldn't cost much anyhow), so if you think you can help please PM me.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Simon



email Da-Lite for samples. I got around 4. It quickly became a no brainer at that point.

See if they have an Australian dealer.

If not; become one


----------



## nirvy111

For those importing outside the U.S the shipping on the perm wall model is way cheaper than the pull down version. The screen itself is more expensive but it still should work out cheaper and your basically getting a better looking screen imo.


----------



## matrixj3

Just got my screen in..WOW! It's brighter than my glass bead screen and the colors really pop!

I have a batcave...black on ceiling walls etc. If you like traditional glass bead screens and want the ability to clean it this is a no brainer!


I would say it's about 30% brighter than my draper glass bead.

I dropped down both screens at the same time and i could tell the draper had A LOT of dirt build up from years of use and was quite dimmer.


Thanks for everyone for this GREAT find!


----------



## rgathright

After working out of state for the past twenty years I may finally be able to come home for a while next year. I bought a Mits HC6000 PJ two years ago and love it on a 92" screen and the PJ is 12' away.

this is setup at the house I rent. At home I will be having a 120" screen and the PJ will be at 16' away. So now I have to worry about having enough lumens for the screen and throw distance. I will have some ambient light. After looking for a while for a high lumens PJ that has everything else I want I was referred to look at the DaLite High Power screen.


At first this sounded great, but then started reading the negatives about the gain strength vs location of the PJ and seating. So I am going to give you my placement dimension and hope someone will explain to me what my actual gain will be.


It will be a 120"+- screen and a throw distance of 16'. The PJ will be ceiling mounted. The bottom of the screen will be around 36" above the floor. The PJ will be mounted about 45" from the ceiling (10' ceilings). Our seating height will be around 36">40".


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgathright* /forum/post/17606190
> 
> 
> After working out of state for the past twenty years I may finally be able to come home for a while next year. I bought a Mits HC6000 PJ two years ago and love it on a 92" screen and the PJ is 12' away.
> 
> this is setup at the house I rent. At home I will be having a 120" screen and the PJ will be at 16' away. So now I have to worry about having enough lumens for the screen and throw distance. I will have some ambient light. After looking for a while for a high lumens PJ that has everything else I want I was referred to look at the DaLite High Power screen.
> 
> 
> At first this sounded great, but then started reading the negatives about the gain strength vs location of the PJ and seating. So I am going to give you my placement dimension and hope someone will explain to me what my actual gain will be.
> 
> 
> It will be a 120"+- screen and a throw distance of 16'. The PJ will be ceiling mounted. The bottom of the screen will be around 36" above the floor. The PJ will be mounted about 45" from the ceiling (10' ceilings). Our seating height will be around 36">40".



You'll have all the information you need if you plug those exact numbers into FLBoy's screen gain calculator. Search back a bit in this thread to find it. It makes comparisons easy.


----------



## rgathright

I found the calculator and have been working on it. By lowering my PJ and moving the seats back a little I get an overall gain of 2.0.


Now I need to find out what amount of lumens I will need for a 16' throw and a 120" screen. My current PJ (Mits HC6000) works out to be 18 lumens per the Projector Central calculator.


Is this enough?


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgathright* /forum/post/17606436
> 
> 
> I found the calculator and have been working on it. By lowering my PJ and moving the seats back a little I get an overall gain of 2.0.
> 
> 
> Now I need to find out what amount of lumens I will need for a 16' throw and a 120" screen. My current PJ (Mits HC6000) works out to be 18 lumens per the Projector Central calculator.
> 
> 
> Is this enough?



Not unless you're an owl. 350 lumens would be considered dim. At 18 lumens, you'd be lucky to see an image at all.


Seriously, you should check the math. That can't be right.


----------



## K.J.E




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/17606550
> 
> 
> Not unless you're an owl. 350 lumens would be considered dim. At 18 lumens, you'd be lucky to see an image at all.
> 
> 
> Seriously, you should check the math. That can't be right.



He is probably refering to foot Lumens rather then ansi Lumens


----------



## airscapes

I think he meant (and I don't know the acronym off the top of my head) the amount of reflected light from the screen not the lumen of the projector..


----------



## rgathright




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K.J.E* /forum/post/17606628
> 
> 
> He is probably refering to foot Lumens rather then ansi Lumens



Yes - that is what I meant.


----------



## rgathright

After reading a lot more about this screen it may not be the one for me. The first hurdle is my PJ has to be ceiling mounted and it cannot be any lower than 72" above the floor. It will be setup over a table that is between our two recliners. There is only two of us 99% of the time. Our viewing height will be around 36" to the eyes.


So is this distance from the viewing height and the PJ height a deal killer. At times one of us will be further (8') back and further (8') to the side from the PJ. This is when one of us is watching something else that the other does not care to watch totally. This entire setup is in our L/R toward the D/R where the PC is. When we are watching our Blu-rays we will both be in our chairs.


I guess it boils now to either get a high lumens PJ or a high gain screen when I set this up. I have not got the pricing for the screens yet, but know the PJ's will run around $2,000.


----------



## Tryg

no problem. get the high power!


----------



## Bronco70




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgathright* /forum/post/17608999
> 
> 
> After reading a lot more about this screen it may not be the one for me. The first hurdle is my PJ has to be ceiling mounted and it cannot be any lower than 72" above the floor. It will be setup over a table that is between our two recliners. There is only two of us 99% of the time. Our viewing height will be around 36" to the eyes.
> 
> 
> So is this distance from the viewing height and the PJ height a deal killer. At times one of us will be further (8') back and further (8') to the side from the PJ. This is when one of us is watching something else that the other does not care to watch totally. This entire setup is in our L/R toward the D/R where the PC is. When we are watching our Blu-rays we will both be in our chairs.
> 
> 
> I guess it boils now to either get a high lumens PJ or a high gain screen when I set this up. I have not got the pricing for the screens yet, but know the PJ's will run around $2,000.



Too many variables here to give a definitive answer. Where does one start?


What pj will you be using?


What size screen?


What viewing conditions?


If 72" is the height of the top edge of the screen and also the center of the pj lens then a 36" viewing height will result in a gain of about 1.5.


The real question is what is your goal?


Joe


----------



## northern2020

Hey Guys


Fabulous Forum, great knowledgeable people !


Hoping to pick someone's brain...


Just purchased the JVC DiLA RS 25. Need to pair a screen for a throw distance of 19 Feet 8 inches, Ceiling Mounted, Lens is 9 Feet from floor, or 1 foot from ceiling.


-Projector Central Calculator for RS 25 at that throw reccomends a 148 diagonal screen


-1.31 gain calculated from All Screen Gain Calculator, I do not understand if this gain is acceptable. I can Lower the image, but the gain increases.


-Walls and ceiling are beige, not fully light controlled.


- could anyone share some insight into my situation?


I would love the Hi Power screen, but is it the idea killed with my ceiling mounted set up, at that distance?


Should I go with a smaller screen?



Thanks,


Northern


----------



## rgathright




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bronco70* /forum/post/17609226
> 
> 
> Too many variables here to give a definitive answer. Where does one start?
> 
> 
> What pj will you be using? *Mits HC6000*
> 
> 
> What size screen? *119" diagonal*
> 
> 
> What viewing conditions? *Some ambient light*
> 
> 
> If 72" is the height of the top edge of the screen and also the center of the pj lens then a 36" viewing height will result in a gain of about 1.5.
> 
> 
> The real question is what is your goal? *We use the PJ for everything from local news to Blu-ray movies*
> 
> 
> Joe



Using the calculator from ProjectorCentral there are to many variables that change the FL of the projector/screen If I could get an idea of how many FL I would need it would help my search greatly. I have asked this question over and over, but not getting any responses.


----------



## rgathright




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bronco70* /forum/post/17609226
> 
> 
> Too many variables here to give a definitive answer. Where does one start?
> 
> 
> What pj will you be using? *Mits HC6000*
> 
> 
> What size screen? *119" diagonal*
> 
> 
> What viewing conditions? *Some ambient light*
> 
> 
> If 72" *96"*is the height of the top edge of the screen and also the center of the pj lens then a 36" viewing height will result in a gain of about 1.5.
> 
> 
> The real question is what is your goal? *We use the PJ for everything from local news to Blu-ray movies*
> 
> 
> Joe



Using the calculator from ProjectorCentral there are to many variables that change the FL of the projector/screen If I could get an idea of how many FL I would need it would help my search greatly. I have asked this question over and over, but not getting any responses.


----------



## matrixj3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgathright* /forum/post/17608999
> 
> 
> After reading a lot more about this screen it may not be the one for me. The first hurdle is my PJ has to be ceiling mounted and it cannot be any lower than 72" above the floor. It will be setup over a table that is between our two recliners. There is only two of us 99% of the time. Our viewing height will be around 36" to the eyes.
> 
> 
> So is this distance from the viewing height and the PJ height a deal killer. At times one of us will be further (8') back and further (8') to the side from the PJ. This is when one of us is watching something else that the other does not care to watch totally. This entire setup is in our L/R toward the D/R where the PC is. When we are watching our Blu-rays we will both be in our chairs.
> 
> 
> I guess it boils now to either get a high lumens PJ or a high gain screen when I set this up. I have not got the pricing for the screens yet, but know the PJ's will run around $2,000.



Honestly don't overthink all these numbers...if you are familiar with glass beads this screen acts MUCH better...the light from the screen is dispersed an controled more efficiently. My old glass bead when i would stand up i would notice the change in light...now i don't.


This screen has so much gain that it will make you smile no matter what type of setup you have...go for it! Also now i can crank up my lights in my theater to about 70% and still have a great picture. I had white matte 20 years ago with my first crt setup & once i went with high gain i never went back...i've had that draper hi-gain for 20 years...look how long it took for me to upgrade! ;-)

I was very happy with the bright picture...but now this screen for the price and better technology is a major upgrade and also justifies it. oh yea..


Btw..I NEVER looked at the calculator! ;-)


----------



## rgathright

Thanks for the response. Your comments releases some of my concerns. Eventually I will probably upgrade to a new projector that will have more light power than the Mits HC6000. But what if it to bright or am I still worrying to much? I travel all the time and have been using the Mits HC6000 along with a 92" Carada BW screen in temporary setups for the last two years. The setup I am working on now will be permanent, being I am finally able to come home for a while (been working out of state for 20 years). So I have to get this right the first time. The WAF plays a big part on all of this also.


----------



## airscapes

I have read some of this massive thread and am thinking maybe HP would work for me. I would like a new screen, what I have was used and has some wrinkles in it but still look ok for the most part.


I use an old portable 4:3 format screen since my living room does not have a wall where I need one. There is an archway leading into an entry hall so the screen goes in the hall just on the other side of the archway filling the opening. Viewing is mostly on axis, the room is only 11' wide, that is 3 recliners wide max. Screen is very small 57" wide, so in HD format (screen open one click) screen is about 65" diag and opened up for 4:3 it is 70" diag. That is all that fits in the space.


Seating is about 14' back, Projector is HC3000 on low lamp about 9-10' back on a low box. (all gets put away at the end of the night)


So far we are in the pluses for HP. Now the question.. on the back wall behind the recliners is the big old full wall mirror.. I assume this will kill my picture and defeat all the good that the HP brings to the table?

I just ordered samples but figured I would ask anyway.

Thanks in advance!


----------



## threed123




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/17611478
> 
> 
> Now the question.. on the back wall behind the recliners is the big old full wall mirror.. I assume this will kill my picture and defeat all the good that the HP brings to the table?
> 
> I just ordered samples but figured I would ask anyway.
> 
> Thanks in advance!



It will most likely add ambient light directed at the screen which will come back to the audience somewhat due to the retroreflection of the HP. Can you simply put a blanket over it while you watch--since you are going through the effort to set up the projector and put it away each time anyway.


What is the value of having the mirror there? Is it storage?


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *threed123* /forum/post/17612481
> 
> 
> 
> What is the value of having the mirror there? Is it storage?



Unfortunately it is the living room... mirror has been there forever.. was there when we bought the house and make the living look much bigger than it is.. Also good for check yourself before leaving the house.. make sure there is no toilet paper trailing

















And yes I could put up some kind of blackout curtains but that would look crappy.. as to covering it .. not all that easy it is about 6' high and extends to a few inches from the ceiling. Guess I will just stay with what I have and hope for a new house..


----------



## matrixj3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgathright* /forum/post/17610577
> 
> 
> Thanks for the response. Your comments releases some of my concerns. Eventually I will probably upgrade to a new projector that will have more light power than the Mits HC6000. But what if it to bright or am I still worrying to much? I travel all the time and have been using the Mits HC6000 along with a 92" Carada BW screen in temporary setups for the last two years. The setup I am working on now will be permanent, being I am finally able to come home for a while (been working out of state for 20 years). So I have to get this right the first time. The WAF plays a big part on all of this also.



don't worry i have an Epson light canon in a batcave...solid black all walls and ceiling the room is only 15x12 and i love the brightness! It is not distracting at all.;-)


----------



## gadgetfreaky

So I read about 40 pages so far.. Definitely getting the HP!


Combining it with the Epson 8500. I do have a question on height. I think I can get 106" But I have a center channel that it has to be over.


The bottom of the Screen will be 37.5" , is that too high? I generally slouch on the sofa and eye level will be about 33". Viewing distance is only 11' will it be uncomfortably high?


Also since the projector will be right behind the sofa at 13' throw how high of a stool/table should I get?


----------



## WOLVERNOLE




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gadgetfreaky* /forum/post/17632009
> 
> 
> So I read about 40 pages so far.. Definitely getting the HP!
> 
> 
> Combining it with the Epson 8500. I do have a question on height. I think I can get 106" But I have a center channel that it has to be over.
> 
> 
> The bottom of the Screen will be 37.5" , is that too high? I generally slouch on the sofa and eye level will be about 33". Viewing distance is only 11' will it be uncomfortably high?



This is too high in my opinion and it is commonly held that you should be in the lower third of the screen, eye-level wise. Think about it.


----------



## gadgetfreaky




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WOLVERNOLE* /forum/post/17632715
> 
> 
> This is too high in my opinion and it is commonly held that you should be in the lower third of the screen, eye-level wise. Think about it.



Yeah I know.. but what do you suggest? Are there any Da-Lite high power pull up screens? Not ideal but maybe i put it on the floor in front? although then the throw will be only 12' and viewing at less than 10'.. Also the case would be pretty ugly on the floor which is anti-WAF


----------



## airscapes

You can get a tripod screen with High Power.. but that is really ugly, however very adjustable..


----------



## edpowers




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gadgetfreaky* /forum/post/17634017
> 
> 
> Yeah I know.. but what do you suggest? Are there any Da-Lite high power pull up screens? Not ideal but maybe i put it on the floor in front? although then the throw will be only 12' and viewing at less than 10'.. Also the case would be pretty ugly on the floor which is anti-WAF



What is your limiting factor? Can you lower your center speaker? If so, you can order Da-Lite pulldowns with extra black drop , so the actual screen would end up lower to the ground and you'd just have extra black border at the top.


----------



## gadgetfreaky




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edpowers* /forum/post/17634569
> 
> 
> What is your limiting factor? Can you lower your center speaker? If so, you can order Da-Lite pulldowns with extra black drop , so the actual screen would end up lower to the ground and you'd just have extra black border at the top.




Well after calling Da-Lite and having my duh moment, I can't do floor stand pull up either. As of course that will block the center Channel. My limiting factor is the Center Speaker. If I ceiling mount it, I can only pull it down so that the bottom is 37.5" from the floor since it needs to be above the center channel. I think the problem will be that we'll be looking up to the middle of the screen and kink our necks







I might swap out the center channel for something smaller, which might save 6" but would hate to do that as I love my Rocket "BigFoot" center channel.


----------



## DrMark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gadgetfreaky* /forum/post/17636358
> 
> 
> Well after calling Da-Lite and having my duh moment, I can't do floor stand pull up either. As of course that will block the center Channel. My limiting factor is the Center Speaker. If I ceiling mount it, I can only pull it down so that the bottom is 37.5" from the floor since it needs to be above the center channel. I think the problem will be that we'll be looking up to the middle of the screen and kink our necks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I might swap out the center channel for something smaller, which might save 6" but would hate to do that as I love my Rocket "BigFoot" center channel.



I have a Rocket BigFoot. How do you figure that the speaker is 37.5" tall? Are you standing it on its side? I have mine on a stand and the top of the speaker is only 24" above the floor.










--Mark


----------



## gadgetfreaky




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DrMark* /forum/post/17637106
> 
> 
> I have a Rocket BigFoot. How do you figure that the speaker is 37.5" tall? Are you standing it on its side? I have mine on a stand and the top of the speaker is only 24" above the floor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --Mark



On the pic in the post above, the bigfoot is on a stand (credenza that my plasma is attached to). Bigfoot is 12" tall, and with the stand, everything is 37.5" tall.


----------



## maxleung

Get rid of the stand?


----------



## Murilo

Well i finally have a highpower. This was my first pic when I demoed one and a benq 8700 years ago, my wife talked me out of it sadly, 1500 for a screen was a bit much in 2003, and we were building a house. I found carada began, went with a brilliant white. Awesome for neutral gain, but not what i wanted, i needed more lumens. Then i tried the cheaper glass beaded for a year, liked the lumen boost, but texture and grainyness of the screen hurt it.


SO i finally got my highpower 6 years later, and wow this stuff amazed me like it did back in the day.


My biggest issue with projector vs lcd/plasma was clearness and brightness. I wrote a thread on here since i switch to a plasma during the day, how plasma had a clearness screens do not. Naturally i was told its more because of a technology thing, my plasma projects from behind and there is clear glass in front it then going to the viewer, vs projecting onto a screen.



Well the highpower is the closest i have came to that clearness now, it definately displays the clearness, that i loved with my plasma. I also received a brightness and sharpness boost from it as well as the clearness, and contrast i also perceive to be better, blacks are not as deep but whites so much brighter, they make black look blacker to my eyes.


Cant say enough about it, its just like a giant lcd screen. I have no complaints about it.


For canadians to i ordered through hd.ca good service no shipping charge.


----------



## threed123

Curious as to relationship of projector to screen, etc. Table or ceiling mount--size, distance, etc.


----------



## DrMark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gadgetfreaky* /forum/post/17639188
> 
> 
> On the pic in the post above, the bigfoot is on a stand (credenza that my plasma is attached to). Bigfoot is 12" tall, and with the stand, everything is 37.5" tall.



Oh, I see what you are trying to do. You can try what I did: take some string and some thumb tacks and outline the area on the wall where the projected image will be. You then sit on your sofa and look up at the center of that area for a while and see how if feels.


--Mark


----------



## Murilo

Not sure if threed123 question is directed at me.


I have a ceiling mount, but its heavy duty mount that can hold 44 lbs, and has a drop of 650mm.


I have it almost dropped all the way but not quite, my ceiling i think is about 9 feet and the projector is 6 feet off the ground. Seat eye level is a bit over 4 feet, so the difference between my eyes and the projector is about 20 inches.


Honestly sitting down from standing 20 inches is minimal gain loss, its hardly noticeable, guests have trouble noticing it unless i point it out, and they sit stand a few times.


In all honesty to, i would not want anymore gain, standing up when im nearly eye level with the projector is a little to bright, and noise becomes more apparent.


The 20 inch difference is still very bright, only a small gain loss and really it looks perfect, background noise becomes less noticeable and brightness drop is very slight and hardly noticeable.


Using the gain calculator it estimated i would be at about 2.0 gain from the highpower, it seems more like Im getting 2.4-2.5 gain, the brightness drop off is very small.


I will say though there is a steep drop off, i previously had my projector 2 inches higher at 6 feet 2 inches off the ground. The 2 inches made a huge difference, i didnt notice any brightness increase between the glass beaded and the high power. As soon as I dropped the projector another 2 inches to 6 feet, it became way brighter then my glass beaded. I figure that 2 inch drop put me in the viewing cone.


I think as long as your within 20 inches (between eye level and the projector) you will get a large kick up in brightness. After that the drop off is very large.


----------



## threed123

Murilo, That's exactly what I wanted to hear. Where is the center of your screen in relationship to your head at seating height versus the projector. I am going to get a bigger HP in the future for a ceiling mounted projector, and you are giving me a lot of good info (and hope) that the gain will be there at seating level. Thanks. Bob


----------



## jflynn

I've had my 106 inch High Power for about six years and through two projectors. It is awsome with my Epson TW700 and I only imagine what it would look like with a newer 1080P projector. I can run the TW700 on the lowest power setting and still get a very good picture. This has allowed my lamp to run longer (currently 3492 hours) and counting. My "change lamp" warning has been on for a long time and, even though I have a new lamp ready to go, I am still getting an excellent picture with the old 
__
https://flic.kr/p/4158251385
​


----------



## Murilo

Im not sure does the center of the screen affect the gain? I thought it was just the projector position since all light goes back to the projector.


For testing at the moment the center of the screen is right about head level. Once i get it installed its going to go up a few inches maybe about 5. I never really noticed a difference between my screen position and the highpower, more so the projector position is when i really noticed the difference. I did a temporary install and just hung it to get an idea when its installed, it was about 5 inches higher then and didnt notice any difference. Right now I just set it across my high tower speakers that sit on a ledge in my wall unit, and its about eye level, but again when i hung it up i really didnt notice a drop in gain with the screen moving.


----------



## Murilo

Well according to the gain calculator raising it 5 inches wont affect it all, Im thinking of maybe raising it to 7, at 7 inches in the calculator it went from 2.09 to 2.08 so that .01 difference is probably why i didnt notice a difference in gain.


----------



## threed123

murilo, Maybe you said this, but I didn't see it. Is the projector directly over your head or behind you. The retro-angle would be reduced if the projector is behind you. I think the center of the screen is important because the light goes back to the projector in a cone from each micro-bead spot on the screen, so I think the bottom half of the screen should appear brighter. One way to check this out is to use a swatch of 1.0 gain screen material and put it on the top and bottom of the screen and see if there is a difference in brightness between the swatch and the HP at these different points. Where I'm going with this is you can control the gain by lowering the screen and by moving the projector further back on the ceiling and using more zoom I think. This would explain why some people have good gain with ceiling mounts and others do not. You seem have found the sweet spot either way.


----------



## Murilo

I know throw and zoom did, just was not sure screen had much of an effect since it reflects back to the projector lens.


In my one spot im a bit infront and the other the projector is just overhead im a slight bit behind it if anything at this position, since i opted to do a bit closer throw for more lumens, and have the projector overhead in this position but a slight bit forward. An inch or two really boosted lumens. SO I moved it a slight bit forward, but basically its still well overhead.



The gain difference was minimal at best, i put up a white test patterns and didnt really notice a drop in brightness being infront or below (slightly behind) the projector. Being infront the only way i noticed a brightness boost was getting really close to the screen, again it does reflect light back but the cone i think is fairly narrow because its going back to the projector lens, you would have to be really close to the screen to get alot of that cone, unrealistically close imp.


The bottem is a little brighter in the viewing position infront of the projector, but i could only notice it on a full white pattern, it levels off at the bottem portion, not much of the bottem appeared brighter. When I went behind the projector the only brightness drop i noticed was on that bottem portion, it evened out with the rest of the screen.


The differences were not much at all that i would worry, as long as your projector is reasonably low, and your screen is not way above eye level, i dont see any problems.


----------



## Warbie

After years of combating an image that's too dim for my liking i'm on the verge of pulling the trigger on an HP screen to go with an RS20, and have one last question:


Is anyone using an HP screen with a relatively sort throw and seating distance - 12 tand 14 ft respectively? I'm concerned that i'll see some kind of sheen or sparkle in bright scenes this close to the screen (Studiotk 130 G3 has too much sheen for my liking at this distance).


Other than this it looks like all things are covered - 119" 16:9 screen that's as wide as the sofa we'll be watching from. The PJ will be about a foot above head height.


Cheers for the great thread btw.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Warbie* /forum/post/17666717
> 
> 
> After years of combating an image that's too dim for my liking i'm on the verge of pulling the trigger on an HP screen to go with an RS20, and have one last question:
> 
> 
> Is anyone using an HP screen with a relatively sort throw and seating distance - 12 tand 14 ft respectively? I'm concerned that i'll see some kind of sheen or sparkle in bright scenes this close to the screen (Studiotk 130 G3 has too much sheen for my liking at this distance).
> 
> 
> Other than this it looks like all things are covered - 119" 16:9 screen that's as wide as the sofa we'll be watching from. The PJ will be about a foot above head height.
> 
> 
> Cheers for the great thread btw.



Hi Warbie. I will be able to answer your question in the next few days. I don't have your typical HT I don't have the room. However I have a HC3000 with an new lamp (


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Warbie* /forum/post/17666717
> 
> 
> After years of combating an image that's too dim for my liking i'm on the verge of pulling the trigger on an HP screen to go with an RS20, and have one last question:
> 
> 
> Is anyone using an HP screen with a relatively sort throw and seating distance - 12 tand 14 ft respectively? I'm concerned that i'll see some kind of sheen or sparkle in bright scenes this close to the screen (Studiotk 130 G3 has too much sheen for my liking at this distance).
> 
> 
> Other than this it looks like all things are covered - 119" 16:9 screen that's as wide as the sofa we'll be watching from. The PJ will be about a foot above head height.
> 
> 
> Cheers for the great thread btw.



My seating distance is 12 feet and the throw about 15 feet. There's no sheen on the HP. I had a Firehawk, whose sheen was obvious in certain shots. I've never seen any sort of sheen or glistening with the HP.


----------



## Warbie

Thanks for that, Joseph.


Are you happy with the HPs performance?


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Warbie* /forum/post/17666996
> 
> 
> Thanks for that, Joseph.
> 
> 
> Are you happy with the HPs performance?



Extremely.


----------



## Fabricator

guys. how good is Da-Lite about sending samples ?

what size are the said samples ?

thanx


sorry if this has been asked


----------



## airscapes

I requested samples over a week ago.. still not here.. figure what the heck and bought the HP sight unseen. I imagine the will show up together ;-)


----------



## WOLVERNOLE

I got my HiPower sample (plus other DaLite samples to boot) in about four days of calling...and they were NOT "Band-Aid" size either- nice and big.


----------



## Warbie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/17666884
> 
> 
> Hi Warbie. I will be able to answer your question in the next few days. I don't have your typical HT I don't have the room. However I have a HC3000 with an new lamp (


----------



## Imageek2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Warbie* /forum/post/17666717
> 
> 
> Is anyone using an HP screen with a relatively sort throw and seating distance - 12 tand 14 ft respectively? I'm concerned that i'll see some kind of sheen or sparkle in bright scenes this close to the screen (Studiotk 130 G3 has too much sheen for my liking at this distance).



I am sitting about 10 ft. from a 100 inch diagonal 4:3 HP and no sparkles, hotspotting or surface texture. You will be happy with the HP.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Warbie* /forum/post/17667811
> 
> 
> Let me know how you get on. I imagine at that size the screen is going to glow like plasma



That is my hope! If I can't have real big It would be very cool to have Real POP!


----------



## Warbie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Imageek2* /forum/post/17668533
> 
> 
> I am sitting about 10 ft. from a 100 inch diagonal 4:3 HP and no sparkles, hotspotting or surface texture. You will be happy with the HP.



Cheers for that. Time to pull the trigger


----------



## gadgetfreaky

I never saw a response to this. Model B or Model C , is the cost worth it? I Need 106".

I'm going to be using mine just at night for movies and weekends for football, behind it is a plasma so lots of up and down. I also believe this is going to be something only for 2-3 years when I hopefully move somewhere where I can go bigger. Does the Model B have wrinkles if I pull it up and down a lot?




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AcademyDL* /forum/post/17024049
> 
> 
> Da-Lite High power model differences?
> 
> 
> is the
> 
> Model B
> 
> or C
> 
> more susceptible to sagging or wrinkling?
> 
> 
> 
> -Any of you with the Model B having problems with sagging or
> 
> wrinkling uneven stretching?
> 
> 
> Same question for the Model C owners.
> 
> 
> Can you owners chime in on your screen quality status?
> 
> 
> -What size your Screen is and if you own a model "B" or "C"
> 
> 
> -Also how long you have owned yours would be valuable information


----------



## Bronco70

Hi All,


This thread has been rather active of late. I think we are creating some converts.


I've been using a 133" 16:9 HP model C with a BenQ PE-7700 for the past 4 years. The 7700 is a zero offset setup with no lens shift, so the gain was 1.4-1.5. That pj has enough lumen output to get very close to SMPTE standard, at least with a new lamp.


Just upgraded to a BenQ W6000. A true light cannon. Just to check it out and see what a 2.8 gain means I put the lens at eye height dead center on the screen.


Amazing, in out of the box default settings, it is just way too bright. Would cause eye fatigue over even a short viewing time. Switching to low lamp mode, "cinema" preset helped, but even then a ND filter would have been needed. Not a bad thing over the lamps life.


Ceiling mounted and back to a 1.4-1.5 gain. Very nice.


I also have a new Panny 50" plasma in a second room that calibrated very well.


When I'm done with colorimiter tweaks, an image that looks like the Panny only at 133".


Would a grey/ HC screen provide a bit better black level? Perhaps but I'll take the pop and wow factor that the HP material provides.


And since it is a non tensioned screen the lack of waves is a huge plus.


Joe


----------



## badgerpilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gadgetfreaky* /forum/post/17669675
> 
> 
> I never saw a response to this. Model B or Model C , is the cost worth it? I Need 106".
> 
> I'm going to be using mine just at night for movies and weekends for football, behind it is a plasma so lots of up and down. I also believe this is going to be something only for 2-3 years when I hopefully move somewhere where I can go bigger. Does the Model B have wrinkles if I pull it up and down a lot?



I just hung my 106" model B. Watching MNF with an Epson 8100 and all I can say is wow! Mine is a temporary solution as well, I will need to take it up and down as needed. I have a samsung dlp behind it. The screen is mounted on a wall unit. Absolutely ZERO wrinkles. The screen is perfect. I went with the B because I wanted something a little smaller since I will need to move it at times. The roller mechanism is very smooth. For me, it wasn't so much the cost, but portability but I think you will be happy with the B. Of course I can't comment about long term use, but today, I am very happy that I got the B.


Thanks everyone on this thread especially you Tryg







I can turn my 6 can lights on and I still have an incredible picture! It is just like watching my 61" DLP only it's 106"!!! If anyone is on the fence, IMO, go for it!


----------



## Joseph Clark

I buddy of mine has a 119" pull-down and I've never seen a wrinkle on it. It's up and down all the time.


----------



## Fabricator

guys, can you clearify this for me.


iirc. off axis gain of the HP is about 1.4/5ish ? normally its only my wife and i watching. but every other week or so, we have a few friends over. they sit next to our 2 seats, and the 2 girls lay on the floor. lense is about 2 1/2' directly above my eyes. how will the friends/girls be affected ?


thanx


----------



## airscapes

WOOHOO just got my tiny little tripod screen with HP fabric! No, I know, go big or go home.. but you gota work with the room you got.

Set up is as follows.

43x57 4:3 picture king with HP fabric in the 16:9 config which is about 65" diag

Mitsubishi HC3000 New lamp 200+ hours

Iris closed

Low power on the lamp

9' from the screen on a 15" high box, bottom of screen about 28" off the floor.

Seating is about 14" back or you can slide closer if you like









As to the viewing cone, my projector is at the same level as my knees and I am 5' behind it and it is BRIGHT not as bright as on the floor but that was to bright. Off to the side... not that I can go that far but 4-5 feet to the right of the projector along the wall, picture still look out of this world.


Watched HD movie.. August Rush and HD News after that.


Spent some time comparing to the old Apollo screen with who knows what kind of surface. I do think it is a positive gain since it has texture and sparkles up close.

The HP blew it away in every manner.. color, PQ, no sparkles or hot spots just a Bright Clear Picture!! Like I got a NEW projector but I didn't!

Had to back off on the contrast and the brightness a bit the projector still needs a pro calibration.


So to anyone who is thinking that hot spots or sparkles will be an issue.. standing as close I can to the screen the only thing you see is the projected image.. nothing else.. no texture at all. No sparkles.. omg why would you want anything else.. Oh.. and the minor waves you get at the bottom of a tripod screen.. NO CAN SEE! Thanks to everyone who has posted in the thread, I had not intentions of buying a new tripod screen.. but I am sure glad I did. Jason at AVS thanks for hooking me up it was a great upgrade and I can't wait to get a bigger house so I can get a BIG HP screen!!


----------



## badgerpilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fabricator* /forum/post/17677611
> 
> 
> guys, can you clearify this for me.
> 
> 
> iirc. off axis gain of the HP is about 1.4/5ish ? normally its only my wife and i watching. but every other week or so, we have a few friends over. they sit next to our 2 seats, and the 2 girls lay on the floor. lense is about 2 1/2' directly above my eyes. how will the friends/girls be affected ?
> 
> 
> thanx



They are going to love it! I can move all around my room, every seat including the floor has a great picture. I don't think you can go wrong with this screen. We have a Christmas tree with white lights in the rear corner, another Christmas decoration on the fireplace mantel, and 6 can lights on medium, and the picture is still excellent. No need for a bat cave! Awesome screen


----------



## gadgetfreaky

Thank you badgerpilot! That's what I wanted to hear. I'm ceiling mounting it and want it down at a certain height. Given the measurements fully extended I need to hang it 10" from the ceiling. How does everyone hang these? Chains hanging from the ceiling? I'm assuming I have to hang at the ends but doubt there are studs exactly where I want to hang it. What should I use?


I was also contemplating the model C 110" but not sure the extra 4" is worth the money. Worth it? I'm sitting 11' back and 13' throw buying the Epson 8500UB tomorrow.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *badgerpilot* /forum/post/17677250
> 
> 
> I just hung my 106" model B. Watching MNF with an Epson 8100 and all I can say is wow! Mine is a temporary solution as well, I will need to take it up and down as needed. I have a samsung dlp behind it. The screen is mounted on a wall unit. Absolutely ZERO wrinkles. The screen is perfect. I went with the B because I wanted something a little smaller since I will need to move it at times. The roller mechanism is very smooth. For me, it wasn't so much the cost, but portability but I think you will be happy with the B. Of course I can't comment about long term use, but today, I am very happy that I got the B.
> 
> 
> Thanks everyone on this thread especially you Tryg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can turn my 6 can lights on and I still have an incredible picture! It is just like watching my 61" DLP only it's 106"!!! If anyone is on the fence, IMO, go for it!


----------



## badgerpilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gadgetfreaky* /forum/post/17678335
> 
> 
> Thank you badgerpilot! That's what I wanted to hear. I'm ceiling mounting it and want it down at a certain height. Given the measurements fully extended I need to hang it 10" from the ceiling. How does everyone hang these? Chains hanging from the ceiling? I'm assuming I have to hang at the ends but doubt there are studs exactly where I want to hang it. What should I use?
> 
> 
> I was also contemplating the model C 110" but not sure the extra 4" is worth the money. Worth it? I'm sitting 11' back and 13' throw buying the Epson 8500UB tomorrow.



There are tabs at the end of the case to hang from. Dalite sells various brackets ( http://www.dalite.com/products/install_pdfs/108.pdf ) that could be mounted with the use of molly bolts, no stud required. The weight is only 26 pounds so it is not that much weight. If you are mounting above your plasma and you are DIY capable, I would mount a 2x4 2" longer than the case above the plasma. I don't know how far out your plasma is from the wall, but you may need some other cuts of wood to get the case out in front of the plasma. Then mount the case to the board. Finally, use the decorative trim of your choice to go in front of the case. If your are really good, you could make the decorative part a shelf. This would end up being a "floating shelf" like this one here: http://www.homedepot.com/catalog/pro...35b963_300.jpg That way, the screen will be hidden by the "shelf" when you don't need it and pull it down for movie night. I don't know if the extra 4" is worth it or not, only you can decide that, but the 106" is a nice size 13' back. By the way, I have the projector on at 9:45 in the morning, it is cloudy but still a lot of light with a window right next to the screen, another window on the side in the back of the room, and the picture is very watchable


----------



## gadgetfreaky




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *badgerpilot* /forum/post/17679710
> 
> 
> There are tabs at the end of the case to hang from. Dalite sells various brackets ( http://www.dalite.com/products/install_pdfs/108.pdf ) that could be mounted with the use of molly bolts, no stud required. The weight is only 26 pounds so it is not that much weight. If you are mounting above your plasma and you are DIY capable, I would mount a 2x4 2" longer than the case above the plasma. I don't know how far out your plasma is from the wall, but you may need some other cuts of wood to get the case out in front of the plasma. Then mount the case to the board. Finally, use the decorative trim of your choice to go in front of the case. If your are really good, you could make the decorative part a shelf. This would end up being a "floating shelf" like this one here: http://www.homedepot.com/catalog/pro...35b963_300.jpg That way, the screen will be hidden by the "shelf" when you don't need it and pull it down for movie night. I don't know if the extra 4" is worth it or not, only you can decide that, but the 106" is a nice size 13' back. By the way, I have the projector on at 9:45 in the morning, it is cloudy but still a lot of light with a window right next to the screen, another window on the side in the back of the room, and the picture is very watchable




Ah thanks.. Here's my room below. I was thinking of mounting it on the ceiling and have it drop right in front of the plasma. But you are saying use the extension wall mount bracket and hang it from there.. Makes more sense.


----------



## Fabricator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *badgerpilot* /forum/post/17677957
> 
> 
> They are going to love it! I can move all around my room, every seat including the floor has a great picture. I don't think you can go wrong with this screen. We have a Christmas tree with white lights in the rear corner, another Christmas decoration on the fireplace mantel, and 6 can lights on medium, and the picture is still excellent. No need for a bat cave! Awesome screen



:thumbs up: thanx


(this place needs a few more smilies)


now, i have to find it at what i think is a good price. so, if anyone see's a 120"ish manual on sale somewhere. please pm me. thanx


----------



## badgerpilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gadgetfreaky* /forum/post/17682971
> 
> 
> Ah thanks.. Here's my room below. I was thinking of mounting it on the ceiling and have it drop right in front of the plasma. But you are saying use the extension wall mount bracket and hang it from there.. Makes more sense.



Looks like your plasma is on a stand kind of far from the wall. I don't think the brackets will get it out that far. Honestly, if it were me, I would get a wall mount from monoprice so that the plasma is tight to the wall. That way it is going to be much easier to mount the screen and you could use the floating shelf idea to cover the screen case when not in use. You could easily make something that would match your wall units. If you leave the plasma on the stand, then you probably will have to mount from the ceiling.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fabricator* /forum/post/17683780
> 
> 
> :thumbs up: thanx
> 
> 
> (this place needs a few more smilies)
> 
> 
> now, i have to find it at what i think is a good price. so, if anyone see's a 120"ish manual on sale somewhere. please pm me. thanx



Give Jason a Call at AVS or PM/email him for a quote! I think you will be very happy, I know I was!


----------



## WOLVERNOLE




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/17684703
> 
> 
> Give Jason a Call at AVS or PM/email him for a quote! I think you will be very happy, I know I was!



I would like to second that. Utilizing AVScience and Jason should be an "automatic." Prices, advice, and this forum...period.


----------



## novasol

Searched this thread but couldn't find the answer...couldn't find it on the Dalite site either, so...


How much black top masking is there on a 92" model B pulldown? I need at least 9 inches.


----------



## gadgetfreaky




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *badgerpilot* /forum/post/17684244
> 
> 
> Looks like your plasma is on a stand kind of far from the wall. I don't think the brackets will get it out that far. Honestly, if it were me, I would get a wall mount from monoprice so that the plasma is tight to the wall. That way it is going to be much easier to mount the screen and you could use the floating shelf idea to cover the screen case when not in use. You could easily make something that would match your wall units. If you leave the plasma on the stand, then you probably will have to mount from the ceiling.



Unfortunately i'm renting and didn't want to mount that to the wall, hence the stand. I need the screen 16.5" away from the wall to drop in front of the plasma. will the bracket be good enough for tha tdistance?


----------



## badgerpilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gadgetfreaky* /forum/post/17691758
> 
> 
> Unfortunately i'm renting and didn't want to mount that to the wall, hence the stand. I need the screen 16.5" away from the wall to drop in front of the plasma. will the bracket be good enough for tha tdistance?



Looks like the Model 23 extends up to 24" so that should work for you.

http://www.da-lite.com/products/product_pdfs/108.pdf


----------



## Murilo

Im just curious what you guys think would be better, or if it would probably not make a difference. RIght now my projector and seating their is about 22 inch difference. I still get good gain however.


If i move my projector back i could probably drop it another 12 inches.


However I would have to move it about 3-4 inches back, and i noticed others did throw ratio lumens for my projector, and it became much dimmer even a few inches back. Right now according the the gain calculator im getting about 2.04 gain.


Again Im just wondering if anyone has a comment on what would be best.


----------



## rgathright

Attached is the screen gain calculations for my setup. There are two items I did not know what to put in. I cannot lower the projector any more due to it has to be ceiling mounted (10') and I do not want to hit my head on it. The screen height from the floor is decided by the stand that will be under the screen (WAF).


One is the items not input is the offset of the seating. There will be one chair to the left and one to the right about 3' from the projector.


The other one is the projector distance left or right from the center of the screen. From the sitting position the projector will be about 12" to the right of the center of the screen.


Also what is the difference between the Perm Wall frame and Da-Snap frame? Besides the fact the Da-Snap is about $500 more.

 

RG Screen Gain Calc (Excel).zip 6.294921875k . file


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgathright* /forum/post/17693045
> 
> 
> One is the items not input is the offset of the seating. There will be one chair to the left and one to the right about 3' from the projector.
> 
> 
> The other one is the projector distance left or right from the center of the screen. From the sitting position the projector will be about 12" to the right of the center of the screen.



You will need to make calculations for one chair at a time. Use the chair center as the distance, and enter the value in inches. Measure the distance parallel to the screen. A chair position to the left of screen center will be entered as a negative number.


For both calculations enter 12 as the projector offset on line 24. Note that this distance is also measured parallel to the screen and is not affected by seating position(s).


----------



## gadgetfreaky




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *badgerpilot* /forum/post/17691799
> 
> 
> Looks like the Model 23 extends up to 24" so that should work for you.
> 
> http://www.da-lite.com/products/product_pdfs/108.pdf



In reading some posts last night, am I better off ordering one with an extra 10" of black fabric on top and ceiling mount it? or should I do it off the wall with the bracket extension?


----------



## Tryg

Always get more black drop down than you think you need. Get 24 inches or more if necessary. What stays on the roller never hurts....in fact it helps by holding the tape tight to the roller. You can always use what's available in whatever setup you may change to. You can really add more once you order and would like more.


----------



## Murilo

I hate to interject again, but since my installer is installing my screen this week I wouldnt mind any opinion on my question?


I am thinking about moving my projector back more and i could drop it about 10 inches. Right now its 22 inches difference between my eyes and the projector. It would be closer to 12-14 if i moved it back, because then its out of the way and i can drop it more. According to the gain calculator im getting 2.0 gain.


On the other side of the coin moving back a projector cuts down on lumens quite a bit, someone had shown me pictures of my projector at 12 inches and then at 15 inches I believe, and even in the pictures it looked much dimmer.


I would test this myself, but sadly my projector is 28 pounds and my installer created a makeshift mount and i dont like to touch it.


Maybe their would be really no change since im cutting lumens and increasing gain by doing this?


----------



## Murilo

And one other topic I would like to mention, the reason i purchased a highpower was because my glass beaded got wrecked when a moth landed on it, and went up into the case, i tried to rub it off. I noticed using the da-lite samples when i tried to rub something off, it did the same thing as my glass beaded, and that is make a very large dark hole that black, and looks even worse.


Now I know some people recomended cleaning solutions, but how exactly do you clean it, if you cant rub it, without ruining the surface?


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/17698656
> 
> 
> I hate to interject again, but since my installer is installing my screen this week I wouldnt mind any opinion on my question?
> 
> 
> I am thinking about moving my projector back more and i could drop it about 10 inches. Right now its 22 inches difference between my eyes and the projector. It would be closer to 12-14 if i moved it back, because then its out of the way and i can drop it more. According to the gain calculator im getting 2.0 gain.
> 
> 
> On the other side of the coin moving back a projector cuts down on lumens quite a bit, someone had shown me pictures of my projector at 12 inches and then at 15 inches I believe, and even in the pictures it looked much dimmer.
> 
> 
> I would test this myself, but sadly my projector is 28 pounds and my installer created a makeshift mount and i dont like to touch it.
> 
> 
> Maybe their would be really no change since im cutting lumens and increasing gain by doing this?



If it is going to be a big deal to move your projector, don't move it till your screen is in place and you see how freaking wonderful it looks! Then you can move your eyes back and up a little to see if it will be worth the effort.


----------



## rgathright

I have sent Da-Lite an e-mail requesting some samples of the High Power. What are fabrics and/or brand samples could I get also that have a high gain to compare to the High Power?


----------



## Fabricator

when asking for a HP sample, do i just email them ? how long does it take to get the sample ?

how is the sample packed for shipping ?


thanx


----------



## airscapes

I called on the phone going on 2 weeks ago and have not received the samples as of yet. I did buy the screen and that showed up in 3 days







I would suggest you try the live chat session to verify who to call. I used the chat feature and got all my questions about the screen I was thinking of buying answered on the spot.


----------



## Fabricator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *novasol* /forum/post/17691466
> 
> 
> Searched this thread but couldn't find the answer...couldn't find it on the Dalite site either, so...
> 
> 
> How much black top masking is there on a 92" model B pulldown? I need at least 9 inches.



iirc. you can get whatever you want.


----------



## Fabricator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/17699798
> 
> 
> I called on the phone going on 2 weeks ago and have not received the samples as of yet.
> 
> 
> I did buy the screen and that showed up in 3 days
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would suggest you try the live chat session to verify who to call. I used the chat feature and got all my questions about the screen I was thinking of buying answered on the spot.




thats funny and sad, at the same time. you would think they would get the samples out "before you even call them" (so to say). before potential buyers had a chance to change their minds. seems like poor customer service to me.


that is great. or should i say, good customer service. i had been wondering about delivery times. who did you order it from ?


thanx, i will try that.


----------



## rgathright

I received a reply to my e-mail concerning samples and they offered to send a 6" x 6" piece. Is this big enough and would I overstep my boundaries by asking for a bigger piece?


----------



## airscapes

Fabricator, I ordered from Jason at AVS, they had the best price and the screen was drop shipped from Da-lite.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/17699070
> 
> 
> And one other topic I would like to mention, the reason i purchased a highpower was because my glass beaded got wrecked when a moth landed on it, and went up into the case, i tried to rub it off. I noticed using the da-lite samples when i tried to rub something off, it did the same thing as my glass beaded, and that is make a very large dark hole that black, and looks even worse.
> 
> 
> Now I know some people recomended cleaning solutions, but how exactly do you clean it, if you cant rub it, without ruining the surface?



I use eyeglass cleaner and a soft, lint-free cloth. I had to work REALLY hard to get the sample Da-Lite sent me to fail. I mean, it took elbow grease, some real abuse, to create a blemish. Once it did finally flake, it was toast. I could tell there was no fixing it. But, I've cleaned mine a lot with that cloth/cleaner combo, and it's surprisingly tough. It's also a thick fabric, and the wall it's up against is rough on that side. No problem. I've also cleaned off some smashed insects (mosquitoes, little spiders, etc.).


----------



## novasol




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *novasol* /forum/post/17691466
> 
> 
> Searched this thread but couldn't find the answer...couldn't find it on the Dalite site either, so...
> 
> 
> How much black top masking is there on a 92" model B pulldown? I need at least 9 inches.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fabricator* /forum/post/17699813
> 
> 
> iirc. you can get whatever you want.



How do you specify this when ordering from an online store? I don't see any way of doing this...I'm in Canada so there are only a couple places where I can purchase one.


----------



## gadgetfreaky




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *novasol* /forum/post/17702326
> 
> 
> How do you specify this when ordering from an online store? I don't see any way of doing this...I'm in Canada so there are only a couple places where I can purchase one.



I'd call Jason with AVS. I did, he rocks

Jason C. Turk

Sales, Installations and ISF Calibrations

585-671-2968
[email protected] 

NOTE: I work for A/V Science, AVSForu


----------



## RodK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *novasol* /forum/post/17702326
> 
> 
> How do you specify this when ordering from an online store? I don't see any way of doing this...I'm in Canada so there are only a couple places where I can purchase one.



Not taking anything away from AVS, but for us canadians go check out www.projectorsplus.ca . They have pricing on there and show how much extra blackdrop costs.


----------



## novasol




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RodK* /forum/post/17703262
> 
> 
> Not taking anything away from AVS, but for us canadians go check out www.projectorsplus.ca . They have pricing on there and show how much extra blackdrop costs.



Thanks..called a few places and getting conflicting information. One place said it comes standard with 18" drop and another said 2" with extra $$ per square foot.


Anyone?


Okay, checked the da lite website and they list two part#'s for model B replacement fabric....


98270 Fabric, High Power 45" x 80" - 92" diag. with 18" black drop

86230 Fabric, High Power 45" x 80" - 92" diag.


Now I'm even more confused


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/17699798
> 
> 
> I called on the phone going on 2 weeks ago and have not received the samples as of yet. I did buy the screen and that showed up in 3 days
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would suggest you try the live chat session to verify who to call. I used the chat feature and got all my questions about the screen I was thinking of buying answered on the spot.



Just got the sample book. Each piece is 6-7/8" square, one for every material they sell.


----------



## gadgetfreaky

So I ordered the 110" Model C with CSR from Jason at AVS, he was great to deal with.


I also know after reading way too much of this thread it's retro-reflective meaning I need it to be eye level to get the most out of this. Problem is that I was talking to my wife tonight and she'd like the projector ceiling mounted and out of the way!


I was going to put it behind the sofa on bar stool that we would pull out on the weekends for movie night, but realized having to put it in the exact position, everytime might be difficult and in fact hanging this from the ceiling right above the window line would be aesthetically the best. The center of the screen will be 39" from the ceiling, my eyes will be at 70" from the ceiling. Projector where ideally it would be mounted for the wife would be about 22" from the ceiling.

Throw is 13'


What's going to happen if I do this?


Any other suggestions on what to do? anyone else use a stand that they pull in and out?


----------



## airscapes

If you ceiling mount it, is the wife willing to have the needed construction done to run cables and power?

As bad as it is for the projector (they say never move it) I move mine from storage shell to box every time I use it. Takes moments to get it lined up.. Having it mounted is nice but if you have a finished room with no ceiling access can turn into a big job..


----------



## gadgetfreaky




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/17704477
> 
> 
> If you ceiling mount it, is the wife willing to have the needed construction done to run cables and power?
> 
> As bad as it is for the projector (they say never move it) I move mine from storage shell to box every time I use it. Takes moments to get it lined up.. Having it mounted is nice but if you have a finished room with no ceiling access can turn into a big job..



actually i would just build a shelf right above the window line and put the projector there. I would be able to run power straight down as there's a gap between the window and the larger sliding glass door shutters. I'd run hdmi cable under the rug, under the sofa, come out behind the sofa (put a cable runner) and up the wall. Although is there a solution for cat5? i can run that around the house.


I was looking at these flat hdmi cables to run http://www.monoprice.com/products/pr...seq=1&format=2


----------



## Fabricator

i have a 30' monoprice flat cable. it is very nice.


----------



## gadgetfreaky




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fabricator* /forum/post/17704873
> 
> 
> i have a 30' monoprice flat cable. it is very nice.




hmm, i might just do this
http://www.francisav.com/gigant.htm 


or
http://www.francisav.com/projecto.htm 


wondering how difficult it is to put it back in the same spot everytime/focus, etc


----------



## airscapes

Not hard. You don't change the focus and the screen does not move..once the image fits inside the screen it is just about on the money. BTW that link did not work for me.


----------



## RodK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *novasol* /forum/post/17703712
> 
> 
> Thanks..called a few places and getting conflicting information. One place said it comes standard with 18" drop and another said 2" with extra $$ per square foot.
> 
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> 
> Okay, checked the da lite website and they list two part#'s for model B replacement fabric....
> 
> 
> 98270 Fabric, High Power 45" x 80" - 92" diag. with 18" black drop
> 
> 86230 Fabric, High Power 45" x 80" - 92" diag.
> 
> 
> Now I'm even more confused



go check out www.dalite.com . in the model B, there are 2 sizes you could get with extra blackdrop(92" & 106").


eg. 106" 16X9 highpower model B with 2" blackdrop # 78672

" " with 12" blackdrop # 98031


----------



## oldlostcory

Have a quick question for anyone that would be willing to help. I'm looking at a model b 92". Right now i'm projecting on a wall and projecting a 95" diagonal image. I'm willing to drop to 92" diagonal, but when they say 92" does that include the border? So the actually viewing screen is less? I don't know if i'd want to drop down to the 80s in screen size.


One other quick question is there any issues you may run into if you leave the screen pulled down the whole time? I don't see any reasons for me to roll it up ever.


Thanks for any help.


----------



## Tryg

92" would be the viewable image, not the 2" masked border.


leaving it down is best for watching movies


----------



## hrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oldlostcory* /forum/post/17714278
> 
> 
> Have a quick question for anyone that would be willing to help. I'm looking at a model b 92". Right now i'm projecting on a wall and projecting a 95" diagonal image. I'm willing to drop to 92" diagonal, but when they say 92" does that include the border? So the actually viewing screen is less? I don't know if i'd want to drop down to the 80s in screen size.
> 
> 
> One other quick question is there any issues you may run into if you leave the screen pulled down the whole time? I don't see any reasons for me to roll it up ever.
> 
> 
> Thanks for any help.



Da-Lite has complete specs for all of its screens on its website. Scroll down and look to the right for "product documents":

http://www.da-lite.com/products/prod...?cID=9&pID=229


----------



## oldlostcory




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/17714302
> 
> 
> 92" would be the viewable image, not the 2" masked border.
> 
> 
> leaving it down is best for watching movies



awesome, thanks.


----------



## novasol




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RodK* /forum/post/17711415
> 
> 
> go check out www.dalite.com . in the model B, there are a few sizes you could get with the 18" blackdrop.
> 
> 
> eg. 106" 16X9 highpower model B with 2" blackdrop # 78672
> 
> " " with 18" blackdrop # 98031



Excellent, thank you. Though it seems the 92" is has an 18" drop and the 106" is 12".


----------



## zombie10k

is anyone familar with the turnaround time from Dalite on the Cinema Contour Screens? I am narrowing down between the 2:35:1 HP, either 133" or 138" and was curious if these are pre-made or do they have a 1-2 week waiting period to make the screen?


This might be bad timing to order around xmas, perhaps i'll wait until after new years.


thanks!


----------



## Jay Taylor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zombie10k* /forum/post/17726043
> 
> 
> is anyone familar with the turnaround time from Dalite on the Cinema Contour Screens? I am narrowing down between the 2:35:1 HP, either 133" or 138" and was curious if these are pre-made or do they have a 1-2 week waiting period to make the screen?
> 
> 
> This might be bad timing to order around xmas, perhaps i'll wait until after new years.
> 
> 
> thanks!



I ordered a 1.78:1 HP 133" Da-Lite Contour Electrol with numerous custom features through AV Science Store at noon CST on Monday, Nov 30, 2009. The invoice from Da-Lite showed it being ordered on December 4th, it shipped on December 9th and I received it in Oklahoma City yesterday afternoon, December 14th.


I'm surprised to have an electric screen of that size with so many custom features to be built and delivered so quickly.


Custom Features:

3 foot black drop at top

Black drop adjusted to 6 inches

Black Case and Black End Caps

Heritage Walnut veneer on case

50 foot RJ22 Cable to control screen (25 foot is standard)

Infrared Remote Receiver & Transmitter

Silent Motor

Built in Low Voltage Control Unit

10 foot power cord installed


----------



## oldlostcory

Just ordered mine, model b 92" from Jason at AVS. Very helpful, glad someone recommended him. Can't wait to get the screen.


----------



## AV-NUT-99

Oldlostcory:


I have had my manual Model C HP 106" diagonal for 3 years now - I used to leave it down all the time. One time I rolled it up to play around with setting it to a height of 38.5" to see how it would look in a 2.40:1 format. Used the projector lens shift to raise the image a bit to fit. I now have a hook stop mounted on the wall for my 'second' viewing position. I just let it roll up and slip the handle over the hook to hold the screen in that position. Then back down for 1.78:1. Works pretty good!


----------



## oldlostcory




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AV-NUT-99* /forum/post/17733228
> 
> 
> Oldlostcory:
> 
> 
> I have had my manual Model C HP 106" diagonal for 3 years now - I used to leave it down all the time. One time I rolled it up to play around with setting it to a height of 38.5" to see how it would look in a 2.40:1 format. Used the projector lens shift to raise the image a bit to fit. I now have a hook stop mounted on the wall for my 'second' viewing position. I just let it roll up and slip the handle over the hook to hold the screen in that position. Then back down for 1.78:1. Works pretty good!



Not a bad idea, I may give it a try. Glad to hear there is nothing wrong with leaving it down.


I'm really curious how much of an improvement i'll see over my wall. I realize i'm going to lose some gain because I'm not seated close to the projector and I also use a fair amount of lens shift. If for some reason I don't see a difference then i'll come up with a new location I suppose. I'll take a few before and after pictures.


----------



## Pedro2

projector central has a new review of the high power screen...a "mixed review," at best, certainly quite a contrast to all the enthusiasm on this forum.


I myself have a high power screen, happy with it, but the review does have me wondering...


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pedro2* /forum/post/17741471
> 
> 
> projector central has a new review of the high power screen...a "mixed review," at best, certainly quite a contrast to all the enthusiasm on this forum.
> 
> 
> I myself have a high power screen, happy with it, but the review does have me wondering...


 Here's the link for that piece. 


I've read a couple of "bad" reviews about the High Power in the last few months. The Projector Central "review" could hardly be called a review. It has a couple of anecdotes about black level and graininess, but no solid numbers. My ISF guy saw the Affinity at a trade show and he really liked it, too. It may be better than the HP, but I also read a piece in Widescreen Review that didn't have very good things to say about it compared to the Stewart StudioTek 100. As a matter of fact, the Widescreen Review piece seems to tag the Affinity with some of the same negative attributes the Projector Central review attaches to the HP.


I don't have a link to the other relatively negative review of the HP, but it appears somewhere here on AVS. If I were to see the screens in an environment where the variables could be controlled carefully, I might like the StudioTek or the Affinity better, too. It's not a simple issue, though, since black level, gain, color uniformity and other screen attributes will vary depending on the projector's position, the viewer's seating position and other factors. A comparison of black level, for instance, even in a side by side viewing environment with two different screens, might be meaningless.


The only two screens I've seen in my own home theater are the Stewart Firehawk and the HP. I know which I prefer in that setting, and it's the HP by a wide margin. If I had only the Widescreen Review article to go on, I might rush out to buy the Stewart StudioTek 100. If I had only the Projector Central review to go on, I might want the JKP Affinity. Either one might convince me that my HP is a piece of crap that I should just throw onto the scrap heap and start over. My eyes (and my checkbook) don't tell me that. I'm very happy with the HP in my home theater.


I've agonized over this home theater stuff enough to agree with the basic premise of the Projector Central review - it's all about compromises. I know I don't have the perfect home theater, but until I can find a place to view lots of screens and see for myself something else that looks better, I'll be happy with the HP.


----------



## Pedro2

well put.


----------



## neverfaithful

Hey can anyone give me some strong advice. I am going to be purchasing my first projector and I think I decided on the Epson 8500UB. I will be sitting about 10-11 feet back and I have a light controlled room but would like to watch TV sometimes with the light dimmed but movies will be lights out. I need a motorized screen since I will have my Pio plasma behind the screen. I am looking to get a 106" screen maybe 120" if it wont be to big for he measurements I mentioned. Oh and my walls are burgundy with a black ceiling. Any suggestions, thanks. Rich.


----------



## Tryg

Here's some strong advice. Try putting a question in your post so we have some idea what you want advice on!


----------



## neverfaithful




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/17747502
> 
> 
> Here's some strong advice. Try putting a question in your post so we have some idea what you want advice on!



Oh my question is what kind of screen should I buy based on what I have said in my post? I was at work when I wrote that.


----------



## Steve Carr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *neverfaithful* /forum/post/17747944
> 
> 
> I was at work when I wrote that.



On company time.... now, now, now let's get to work.


----------



## Steve Carr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/17741692
> 
> 
> 
> My eyes (and my checkbook) don't tell me that. I'm very happy with the HP in my home theater.
> 
> 
> I've agonized over this home theater stuff enough to agree with the basic premise of the Projector Central review - it's all about compromises. I know I don't have the perfect home theater, but until I can find a place to view lots of screens and see for myself something else that looks better, I'll be happy with the HP.



I KNOW THAT'S RIGHT.... Joe, sounds like the HT Bug got you...










Steve


----------



## edpowers




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/17741692
> 
> Here's the link for that piece.
> 
> 
> I've read a couple of "bad" reviews about the High Power in the last few months. The Projector Central "review" could hardly be called a review. It has a couple of anecdotes about black level and graininess, but no solid numbers. My ISF guy saw the Affinity at a trade show and he really liked it, too. It may be better than the HP, but I also read a piece in Widescreen Review that didn't have very good things to say about it compared to the Stewart StudioTek 100. As a matter of fact, the Widescreen Review piece seems to tag the Affinity with some of the same negative attributes the Projector Central review attaches to the HP.



That projector central review is pathetic and seriously lacking in details. Its really hard to even call that a review. Also, comparing a 2.8 gain screen to a .8 or 1 gain screen just seems like a waste of time to me. Its like comparing a sniper rifle to a machine gun and stating that the machine gun can hit more targets from 10 feet away.


I think the general conclusion is accurate .... the HP is certainly not for everyone. My problem is that I think they exaggerate the off-axis 'problems'. I rarely sit off-axis, but when I do, the picture still looks very good and uniform ... its just not as bright. It certainly isn't unwatchable. Also, they fail to acknowledge the fact that the HP is an excellent roll-down option. Even if I couldn't sit in the prime gain cone ... I'd still get an HP if I used a pull down simply because it hides all wrinkles and waves. There are so many factors that should come into play when selecting a screen, that review fails to evaluate most of them.


----------



## gadgetfreaky

I posted this seperate but since this thread is higher traffic..
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1207731 



Hey guys, please help...


I just installed my 110" model C with CSR and I can NOT retract this thing. pulling at an angle, straight down, etc.. It goes down about 4 inches but the roller mechanism just won't retract, it just snaps back the 4 inches. tried everything..


It's sitting in front of my plasma, so I definitely need to get the screen up







Maybe I should have gone electric?


----------



## badgerpilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edpowers* /forum/post/17749593
> 
> 
> That projector central review is pathetic and seriously lacking in details. Its really hard to even call that a review. Also, comparing a 2.8 gain screen to a .8 or 1 gain screen just seems like a waste of time to me. Its like comparing a sniper rifle to a machine gun and stating that the machine gun can hit more targets from 10 feet away.
> 
> 
> I think the general conclusion is accurate .... the HP is certainly not for everyone. My problem is that I think they exaggerate the off-axis 'problems'. I rarely sit off-axis, but when I do, the picture still looks very good and uniform ... its just not as bright. It certainly isn't unwatchable. Also, they fail to acknowledge the fact that the HP is an excellent roll-down option. Even if I couldn't sit in the prime gain cone ... I'd still get an HP if I used a pull down simply because it hides all wrinkles and waves. There are so many factors that should come into play when selecting a screen, that review fails to evaluate most of them.



I agree 100%. I have a model b pull-down that is just perfect for a living room. I really don't see the need to bash the off axis viewing either. To me, the drop off is minimal and the picture is excellent off to the sides. It is not anything like the off axis viewing of an LCD TV which is unacceptable to me. To be able to sit in a non-dedicated room, with ambient light, overhead can lights or a fire in the fireplace and still enjoy an outstanding 106" picture is what the HP is all about. I am a very happy HP owner


----------



## zombie10k




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edpowers* /forum/post/17749593
> 
> 
> That projector central review is pathetic and seriously lacking in details. Its really hard to even call that a review. Also, comparing a 2.8 gain screen to a .8 or 1 gain screen just seems like a waste of time to me. Its like comparing a sniper rifle to a machine gun and stating that the machine gun can hit more targets from 10 feet away.



The part I think is funny is the insult to the 'inexperienced' user who uses the HP material to run a screen larger than the projector is capable of handling.


I think this depends on individual preference. I have a light controlled room and still prefer the HP material over a 1.0 gain material. I like a bright 'plasma like' image which the HP provides.


I am replacing my current model C 92" (16x9) with a Cinema Contour 138" (2:35:1). The Mitsubishi HC5500 can switch between 2:35 and 16:9 CIH.


Here's a few pics of the 92" against a 54"x126" 2:35:1 image. I am looking forward to the large screen. The 92" looks small!!


----------



## Fabricator

thanx for those pics. i am assuming that is a HP. yes, a 92 is small, unless you are sitting very close to it. i have a 98/106 screen, and it is very close to small. i am waiting for a deal on a 119" HP. hoping the prices drop a little after CHRISTMAS.


----------



## javry




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edpowers* /forum/post/17749593
> 
> 
> ............ My problem is that I think they exaggerate the off-axis 'problems'. I rarely sit off-axis, but when I do, the picture still looks very good and uniform ... its just not as bright........



I don't know guys. It's pretty obvious to me that the PQ declines outside of the 30 degree viewing angle. I still love the HP but it does have that one draw-back.


----------



## threed123

zombie: It would be interesting to see how the brightness holds by moving the 92" screen way left or right (with just a portion on the image) and then take a picture.


The one and only problem I see with High Power and other high gain screens is that off axis, the gain can actually go below 1.0 fairly quickly whereas a 1.0 screen stays fairly even across the viewing environment.


I have a 133" M2500 Draper rated at about 2.0 gain and it hot spots, but overall I like it. I did put 1.0 gain swatches around the left and right sides and noticed, though, that the gain there was less then 1.0 (ie. the 1.0 gain swatch was brighter). The bright (hot) center though tricks my eyes into believing that overall the image is much brighter. That said, the HP is not supposed to hot spot, but I bet it still drops brightness towards the outer borders (as you watch inside the cone) of bigger screens--although evenly from the center.


----------



## gadgetfreaky




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gadgetfreaky* /forum/post/17750516
> 
> 
> I posted this seperate but since this thread is higher traffic..
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1207731
> 
> 
> 
> Hey guys, please help...
> 
> 
> I just installed my 110" model C with CSR and I can NOT retract this thing. pulling at an angle, straight down, etc.. It goes down about 4 inches but the roller mechanism just won't retract, it just snaps back the 4 inches. tried everything..
> 
> 
> It's sitting in front of my plasma, so I definitely need to get the screen up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I should have gone electric?



still looking for some help please...


----------



## andy133




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *threed123* /forum/post/17757051
> 
> 
> zombie: It would be interesting to see how the brightness holds by moving the 92" screen way left or right (with just a portion on the image) and then take a picture.
> 
> 
> The one and only problem I see with High Power and other high gain screens is that off axis, the gain can actually go below 1.0 fairly quickly whereas a 1.0 screen stays fairly even across the viewing environment.
> 
> 
> I have a 133" M2500 Draper rated at about 2.0 gain and it hot spots, but overall I like it. I did put 1.0 gain swatches around the left and right sides and noticed, though, that the gain there was less then 1.0 (ie. the 1.0 gain swatch was brighter). The bright (hot) center though tricks my eyes into believing that overall the image is much brighter. That said, the HP is not supposed to hot spot, but I bet it still drops brightness towards the outer borders (as you watch inside the cone) of bigger screens--although evenly from the center.



My personal experience with HP133" sitting in the middle and 13-14' back is that it is highly uniform. Not hot spotting or dark corners. But this is expected if the projector is close to the seating position. Then the return angles to your eyes are the same everywhere on the screen regardless of its size.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *threed123* /forum/post/17757051
> 
> 
> That said, the HP is not supposed to hot spot, but I bet it still drops brightness towards the outer borders (as you watch inside the cone) of bigger screens--although evenly from the center.



You'd lose that bet. I tried quite a few projector positions when I was testing my screen gain calculator with the HP. As I recall, when the projector is a few inches behind and above a center viewer's eyes, the gain is slightly _*higher*_ at the right and left edges of the screen than at the screen center. The gain difference is too small for a viewer to perceive, but it is present with some of the usual viewer-PJ geometries. The opposite is true for angular reflective screens, which generally have a significant decrease in gain at the edges, relative to the center.


----------



## edpowers




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *javry* /forum/post/17754998
> 
> 
> I don't know guys. It's pretty obvious to me that the PQ declines outside of the 30 degree viewing angle. I still love the HP but it does have that one draw-back.



I'm not disagreeing that the off-axis viewing is a drawback. I just think that some people exaggerate the drawback. HP off-axis is not nearly as bad as LCD flat panels or rear projection DLPs, etc. The screen loses brightness, but it does not wash out unless you have a bunch of ambient light coming from the same off-axis. And if you have a bunch of ambient light, a 1.0 gain will not only wash out on the off-axis, but on-axis as well. As I said before, high gain screens are not for everyone and there is always a trade-off.


----------



## zombie10k




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy133* /forum/post/17757906
> 
> 
> My personal experience with HP133" sitting in the middle and 13-14' back is that it is highly uniform. Not hot spotting or dark corners. But this is expected if the projector is close to the seating position. Then the return angles to your eyes are the same everywhere on the screen regardless of its size.



This is how far my seats will be from the 138" screen. I am hanging the projector relatively low, it will be about 3 feet above the viewer's head.


My seating will be 4 across, then 4 behind on a platform, well within the viewing cone.


I think people have to see the HP in person to see if it suites their particular needs. Since I have a relatively small viewing area and can hang the projector low, it will be perfect for what I need.


----------



## tbase1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zombie10k* /forum/post/17753751
> 
> 
> The part I think is funny is the insult to the 'inexperienced' user who uses the HP material to run a screen larger than the projector is capable of handling.
> 
> 
> I think this depends on individual preference. I have a light controlled room and still prefer the HP material over a 1.0 gain material. I like a bright 'plasma like' image which the HP provides.
> 
> 
> I am replacing my current model C 92" (16x9) with a Cinema Contour 138" (2:35:1). The Mitsubishi HC5500 can switch between 2:35 and 16:9 CIH.
> 
> 
> Here's a few pics of the 92" against a 54"x126" 2:35:1 image. I am looking forward to the large screen. The 92" looks small!!



These pic.'s just made me seriously look at moving from my stewart videomatte 200 (1.8) to a dalite HP. Will I be going back in overall PQ? I also have a draper m1300 that I might give a try before I make the move, unless you guys me into the dalite


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gadgetfreaky* /forum/post/17750516
> 
> 
> Hey guys, please help...
> 
> 
> I just installed my 110" model C with CSR and I can NOT retract this thing. pulling at an angle, straight down, etc.. It goes down about 4 inches but the roller mechanism just won't retract, it just snaps back the 4 inches. tried everything..
> 
> 
> It's sitting in front of my plasma, so I definitely need to get the screen up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I should have gone electric?



It might be busted, but I had that model and I needed to snap it down rather smartly to get it to retract. It's big and heavy, so you have a tendency to be too gentle with it.


----------



## JHouse

Evan Powell's Projectorcentral review is an anomaly to me. I have been reading his stuff for years. I always felt he was very practical and a very straight shooter. In other words, his perceptions and mine always matched with regard to the several projectors which I have owned and he has reviewed. In other words, I have grown to trust his judgment and experience. I have owned several High Powers of several sizes. I even want a bigger one now. I replaced a zero gain screen with a High Power many years ago, and the difference it quality was so pronounced, I never gave it a second thought.


Well it is about 4 projectors later, and the detail in these new projectors is astounding, so it is making me wonder if there really is an improvement in detail with a flat screen. The problem is that I am pretty certain that the loss of gain would make the picture so dim that I couldn't see any claimed detail improvement anyway.


I am very puzzled.


Tryg, I note you have not commented on Evan's review. You and I always saw eye to eye on the High Power, and I'm sure you have a ton more experience than I do with various new projectors and the detail afforded by various screen types. Can you explain why Evan was so negatively impressed by the High Power? I don't get it.


I and my fellow viewers sit in the middle/cone of highest gain of a 133" diagonal High Power, mounted just a couple of feet from the floor, with the projector mounted about two feet over our heads.


Maybe this is one of those A/B situations where you can tell a difference with confronted with both, but if you walk from one room to the other, they look the same. In other words, not a difference you can notice on your own, and therefore nothing you would every miss.


----------



## Tryg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JHouse* /forum/post/17760455
> 
> 
> Tryg, I note you have not commented on Evan's review. You and I always saw eye to eye on the High Power, and I'm sure you have a ton more experience than I do with various new projectors and the detail afforded by various screen types. Can you explain why Evan was so negatively impressed by the High Power? I don't get it.



I commented on his review...just not in this thread.










1. He did the review when he knew little about screens

2. He may have been influence by other manufacturers marketing bs

3. The review is subpar with findings that dont align themselves with other reviews on the screen.


ie the review is Junk


----------



## Deja Vu

I have owned 5 different screen materials over the years and always come back to the HP. It is, in my humble opinion, simply the best bang for the buck out there. I even have one HP dedicated to my gamma corrected G90 CRT projector. The HP can't do black? Evan, I'm embarrassed for you. You've obviously never seen "black" like a G90 doing a complete fade to black from the vibrant image produced by the HP. It will make you reconsider everything you thought you knew about projection and "black"! I also have a gamma-corrected 8500 LC CRT projector ceiling mounted and lowered to just above my head in my second HT room and guess what? Yes, I use another HP screen. The G90 is floor mounted and raised 30 inches off the ground to minimize colour shifting, which high gain screens are famous for. There is some colour shifting with both CRT projectors, but very little and this can only be seen on a full white field. The image kills that of any other screen I've tried with these projectors (two others) and it stays. I also use an Epson 7500 and 9500 with two other HP screens I have (I currently have 6 screens) and have tried other screens but always come back to the HP - In fact I've given up trying anything else. If you want a bright, vibrant image with a ton of detail and smoothness then you need to check out this screen - it rules! Evan is entitled to his opinion, even though it's wrong!


----------



## wxnz79

Hi guys. How would the High Power fare if I have a white back wall, and am unable to cover it or paint it with a dark colour. I can mount the projector around 7.5" below the top of a 100" screen, and the back wall is approximately 14' from the screen, so quite tight. Viewing height is 9" above bottom of screen.


Any thoughts?


----------



## FLBoy

wxnz: I would not recommend using any front projection screen--including the HP--in a room with a white rear wall 14 feet from the screen. If you cannot at least hang some dark drapes that you can pull closed behind the projector during movies, I would recommend either a flat panel monitor or a boxed rear projector.


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/17761351
> 
> 
> I commented on his review...just not in this thread.



Anybody got a link?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/17761351
> 
> 
> 1. He did the review when he knew little about screens



MAN, he just did it like last week! How could he still know so little about screens? It's GOT to be something else. Perhaps No.2? That would be a bummer.


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Deja Vu* /forum/post/17765612
> 
> 
> I have owned 5 different screen materials over the years and always come back to the HP. It is, in my humble opinion, simply the best bang for the buck out there. I even have one HP dedicated to my gamma corrected G90 CRT projector. The HP can't do black? Evan, I'm embarrassed for you. You've obviously never seen "black" like a G90 doing a complete fade to black from the vibrant image produced by the HP. It will make you reconsider everything you thought you knew about projection and "black"! I also have a gamma-corrected 8500 LC CRT projector ceiling mounted and lowered to just above my head in my second HT room and guess what? Yes, I use another HP screen. The G90 is floor mounted and raised 30 inches off the ground to minimize colour shifting, which high gain screens are famous for. There is some colour shifting with both CRT projectors, but very little and this can only be seen on a full white field. The image kills that of any other screen I've tried with these projectors (two others) and it stays. I also use an Epson 7500 and 9500 with two other HP screens I have (I currently have 6 screens) and have tried other screens but always come back to the HP - In fact I've given up trying anything else. If you want a bright, vibrant image with a ton of detail and smoothness then you need to check out this screen - it rules! Evan is entitled to his opinion, even though it's wrong!



Well, you are making feel a little better. Thanks.


----------



## Deja Vu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JHouse* /forum/post/17771204
> 
> 
> Well, you are making feel a little better. Thanks.



Good! You're no novice so have confidence in what you're seeing. There are so many biases on this forum for any number of reasons - some of them financial and some based on ego. I have no loyalty to any manufacturer, particular technology or system. I simply want the best for the money I'm willing to spend. The "best" for me may not be the "best" for someone else - I have no problem with that and I've found that the "best" for someone else sometimes doesn't work for me. I find that researching a product and learning the positives and negatives about it and then seeing it in action allows one to determine if the positives outweigh the negatives. Maybe yes, maybe no. For certain applications CRT works better than digital while for other applications digital works better than CRT - this is obvious if you own both. The HP works for me because it is "easy" - you don't have to strain to see detail. It simply enhances what's there so you can see it and don't have to second guess yourself if you actually seeing this or that or just thought you might have. I always feel let down when I see a film in a theatre. Dull and murky is how I'd describe it. I don't want that in my home theatre!


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Deja Vu* /forum/post/17771684
> 
> 
> The HP works for me because it is "easy" - you don't have to strain to see detail. It simply enhances what's there so you can see it and don't have to second guess yourself if you actually seeing this or that or just thought you might have. I always feel let down when I see a film in a theatre. Dull and murky is how I'd describe it. I don't want that in my home theatre!



Thanks man. I appreciate it. And this is exactly how I feel. Typically movie theaters are a bummer. Although the presentation of Avatar last Sunday was nice and bright.


I used to explain the practical effect of a brighter image as similar to turning up a three-way light bulb. Everything looks clearer. You can see better.


I can't figure out Powell saying he saw a loss of detail. I'm thinking maybe we can't see the parts where the bubbles curve, though the other parts are brighter, so although it is bright, I'm missing part of the image/information. But the pixels are a lot bigger than the bubbles on the screen, so that doesn't make a lot of sense. Plus a pixel is just a pixel. It can look only one way at any one time. One color and one level of light. That's it. Not detail is in it.


And one of the funny ones around here has always been shadow detail. Sometimes if they can't see any shades of grey at all, they think they have deep blacks and shadow detail. I thought we called that "crushed".


----------



## airscapes

Maybe he reviewed the other HP screen fabric. There is another lower quality, lower grain version that you apparently get with business screens. I will write a detailed post once I get the second screen with the supposed correct HP fabric that hopefully you are all talking about.


----------



## Joseph Clark

On many occasions, I've stood six inches from my HP, viewing a 1080p Sharp XV-Z20000 image of a Windows desktop. I can see the individual pixels clearly. I can see the gaps between pixels, sharp and clean and undistorted. Single chip DLP allows you to do that without worrying about 3-chip projector convergence errors.


I've also watched countless hours of video on both a Stewart Firehawk and the HP, and I've seen first hand the significant color and brightness uniformity problems with the Firehawk (and the sheen) - problems that, if present at all, I find imperceptible on the HP.


I can see a brightness shift as I move my head a few inches to the side while watching the HP, so I know what the "brightness cone" is and what it means. That's the only limitation of the HP that I care about. For me, it's the only limitation that matters. The HP's gain comes with very little downside, as far as I'm concerned, and that will be the case for a great many viewers. Those people who can't live with the cone need to look somewhere else. For me, it's not a problem.


I recently purchased a Panasonic PT-AE4000 projector, because the $2,000 price was so attractive and I wanted a second projector for my bedroom. I also didn't want to spend a lot for a projector, since I'm now convinced that 3D projectors are probably no more than a year or so away. Long story short, that projector has replaced my Sharp in the home theater.


Because of the high gain of the HP, and the fact that the Panasonic is so much brighter, I had to raise the Panasonic projector back up to a high shelf mount. From where my Sharp was mounted, the Panasonic was too bright. I can't have a bigger screen, because the room's just too small. But, with the HP in a more eye level position, I think I could easily go with a 150" screen, at the projector's best settings. That's the kind of thing the HP allows, and it's an amazing "feature."


I feel fortunate. I found this beautiful, inexpensive HP screen when I was doing my research, and I didn't have to wade through these negative reviews and dismiss it before I had a chance to discover in my own home theater just how great it is.


I wish I had a bigger room.


----------



## JHouse

Joe, That is my experience and opinion too.


I would definitely go with a 159 if I could find a wall to fit it on. (Need at least 145" horizontal for border) That's a bummer. I just measured today and no dice.


----------



## rgathright

I am setting up my permanent home for a projector and have been going back and forth between which screen to get. I will have some ambient light even with black-our drapes. I brought my Mits HC6000 with me over the holidays to set it up temporarily and project onto our beige walls. I was shocked how good the picture looked just being projected onto the walls.


So now that I am projecting onto a 12' wide wall where my wife wants it centered. I initially set it up for a 119" diagonal screen. She wanted to know why it could not get bigger. So I zoomed out to a projected 126" size (Carada BW size). My concern is to project to this size or up to the 133" HP size I am having my lamp on high. This will use up the lamp faster.


My wife likes the wide black velvet trim of the Carada (I currently have a 92" screen) and wants something like this. How wide is the Pro-Trim for the HP screens? My other concern is the distance from our viewing position to the projector will be about 36" (ceiling mount). I have done the calculator and below is the gain results.


Calculated Error Angle (Degrees): 8.83 8.66 8.01

Estimated Screen Gain: 1.98 1.99 2.05


I could not figure out the offset of the chairs. We will both be about 36" to the left and the right of the projector.


Also will anything else reflect off of the screen? The ambient light will be our kitchen light which is about 10" behind us and the projector. This light bugs me now reflecting into my 60" HDTV. This will only be on when we need something from the kitchen.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgathright* /forum/post/17774575
> 
> 
> I have done the calculator and below is the gain results.
> 
> 
> Calculated Error Angle (Degrees): 8.83 8.66 8.01
> 
> Estimated Screen Gain: 1.98 1.99 2.05
> 
> 
> I could not figure out the offset of the chairs. We will both be about 36" to the left and the right of the projector.



I explained how to do the chairs way back in post #2015 (page 68). Perhaps you missed it? Anyway, it's there.


----------



## JHouse

Since the light goes back to the source on the HP, the light behind you is the one which washes out the most, so that light would have to be off.


I think 3 feet from the pj gets you in the high end of the gain zone. My experience has been that as long as I am within the box (within the lateral borders of the screen) then the gain is fine. If you go beyond the edge of screen, it gets much dimmer. Which I hate.


----------



## rgathright

OK - I did the left chair and it came up with 15.72 degrees and 1.36 gain. The right chair is a little closer and it worked out to be 9.36 degrees and 1.93 gain. Does this mean that the right chair will always have a better picture? This is why I am confused about the chair location.


----------



## Tryg

only brighter, not better.


Buy the screen. You cant judge what any product will do with just numbers.


----------



## rgathright

Does anyone have the answer to the width of the Pro-Trim? I have Jason checking on the cost of the 133" screen.


I keep reading where samples are taped to their existing screens. Does this damage the screen any?


----------



## WOLVERNOLE




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgathright* /forum/post/17775869
> 
> 
> 
> I keep reading where samples are taped to their existing screens. Does this damage the screen any?



Ya don't wanna do that !


----------



## hrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgathright* /forum/post/17775869
> 
> 
> Does anyone have the answer to the width of the Pro-Trim? I have Jason checking on the cost of the 133" screen.
> 
> 
> I keep reading where samples are taped to their existing screens. Does this damage the screen any?



Three inches. The height and width of the 133" diagonal 16x9 HP are:


65"x116" (viewing)

71"x122" (including frame)


Full specs are here:

http://www.da-lite.com/products/spec_pdfs/234.pdf


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgathright* /forum/post/17774974
> 
> 
> OK - I did the left chair and it came up with 15.72 degrees and 1.36 gain. The right chair is a little closer and it worked out to be 9.36 degrees and 1.93 gain. Does this mean that the right chair will always have a better picture? This is why I am confused about the chair location.



With those results, I assume your PJ is off-centered to the right of screen center? If that is the case, you can minimize the difference in brightness by centering your chairs about the PJ's line of sight to the screen center. If you don't want to do that, then as Tryg points out, there will be a brightness difference. I don't think the brightness difference will be that noticeable, however. My HP still has an acceptable picture from my kitchen sink, which is about 45 degrees off center!


----------



## rgathright




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/17779047
> 
> 
> With those results, I assume your PJ is off-centered to the right of screen center? If that is the case, you can minimize the difference in brightness by centering your chairs about the PJ's line of sight to the screen center. If you don't want to do that, then as Tryg points out, there will be a brightness difference. I don't think the brightness difference will be that noticeable, however. My HP still has an acceptable picture from my kitchen sink, which is about 45 degrees off center!



No the PJ is is off centered to the left of the screen center. I measured it wrong. The wall that the screen is on is about 12' wide, but there is a about a 5' 45 degree offset where a fireplace is at to the left of the wall. This makes everything having to be to the right side of the room. The room is about 17' wide overall. Plus the PJ is ceiling mounted and in order to get it down closer to the middle of the screen it needs to be over a table that sits between us. This will keep me from banging my head against the PJ. I have the PJ mounted over the right side of the table being she is shorter then me and could not hit the PJ with her head if she tried to. This is why I calculated my chair about 36" to the left and hers about 24" to the right side of the PJ.


I remeasured everything and the PJ location is actually about 10" to the left of the center of the screen. So the new numbers would be 11.40 degrees and 1.74 for the gain for the left chair and 13.04 degrees and 1.58 gain for the right chair.


----------



## JHouse

That certainly shouldn't be a problem. You probably won't be able to tell the difference. But just in case, call dibs on the bright chair. (JK).


----------



## tbase1

Hey guys, da-lite is telling me that the da-mat 1.1 gain screen is the way to go with my panny 4k in a bat cave...what say you guys? I have a stewart videomatte 200 up right now, so what will i gain by going with the HP or da-mat? I'm pulling the trigger tomorrow.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgathright* /forum/post/17779285
> 
> 
> I remeasured everything and the PJ location is actually about 10" to the left of the center of the screen. So the new numbers would be 11.40 degrees and 1.74 for the gain for the left chair and 13.04 degrees and 1.58 gain for the right chair.



I agree with JHouse. You probably won't be able to see the difference. Get ready to enjoy some fantastic viewing.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17779468
> 
> 
> Hey guys, da-lite is telling me that the da-mat 1.1 gain screen is the way to go with my panny 4k in a bat cave...what say you guys? I have a stewart videomatte 200 up right now, so what will i gain by going with the HP or da-mat? I'm pulling the trigger tomorrow.



The HP will give you the best across-screen brightness uniformity and the highest brightness for the center seats. The half brightness viewing angle of the HP is 15 degrees either side of the screen perpendicular, which could be an issue if your HT is very wide. The HP is virtually free of visible texture and sparklies. I don't know how the other screens compare on this aspect, so maybe someone else will comment on texture/sparklies.


The da-mat 1.1 will also give you good brightness uniformity and a much wider half brightness viewing angle (if you need that). It will give you a much dimmer picture than the HP for a given PJ light output.


----------



## Fabricator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17779468
> 
> 
> Hey guys, da-lite is telling me that the da-mat 1.1 gain screen is the way to go with my panny 4k in a bat cave...what say you guys? I have a stewart videomatte 200 up right now, so what will i gain by going with the HP or da-mat? I'm pulling the trigger tomorrow.



i have been told "this is what you need". not because it is what i needed, but because it is what 'they" wanted to sell me.


my advice. get your advice from those that are not trying to sell you something.


----------



## Fabricator

question on this viewing angle thing ?


when you say "15 degrees" (or whatever). does that mean :

from the center of the screen ?

from the ends of the screen ?


thanx


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fabricator* /forum/post/17782967
> 
> 
> question on this viewing angle thing ?
> 
> 
> when you say "15 degrees" (or whatever). does that mean :
> 
> from the center of the screen ?
> 
> from the ends of the screen ?
> 
> 
> thanx



When I say it, it means to one side of the center of the screen. Who knows what it means when the manufacturer's marketing department says it?


----------



## rgathright




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/17781068
> 
> 
> I agree with JHouse. You probably won't be able to see the difference. Get ready to enjoy some fantastic viewing.



I have Jason pricing up a 133" screen. I have that size on my bare wall now to make sure it is not to big at 17' feet away. Now being the screen is taking up almost all of my wall I need to figure out where to put my SVS sub.


----------



## FLBoy

Wonderful! My SVS sub sounds best to me in the front corner. If that position blocks the picture or the view, you can slide the sub back just far enough to fix the blocking issue. It shouldn't take much. /OT


----------



## Jive Turkey

SVS subs....great value and performance IMHO. I have two 2039PC+ that are placed symetrically near the left and right front wall corners in a long wall setup. Quite seamless with my main speakers and as non-directional as I've ever heard.


----------



## rgathright

I have three options for the placement of my SVS 20-39 sub.


First option would be at the right side of the screen right beside my Polk floor mounted speaker. This option would make me reduce my screen size about 20". I also do not know how it would sound right beside my front speaker.


The second option is around the corner to the left side. This would be to the side of a couch, so did not know if the couch would muffle the bass that I love from the sub.


The third option is to my immediate left about 5' from my chair. I am afraid this may kill me when the deep bass kicks in.


I prefer option one myself if the audio is not interferred any with the front speaker and the sub right beside each other. My wife wants the screen as big as possible.


I realize this is a little off topic, but I am trying to nail down what size HP screen to get. Once this is settled then I can start working on my blocking for the ceiling mount and running the cables.


----------



## jostenmeat

rgathright, I wouldn't be worried about the Polk's nearby positioning at all. If anything, the closer the sub is to the speakers, the higher you can raise xover point without ill effects. I mean, just FYI. I've yet to hear a corner loaded sub that didn't excite modes to such extent as to not make the sub localizable. OTOH, I've learned from Ethan Winer that if you can significantly trap for bass, then you can have the best of all worlds. Corner loading for best efficiency, without fear of maximally excited modes. Efficiency equals less distortion which equals superior SQ. Treating of the space not only allows more freedom of SW placement, but speaker and listener placement too. I understand that most people do not welcome acoustic treatments into their space.


Anyways, put your sub at the _listening position_. Play some bass heavy stuff, get on your hands and knees, and listen at all three candidates for SW location. Where it sounds best will be the winner.


----------



## Fabricator

do you have space RIGHT behind YOUR seat/chair ?


----------



## rgathright

There is no space behind the chairs.


I reduced the size of the projected image on our bare wall smaller to try getting the Sub and my speaker to the right of the screen. It reduced the image from a 133" to a 119" diagonal screen. Plus the image had to be shifted to the left. It looked out of place and small compared to what we have been watching. It looks much better centered on the 12' wall.


I have now moved the Sub to the left of my chair to try this for a while.


----------



## oldlostcory

Just got my 92" Da-lite model b HP screen installed today. Buddy of mine came over to help hang it. My goodness the difference in picture quality is ridiculous. The image is brighter and drastically clearer. Here is a picture of it with the lights on. You can see the color of the walls that I was projecting onto before this screen. I was close to getting a new bulb (2k hours Sanyo Z4) but don't think I need to now.











Only complaint is the smell haha, but i'm sure it will go away and its not to overwelming.


----------



## rgathright

I received a 12" x 12" HP sample from Da-Lite. I taped this sample to our beige wall (using this temporarily to gauge what size screen I want). Surprisingly the colors look very good on just the beige wall, but he sample was too bright and lost a lot of color. I paused it once to gauge what the skin of the person on the screen looked like and you could not tell what it was. It was that bright. I am using my Mits HC6000 on bright mode with about 1500 hours on my lamp.


Is it normal to be so bright? The screen size is 133" and the throw distance is 16'. Sometimes it looked better, but sometimes it was so bright you could not see any colors at all. This is my main concern that it may be to bright.


----------



## Warbie

Hey guys -a few quick questions before I join the HP club










Does anyone here have a 119" HP Model C? I'm a little concerned at this size ripples and other screen nasties could be an issue.


Does the Cosmopolitan offer any advantages - other than being electric - over the model C when it comes to maintaining a flat screen surface?


What's the general consensus on the quality control on these cheaper models? I'll be shipping from the US to the UK and having to return the screen for any reason would be quite expensive.


Do Da Lite offer custom sizes/ratios for Model C screens and is there an option for a black case?


Any answers/suggestions will be much appreciated


----------



## jostenmeat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Warbie* /forum/post/17791694
> 
> 
> Hey guys -a few quick questions before I join the HP club
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone here have a 119" HP Model C? I'm a little concerned at this size ripples and other screen nasties could be an issue.
> 
> 
> Does the Cosmopolitan offer any advantages - other than being electric - over the model C when it comes to maintaining a flat screen surface?
> 
> 
> What's the general consensus on the quality control on these cheaper models? I'll be shipping from the US to the UK and having to return the screen for any reason would be quite expensive.
> 
> 
> Do Da Lite offer custom sizes/ratios for Model C screens and is there an option for a black case?
> 
> 
> Any answers/suggestions will be much appreciated



Electric does nothing for you in terms of keeping a flatter screen. You can always rip the material out and try to fix it yourself if it doesn't work for you. I've never done that but others here have.


Black casing was about $50 more, IIRC, and mine is much bigger than yours. I didn't even need it really, as I now have curtaining that covers the roller case.


Dalite has a good rep for QC.


----------



## JHouse

I had the 119 HP manual. It was great. I also had the 133" manual. It was also great.


Don't worry about ripples, as the beauty of a HP is you can't see them because of the design of the screen (except you might notice them once in a while on a fast horizontal pan). And if it really did bother you, you could cut the fabric of of the roll and staple it to the wall so that it was a fixed screen. Then just frame it with wood to match your room for a nice effect.


----------



## Murilo

Just want to post again on this thread. Im not sure what happened to my other post raving about this screen.


I finally got my manual highpower, my installer came by last week, and put it in my electric motor. It looks and works wonderful.


I was looking at da-lite electric screens, but by the time they wanted 12 volt trigger, and IR remote control i was looking at a grand.


I already had elunevision electric glass beaded screen, so my installer who does runco and stewart screen installs removed the manual highpower screen attached it to the electric roller and put it in the case, works and looks amazing, no complaints and i saved about 500 dollars. I cant even describe it really.


Its so clear, and bright, its like a giant lcd screen, but with better contrast. It has that lcd clearness and brightness i never thought i would get with a screen, especially the clearness, because your projecting light onto a screen surface, but the highpower did it! Even my wife who never comments watched District nine with me said


"is this the new screen, it looks so bright and clear compared to our old one"


I will never go with another fabric unless something mind blowing comes along.


Now i have an order my 2:35:1 screen (i was running cheap dual electric screens before) which my installer will put in my other electric motor, and then i will be back to my dual screen setup (16:9 and 2:35:1) and i can be finally satisfied with the screen quality!


Never thought a screen could make so much of a difference but it does.


And im also very happy my installer saved me about 500 dollars even after i paid him, installing the manual highpower into another companies electric motor. The manaul in canada came to about 320, and the install was around 180.


----------



## JHouse

That mirrors my experience.


QUESTION: Is having 3 times the light coming to us in the sweet spot the SOLE factor which produces this result? I'm guessing probably yes. But,


Didn't I read that the HP actually has a tiny bit of "reverse hot spotting"? I thought somebody measured a little bit more light coming from from the perimeter than the center? That could explain why we perceive such a uniformly bright image across the entire screen that other screen types don't have.


----------



## zombie10k




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgathright* /forum/post/17791011
> 
> 
> I received a 12" x 12" HP sample from Da-Lite. I taped this sample to our beige wall (using this temporarily to gauge what size screen I want). Surprisingly the colors look very good on just the beige wall, but he sample was too bright and lost a lot of color. I paused it once to gauge what the skin of the person on the screen looked like and you could not tell what it was. It was that bright. I am using my Mits HC6000 on bright mode with about 1500 hours on my lamp.
> 
> 
> Is it normal to be so bright? The screen size is 133" and the throw distance is 16'. Sometimes it looked better, but sometimes it was so bright you could not see any colors at all. This is my main concern that it may be to bright.



I have the HC5500 (similar to your HC6000) and a 92" 16x9 Model C pulldown. I thought the same thing when I looked at the sample compared to my beige wall. The projector needs to be calibrated to the much high gain screen material.


It's difficult to try and calibrate it on a small 12"x12"sample, it will be much easier once you actually get the screen. I am getting ready to purchase a much larger custom sized fixed frame screen from dalite (142" diag) and can't imagine using any other material.




















After calibration to the HP material -


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgathright* /forum/post/17791011
> 
> 
> I received a 12" x 12" HP sample from Da-Lite. I taped this sample to our beige wall (using this temporarily to gauge what size screen I want). Surprisingly the colors look very good on just the beige wall, but he sample was too bright and lost a lot of color. I paused it once to gauge what the skin of the person on the screen looked like and you could not tell what it was. It was that bright. I am using my Mits HC6000 on bright mode with about 1500 hours on my lamp.
> 
> 
> Is it normal to be so bright? The screen size is 133" and the throw distance is 16'. Sometimes it looked better, but sometimes it was so bright you could not see any colors at all. This is my main concern that it may be to bright.



Looking at the example pictures above, I am reminded that your eye can't really judge/extrapolate from a small sample. I think your brain/eye make the small patch look goofy because your eye is adjusted to the larger area. If you reversed the sizes of the two materials, the smaller one will always look goofy.


In my experience, you don't have to calibrate for a screen. If you do, then your screen is screwed up (adding or subtracting something it shouldn't i.e. not neutral - like projecting on a colored wall). Example, our projectors are "calibrated" at the factory for the best picture (at least some of them are), and when you project it on a neutral screen, it will look right, regardless of the gain. Less gain (or more) affect the overall ft.L but they don't change the color balance or contrast ratio, it's just that the entire range moves one way or the other in total light output, and your iris compensates, so it looks right. I think what is most important is that the entire picture is properly balanced, and darker or lighter, your eye will try to get the most out of it, and all the parts of it will look the same vis a vis one another.


At least this is the way it works in my experience. I'm sure there are bigger words for it.


----------



## zombie10k




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JHouse* /forum/post/17794735
> 
> 
> In my experience, you don't have to calibrate for a screen. If you do, then your screen is screwed up (adding or subtracting something it shouldn't i.e. not neutral - like projecting on a colored wall). Example, our projectors are "calibrated" at the factory for the best picture (at least some of them are), and when you project it on a neutral screen, it will look right, regardless of the gain.



joe I should clarify I was originally testing on a beige wall in those sample photos and had my brightness/colors shifted a bit to compensate.


I agree, the sample is deceiving and throws the eye off trying to compensate for the larger dark area. I was a bit skeptical at first until I actually saw the excellent IQ from the large screen. now there is no turning back.


separate question: Has anyone purchased a custom size screen from Da-lite? I am upgrading my 92" 16x9 Model C for a Cinema Contour with the following dimensions: "70x124" (142" diagonal)


I recall a number of members posting that they would make a seamless screen up to 72" tall.


----------



## rgathright

I lowered the lamp brightness and the sample does not look as bad. So I figured if I went with the HP screen then I would just have to re-calibrate everything. But JHouse now has me wondering to do this or not.


JHouse - do you have a HP screen now? Maybe I need to come look at yours. I am only about 45 minutes from you. I keep telling my wife that what we watch on our Carada screen is bad compared to some of the screen-shots I have been seeing.


----------



## rgathright

zombie10k - your screenshots look fabulous. You may have convinced me right now. What did you use to calibrate the new screen?


----------



## Fabricator

ok. another "am i understanding it right " post.


it has been said here that outside 15deg from the center of the screen. is not a quality image. is this correct ?


i checked my layout. and 15deg from the center of the screen. outside of the seat on either side of my centered seat. the image is going to be unacceptible.


this can't be right. but i need to make sure.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fabricator* /forum/post/17795748
> 
> 
> ok. another "am i understanding it right " post.
> 
> 
> it has been said here that outside 15deg from the center of the screen. is not a quality image. is this correct ?
> 
> 
> i checked my layout. and 15deg from the center of the screen. outside of the seat on either side of my centered seat. the image is going to be unacceptible.
> 
> 
> this can't be right. but i need to make sure.



It's a quality image no matter where you sit. It's just less bright the further you get from the sweet spot. The gain decreases, not the quality. My projector is in one of the least optimum places in my home theater (in terms of brightness, anyway) - on a high shelf mount. The quality remains the same; the brightness is lower. I do have one or two sparkly elements that I have to be in just the right position to see. I never saw them at all when my other projector was in the "eye level" position.


When my lamp drops enough in intensity, the projector will go back to the old pj's position (dropped down a couple of feet), to restore the brightness. Instant boost, for free.


----------



## Chad T

I don't think the HP material can be judged by a small sample. You just can't get the full effect of a HP screen......without an entire screen. If you are considering going with an expensive HP screen like a Cinema Countour but aren't totally sure, you might want to first consider getting a Model B HP to see if you like the material. The Model B screens are rather inexpensive comparatively.


----------



## Fabricator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/17795959
> 
> 
> It's a quality image no matter where you sit. It's just less bright the further you get from the sweet spot. The gain decreases, not the quality. My projector is in one of the least optimum places in my home theater (in terms of brightness, anyway) - on a high shelf mount. The quality remains the same; the brightness is lower. I do have one or two sparkly elements that I have to be in just the right position to see. I never saw them at all when my other projector was in the "eye level" position.
> 
> 
> When my lamp drops enough in intensity, the projector will go back to the old pj's position (dropped down a couple of feet), to restore the brightness. Instant boost, for free.



ok, cool. i don't care if my guests get max brightness, as long as the PQ is there.


----------



## threed123

See my post at the bottom.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=931126 


High Power retro is better overall than high gain angular because of the even distribution of light reflection from all parts of the screen. At some point out of the cone, though, you can go to negative gain, and that will defeat the purpose of course.


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgathright* /forum/post/17795610
> 
> 
> I lowered the lamp brightness and the sample does not look as bad. So I figured if I went with the HP screen then I would just have to re-calibrate everything. But JHouse now has me wondering to do this or not.
> 
> 
> JHouse - do you have a HP screen now? Maybe I need to come look at yours. I am only about 45 minutes from you. I keep telling my wife that what we watch on our Carada screen is bad compared to some of the screen-shots I have been seeing.



Yes, I have a Panasonic PT-AE4000U set at "cinema 1" which is the 6500K factory preset. NOTHING wrong with the picture. You don't need to "calibrate" for the High Power.


----------



## zombie10k




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgathright* /forum/post/17795637
> 
> 
> zombie10k - your screenshots look fabulous. You may have convinced me right now. What did you use to calibrate the new screen?



just my eyes, adjusting brightness/contrast and the various color setting settings to what appeals to me.


I had the brightness cranked way high because I was originally pointing to a medium beige wall. I simply turned it back to a normal setting once I installed the HP screen.


I didn't intend to use the word calibrate out of context, they are minor adjustments not far off the baseline settings.


----------



## mariokrt64




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AV-NUT-99* /forum/post/17733228
> 
> 
> Oldlostcory:
> 
> 
> I have had my manual Model C HP 106" diagonal for 3 years now - I used to leave it down all the time. One time I rolled it up to play around with setting it to a height of 38.5" to see how it would look in a 2.40:1 format. Used the projector lens shift to raise the image a bit to fit. I now have a hook stop mounted on the wall for my 'second' viewing position. I just let it roll up and slip the handle over the hook to hold the screen in that position. Then back down for 1.78:1. Works pretty good!



How the black bars look when playing 2:35 movies....as they would probably be close/on the screen case???? Can you post a picture with a 2:35 movie to see how it looks???


I am interested in this setup but would like to see how the black bars are positioned/looks relative to the screen case, etc....


I may be looking at a 119 diagonal screen...Do you see any concerns with the screen developing waves????


thks......


Thks...


----------



## neverfaithful

Wow after reading many posts here I am now into this high power screen also. Everyone has been saying matte white or cinewhite are great screens and produce great images. Now I thinking more towards the high power screens for the fact that you can save on bulb life, good for ambient light, just in case you do not feel like watching in the dark all the time and in his review he highly recommends it. These decision are so hard to make. I just do not want an image where I have to squint my eyes due to the brightness.


Is there a big big difference from matte/cine white and high power?


----------



## tigerfan33

I have a projector on a table just off to the right side of the screen (using lens shift). Would this work??


I have ordered a sample and will be here in a few days. Just wondering if anyone uses lens shift and the hp screen.


----------



## badgerpilot

For those on the fence. Last night, Sunday Night Football, Christmas tree with white lights in the right rear corner of the room, a fire in the fire place, more Christmas lights on the mantle, 6 can lights on medium, white ceiling --- Fantastic Picture! I had the can lights on so that I could read the Sunday paper. Still can't believe how good a picture I can get with plenty of light on for reading. The screen is incredible when the lights go out as well -- no squinting. By the way, I am projecting with an Epson 8100. Just a great all around screen.


----------



## neverfaithful




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *badgerpilot* /forum/post/17802708
> 
> 
> For those on the fence. Last night, Sunday Night Football, Christmas tree with white lights in the right rear corner of the room, a fire in the fire place, more Christmas lights on the mantle, 6 can lights on medium, white ceiling --- Fantastic Picture! I had the can lights on so that I could read the Sunday paper. Still can't believe how good a picture I can get with plenty of light on for reading. The screen is incredible when the lights go out as well -- no squinting. By the way, I am projecting with an Epson 8100. Just a great all around screen.



Badger, thanks for that info. that sounds good. I am getting a AE4000, trying to get the best possible picture, colors, blacks and sharpness.


----------



## tbase1

Based on the info. on this thread the HP does not fit my setup, however, I dusted off my draper m2500 combined with my panny 4k and isco 3L and I'm getting 2.0 gain which works for me. I also don't have any hot spotting when reducing the brightness down. I also think my lens helped out a bunch as well.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tigerfan33* /forum/post/17802111
> 
> 
> I have a projector on a table just off to the right side of the screen (using lens shift). Would this work??



Definitely not recommended. Using lens shift does not alter the fact that the HP will send most of the light back to its source. Unless your viewers are seated just off to the right side of the screen, they will not see much gain.


Of course, it all depends on how far off to the right side. For a quantitative answer use my screen gain calculator linked below.


----------



## tigerfan33




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/17803148
> 
> 
> Definitely not recommended. Using lens shift does not alter the fact that the HP will send most of the light back to its source. Unless your viewers are seated just off to the right side of the screen, they will not see much gain.
> 
> 
> Of course, it all depends on how far off to the right side. For a quantitative answer use my screen gain calculator linked below.



Thanks!!


Tell me if I am reading the calculator right. The best place to have a projector placed is centered screen??


I can shelf mount in the center about 12 to 18 inches above my head and get the best out of the hp on center axis?


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tigerfan33* /forum/post/17805958
> 
> 
> Thanks!!
> 
> 
> Tell me if I am reading the calculator right. The best place to have a projector placed is centered screen??
> 
> 
> I can shelf mount in the center about 12 to 18 inches above my head and get the best out of the hp on center axis?



That position would be the HP sunburn mode.










Seriously, you'll get great gain with the projector in that position. It's similar to the position I used for my Sharp projector. At 110" with that projector, it was just about perfect. With the Panasonic 4000, it was too bright for my taste, so I moved it up to a high shelf mount, losing much of the gain. (Still a great image, though. No loss of picture quality.) The better choice for me probably would have been to filter the lens, but I'm still looking into setting up a variable filter, so I can let in just the amount of light I want. OTOH, the high shelf mount is perfect for keeping the projector out of the way. I may leave it there. The point is that the HP gives me all sorts of options that other, low-gain screens don't.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tigerfan33* /forum/post/17805958
> 
> 
> Thanks!!
> 
> 
> Tell me if I am reading the calculator right. The best place to have a projector placed is centered screen??
> 
> 
> I can shelf mount in the center about 12 to 18 inches above my head and get the best out of the hp on center axis?



Just to be clear, you want the lens of the pj centered left-to-right on the screen. For the highest screen gain, you want the lens of the pj at a height as close to your seated eye level as you are comfortable having it. As Joe said, 12 to 18 inches above your head will still give you plenty of gain (more than 2.0 at 12' throw).


----------



## rgathright

This post is just to confirm what I read above.


Which is more important to have for the best PQ? Is it having the projector centered left to right with the screen or the projector being closer (up and down) to the viewing height. I cannot have both.


The projector has to be ceiling mounted. In order to get it down lower it has to be over a table that is between our two chairs, but this will make it off center about 7".


If I centered the projector with the screen then it will have to be over one of the chairs a little and will become a head knocker. This will mean it will have to be about 2' 6" above our viewing position.


But I guess the key question I am asking is which is better or worse. Vertical lens shift or horizontal lens shift. I can get the projector just about centered either way (+-12") with the screen.


----------



## FLBoy

rgathright: Without knowing your room limitations it is difficult to understand your pj positioning requirements. What I would suggest is placing the pj lens such that it is centered between your two chairs. Then place it at a height as near your seated eye level as you are comfortable in doing. Depending on space available, you can also position the pj a short distance behind your seats to reduce the fan noise.


For example, in my own room I have the pj centered about 3' behind our two chairs and at a height equal to our seated eye level. It shoots over a low table and between our heads.


----------



## tigerfan33

Thanks for the response guys.

Now that you have confirmed my setup, now can you tell me what kind of picture to expect. I have the Epson 8100 and using a white matte screen. With one lamp on I will watch in living room mode (second brightest mode) and with no lights on I watch in Theater mode (mid bright mode). With the HP can I expect the brightness of living room mode with more accurate color? Or will I be getting the same bright picture, just in a different mode.Or am I asking too much from the HP.

I will of course go to Theare mode with lights on with the HP.


Thanks!!


----------



## JHouse

FLBoy is right. If you put it between the two primary viewers, each will have the same view as it will be equally off center to each. And remember the light will come back to the projector lens with the highest gain spot there. So you will both share equally. And 7" is nothing. Centering where your eye/head is technically optimum too, but you might want to raise it a foot or two anyway just so you aren't always blocking the picture when you move your head and arms around.


----------



## rgathright

In our temporary setup over the holidays the projector was sitting on the table itself but on the side toward my wife. My wife has the ears of an hawk and never commented about the fan noise. This is something I always look for due to her hearing.


What she enjoyed was the heat blowing out of the projector. She said it felt great blowing on her shoulder and neck.


In the centering of the projector issue I have to plan on the future of when I upgrade to a different projector. The lens of the Mits HC6000 I have now is offset a little over 3". The Panny that I am looking at has the lens directly in the center. Who knows what the future will bring. So I will probably put the projector downrod directly centered with the screen. This way it should work with what ever I get. I will then have to convince the wife to move the chairs and table more to get them centered with the screen and not the other furniture.










Also we got back to my temporary setup with the 92" Carada screen yesterday (had to go back to work-darn it). I was able to position the HP sample on the screen and it was a lot brighter than the Carada BW screen. So once I get everything in the permanent home installed I will probably go for the HP Cinema Contour Screen. The hot issue between the wife and myself is size now. She wants it as big as possible (133") and I want it a little smaller (119"). I guess my issue is I am got used to the 92" we watch now at just a few feet closer than what will be setup at the permanent home.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgathright* /forum/post/17812754
> 
> 
> She wants it as big as possible (133") and I want it a little smaller (119"). I guess my issue is I am got used to the 92" we watch now at just a few feet closer than what will be setup at the permanent home.



I have a friend who has the 119" HP, which I've watched several times at about the same distance I do from my 110". I prefer his 119" screen to mine, but I can't go any bigger. If I could have a 133" screen, I'd do it in a heartbeat. The bigger the screen, the more immersive it is.


You're one lucky dog that your wife thinks the way she does. I know couples where the wife (and sometimes the husband) thinks a 42" screen is too big and takes over the room. For me, a big screen is a defining characteristic of a "home theater," and the bigger the better. A 42" screen is not home theater to me - it's just "television."


The really amazing thing about the HP is that it makes the larger screen sizes possible for many more people. If I had the space, with my current projector and the HP, I'd have a screen 150" or larger. Now, THAT'S home theater.


----------



## rgathright

When I first started talking about getting a 60" Sony HDTV (2003) she could not understand why I would want that. The same thing happened when I started talking about a projector.


Now she never questions what I am upgrading up to.


----------



## rgathright

I may have already convinced the wife that the chairs and table needs to be adjusted to be centered with the screen. So that alignment issue is solved. The ceiling mount and shaft I have is adjustable, so can just about put it any height I want it. Going through the gain calculator the gain for 72" above the floor will be 1.93 and for 60" from the floor it will be 2.01. This is based on the screen center to be 69" above the floor and our viewing height is 37"+-. With the difference being so small I figured we could put it just about anywhere. Once we finally get everything setup I will probably try it out at different heights to see which one we like the best.


----------



## thrang

If anyone is interested, I am parting with my 119" diagonal Cinema Contour High Power (with Pro Trim) screen


No, I am not abandoning the club, but have reconfigured my room a touch and can now fit a 133" diagonal


Please PM if interested, or I will post here on the classifieds shortly...


I will be able to ship AFTER I receive my new screen, as I will use the freight carton from DaLite to ship the 119"


Thanks


----------



## wxnz79

Hi all. I have discussed with the boss and it looks as though curtains will be an option for behind the projector and screen. Based on the height of the projector on a 100" screen, and using the calculator I would get a viewing gain of around 1.85, and around 1.3 at the furtherest seating position (roughly 3.6' either side). My concern is the large side wall, which at this stage needs to be kept white as we will put something on there later on


Specs are:

Seating position = ~10ft wide

Seating distance = ~12.5ft

Throw distance = ~12.5ft

Proj height above viewing = ~2ft


Pics are below with the top view showing the 15° each side.


1. Would the HP be a good choice in this situation?

2. Would going to a 106" cause more issues with reflections?


Any thoughts / comments?


----------



## Audixium




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgathright* /forum/post/17814193
> 
> 
> When I first started talking about getting a 60" Sony HDTV (2003) she could not understand why I would want that. The same thing happened when I started talking about a projector.
> 
> 
> Now she never questions what I am upgrading up to.



+1


I haven't gone HP yet, but after the first few nights of watching a 150" HDTV PJ image in our living room she didn't question anymore.










And now a year later I have carte blanche in the dedicated theater construction decisions.


----------



## Bronco70




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Audixium* /forum/post/17819648
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> I haven't gone HP yet, but after the first few nights of watching a 150" HDTV PJ image in our living room she didn't question anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And now a year later I have carte blanche in the dedicated theater construction decisions.



So make both of you happy and switch to the HP, at 150" a must? Would seem so.


Joe


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wxnz79* /forum/post/17819534
> 
> 
> 1. Would the HP be a good choice in this situation?
> 
> 2. Would going to a 106" cause more issues with reflections?
> 
> 
> Any thoughts / comments?



I think it would be a great choice. It will be especially helpful in rejecting light from the large white side wall. I wouldn't fear going to a 106". If you do get more reflected light than you want on the left side, you can always hang something dark on the white wall near the screen.


----------



## Pedro2

I'm ordering a dalite Model C screen (high power), and trying to figure out the minimum distance needed from the floor needed to roll it up. I'm hoping to get to as close to the floor as possible to maximize my vertical screen space... Anyone know?


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pedro2* /forum/post/17823527
> 
> 
> I'm ordering a dalite Model C screen (high power), and trying to figure out the minimum distance needed from the floor needed to roll it up. I'm hoping to get to as close to the floor as possible to maximize my vertical screen space... Anyone know?




I think 18" would be adequate, you don't have to yank it too far, and if you do, you can pull it forward. I had to do that in my last set up where the bottom of the screen was about 6" from the cabinet. Mine is two feet off the floor, but I removed it from the roller and stapled it to the wall.


----------



## Pedro2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JHouse* /forum/post/17823616
> 
> 
> I think 18" would be adequate, you don't have to yank it too far, and if you do, you can pull it forward. I had to do that in my last set up where the bottom of the screen was about 6" from the cabinet. Mine is two feet off the floor, but I removed it from the roller and stapled it to the wall.



OK, sounds like I need at last six inches from floor to bottom of screen material! Thanks.


----------



## wxnz79




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/17823219
> 
> 
> I think it would be a great choice. It will be especially helpful in rejecting light from the large white side wall. I wouldn't fear going to a 106". If you do get more reflected light than you want on the left side, you can always hang something dark on the white wall near the screen.



Thanks FLBoy. So would you expect the white side wall to light up less using a HP over BOC, or would the light from wall just have less impact on the screen?


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wxnz79* /forum/post/17825896
> 
> 
> Thanks FLBoy. So would you expect the white side wall to light up less using a HP over BOC, or would the light from wall just have less impact on the screen?



Both. The narrow viewing cone works in both directions. The screen lights the wall less, and any light that does make it to the wall is largely rejected by the screen, because it is way off-axis from the viewers.


----------



## Hughmc

I am looking into getting the Panny AE4000 and a 110" Da-Lite HP screen.


What is the difference between these three besides price? Will the PQ be the same?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...rojection.html 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._C_Manual.html 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._C_Manual.html


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17836602
> 
> 
> I am looking into getting the Panny AE4000 and a 110" Da-Lite HP screen.
> 
> 
> What is the difference between these three besides price? Will the PQ be the same?
> 
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...rojection.html
> 
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._C_Manual.html
> 
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._C_Manual.html



It's actually confusing. Two of them seem to have CSR, which allows you to let go after the screen is going up and it won't bang into the case. The other one requires you to hold on about 1 second longer to prevent that. I have had both. No big deal to me.


----------



## rgathright

Has anyone gotten these pull down screens just for the screen and used them with a frame of some type? I know this is more of a DIY question, but those guys go nuts when you try to use a bought screen. I assume the screen material is all the same.


----------



## Fabricator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgathright* /forum/post/17838334
> 
> 
> Has anyone gotten these pull down screens just for the screen and used them with a frame of some type? I know this is more of a DIY question, but those guys go nuts when you try to use a bought screen. I assume the screen material is all the same.



i have been told many have done that. and i may do it myself.


----------



## tonygeno

I just got a new projector (an Epson 9500UDB) and have been forced to go from a shelf mount (about 50" off the floor) to a wall mount (81" off the floor). The shelf mount was actually on a tall stand that was blocking passage and my wife finally forced the change (after she learned that the Epson came with a wall mount). I have been using a 92" diagonal HP screen (Model C, CSR) with my previous setup to good effect, but was not so thrilled at the dropoff at viewing angles outside the cone, which for me was the seats to the left and right of center. I own three rather large Ekornes Stressless chairs that are very comfortable, but take up a ton of room.


I'm still using the HP screen and although the gain is down, I seem to notice less light fall off from the left and right screen than before, which is a good thing.


My question is: should I switch to a standard matte white screen for the somewhat increased viewing angles/brightness uniformity, or given my setup, will I continue to enjoy the benefits of the HP screen with the exception of the increased brightness? I ran through the gain calculator and with my setup, gain varies left to right from 1.2 at the edges to 1.35 dead center.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tonygeno* /forum/post/17838978
> 
> 
> My question is: should I switch to a standard matte white screen for the somewhat increased viewing angles/brightness uniformity, or given my setup, will I continue to enjoy the benefits of the HP screen with the exception of the increased brightness? I ran through the gain calculator and with my setup, gain varies left to right from 1.2 at the edges to 1.35 dead center.



I would keep the screen. It's still giving you freedom from waves, excellent across-screen brightness uniformity from any viewing position, rejection of off-axis ambient light, virtually invisible texture, and some gain. What's not to like?


Your screen is small enough that a 1.0 matte white the same size would also be bright enough, but it would not have all of the advantages listed above, and it will cost you $$ to trade now.


----------



## tonygeno

That's what I'm thinking. I was also able to choose Eco mode and got similar brightness to the matte white screen using normal.


----------



## Big Picture

EDITED: I'm interested in doing a 134" wide, 143" diagonal, 57" high 2.35 HP screen with the Panasonic 4000. I can table mount it 1-2' offset from the center of the screen.


Sitting distance is 13', eyeballs will be about 40" above the floor, screen top would be 7'3" off the floor, screen bottom 30" off the floor, center of screen would be 58" off the floor. I can lower the screen 6" or more if it would make a difference. Projector will be about 16' from the screen about 3' behind seating.


Will this setup work well with the 1-2' projector offset and how high should the projector sit to clear viewers heads?


Thank you.


----------



## tonygeno

My experience is that the brightness drops way down. You will not get anywhere near the potential gain, which is this screen's biggest selling point IMO. Do an online chat with Da-Lite and ask their opinion.


----------



## FLBoy

Big Picture: You can use my screen gain calculator (linked below) to get a quantitative answer, but I can tell you now that if your PJ is offset horizontally from your seating, the viewer closest to the PJ beam will have the highest gain. One way around this would be to offset your seating as well, such that the viewers are centered below the PJ beam.


As to the PJ height to clear your viewers' heads, you can draw a side view of your theater. You want a straight line from the bottom of the PJ lens to the bottom of the screen's viewing area to just clear the top of the tallest viewer's head. You can either do a scale drawing or, if you remember your trig, do a calculation to get the answer.


I think your screen is too high. For viewing comfort the rule of thumb is 1/3 of the screen below eye level and 2/3 above eye level. That would place your 57" high screen bottom at 21" instead of 30". This is not a hard and fast rule, so if your preference is 30", go ahead and do it.


----------



## Big Picture




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/17848347
> 
> 
> Big Picture:
> 
> 
> You want a straight line from the bottom of the PJ lens to the bottom of the screen's viewing area to just clear the top of the tallest viewer's head.
> 
> 
> I think your screen is too high. For viewing comfort the rule of thumb is 1/3 of the screen below eye level and 2/3 above eye level. That would place your 57" high screen bottom at 21" instead of 30". This is not a hard and fast rule, so if your preference is 30", go ahead and do it.



This very confusing at this point.


If my screen bottom is 21" from the floor (which I would like) and my viewers seated heads are 45" high, now high from the floor does the projector lens need to be and how do you determine that and how do you make sure you're within the ideal 30 horizontal degree cone?


I can use graph paper to see these angles but how do you determine where the range of good high gain viewing is and is it really that critical?


If the vertical angle from the projector lens to the bottom of the screen exceeds 15 degrees are you losing the value of the HP screen?


Will having my projector lens 12-24' off center on a 134" wide screen really appreciably diminish the center viewing position on this size screen?


My seating is 13' back from screen and projector is 16' back from screen.


A lot of people are talking about table mounting their projectors with HP screens yet table tops are around 30" high, how are they clearing viewers heads in this case?


So many questions, so much confusion, sorry...


I don't see your screen gain calculator?


Thank you for your help.


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Big Picture* /forum/post/17848567
> 
> 
> This very confusing at this point.
> 
> 
> If my screen bottom is 21" from the floor (which I would like) and my viewers seated heads are 45" high, now high from the floor does the projector lens need to be and how do you determine that and how do you make sure you're within the ideal 30 degree cone?
> 
> 
> Seating is 13' back from screen and projector is 16' back from screen.
> 
> 
> I don't see your screen gain calculator?
> 
> 
> Thank you for your help.



I responded in the other thread. Make a scaled drawing.


----------



## FLBoy

Big Picture: Do you see the words "All Screen Gain Calculator" in my signature? That is a link to my screen gain calculator. Click on it to go to my calculator thread. It will answer all your questions about screen gain if you will learn how to use it. It is already set up for the HP.


If your screen bottom is 21" from the floor and your viewers' seated heads are 45" high, then your PJ lens bottom needs to be at least 51" above the floor if you are shooting from behind a viewer whose head is in the way. I calculated this; you can also use a scale drawing if math isn't your forte. Alternatively, you can split the viewers far enough apart in the middle to shoot between them. That's what people do who have eye-level projectors.


Hope this helps.


----------



## Big Picture




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/17849640
> 
> 
> Big Picture: Do you see the words "All Screen Gain Calculator" in my signature? That is a link to my screen gain calculator. Click on it to go to my calculator thread. It will answer all your questions about screen gain if you will learn how to use it. It is already set up for the HP.
> 
> 
> If your screen bottom is 21" from the floor and your viewers' seated heads are 45" high, then your PJ lens bottom needs to be at least 51" above the floor if you are shooting from behind a viewer whose head is in the way. I calculated this; you can also use a scale drawing if math isn't your forte. Alternatively, you can split the viewers far enough apart in the middle to shoot between them. That's what people do who have eye-level projectors.
> 
> 
> Hope this helps.



FL, thank you for your assistance.


I have the projector on hand now.


Can I simulate what you are talking about with the projector projecting on the wall without a screen. i.e put a 21" line on the wall from the floor and locate the projector 51" from the floor to verify that the light beam from the projector clears the heads in the seating area?


With the screen bottom at 21" the top of the screen will be at 78".


If this test is successful does it mean that I will get good results with the 134" wide HP for sure when the projector is mounted 51" from the floor?


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Big Picture* /forum/post/17850312
> 
> 
> FL, thank you for your assistance.
> 
> 
> I have the projector on hand now.
> 
> 
> Can I simulate what you are talking about with the projector projecting on the wall without a screen. i.e put a 21" line on the wall from the floor and locate the projector 51" from the floor to verify that the light beam from the projector clears the heads in the seating area?
> 
> 
> If this test is successful does it mean that I will get good results with the HP for sure?



Yes. Absolutely. I also replied in the other thread again.


----------



## Fabricator

can i get some shipping examples from someone ?

i ordered today. and they said by friday.

how are they doing these days ?


thanx


----------



## airscapes

What did you order and from whom.. I ordered a basic Picture King tripod with HP fabric from AVS, it was drop shipped from Da-lite and arrived in 3 days via UPS. Now my samples showed up 4 days la ter and had been ordered over a week earlier they came USPS. My second custom replacement screen was sent by DB Shenker and took about 4 days and required delivery be scheduled.



I liked the HP fabric in the sample pack much better than what they used on the screen. If there is no official explanation from Da-lite to it's vendors and to the public I will start a new thread Thursday or Friday documenting my purchase and experience with DA-lite. Tryg said he would give them a call, and I asked the Da-lite sales manager Damien Brunetto to call AVS and explain to them why they are selling 2 different fabrics with different specs and calling it the same. Jason form AVS said he will contact DA-lite if he does not hear from the m soon. Hopefully this will get out in the open today or tomorrow.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/17852723
> 
> 
> What did you order and from whom.. I ordered a basic Picture King tripod with HP fabric from AVS, it was drop shipped from Da-lite and arrived in 3 days via UPS. Now my samples showed up 4 days la ter and had been ordered over a week earlier they came USPS. My second custom replacement screen was sent by DB Shenker and took about 4 days and required delivery be scheduled.
> 
> 
> 
> I liked the HP fabric in the sample pack much better than what they used on the screen. If there is no official explanation from Da-lite to it's vendors and to the public I will start a new thread Thursday or Friday documenting my purchase and experience with DA-lite. Tryg said he would give them a call, and I asked the Da-lite sales manager Damien Brunetto to call AVS and explain to them why they are selling 2 different fabrics with different specs and calling it the same. Jason form AVS said he will contact DA-lite if he does not hear from the m soon. Hopefully this will get out in the open today or tomorrow.



How is it different?


----------



## Big Picture

I'm close to ordering a HP screen too, what is the difference in the two fabrics?


Thank you.


----------



## tonygeno




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/17852723
> 
> 
> What did you order and from whom.. I ordered a basic Picture King tripod with HP fabric from AVS, it was drop shipped from Da-lite and arrived in 3 days via UPS.



They have a Wide Power fabric that they use on their InstaTheater with good gain but a wider viewing angle than the HP. It's a much lighter material. Perhaps that is what they sent you.


----------



## airscapes

I would like the manufacture to explain. If they don't feel the need to explain why they change their product without telling anyone, then I will post all the info and photos I have. I don't want to rock the boat, the new stuff is good, and I understand that progress moves on.. but specs get updated and published before product is shipped.. I am not being a nit pick.. my wife don't want the new stuff, she wants the old stuff so the new fabric screen is going back. Da-lite how about an official statement on what you your plans for the High Power Fabric are and why the changes were made. And fire the nitwit that sends out samples that don't match what you are selling..


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tonygeno* /forum/post/17852918
> 
> 
> They have a Wide Power fabric that they use on their InstaTheater with good gain but a wider viewing angle than the HP. It's a much lighter material. Perhaps that is what they sent you.



Nope I have the full packet of fabric samples and this is not one of them. It has been verified there are 2 hp fabrics and one is being phased out .. now we wait to see what Da-lite says.. or if these entries just vanish..


The new stuff is good just not as bright in the cone and a bit brighter outside the cone. My guess is this is cost savings for da-lite lets wait and see what they say


----------



## tonygeno




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/17852934
> 
> 
> Nope I have the full packet of fabric samples and this is not one of them. It has been verified there are 2 hp fabrics and one is being phased out .. now we wait to see what Da-lite says.. or if this these entries just vanish..



Bummer. I hope you end up with what you want.


----------



## Joseph Clark

Well, this is an interesting development. I'd like to learn more about what it means. Any additional information and/or links would be appreciated.


----------



## airscapes

I would like Da-lite to tell us. I would like Da-lite to tell their vendors. Just sit still and see what they have to say, they (Da-lite Sales) are well aware of this thread. I will be happy to start a new tread and show you the differences in the to fabrics but I am still waiting for a GOOD and official statement from Da-lite as to why the change and why they are selling both products without the proper documentation to differentiate them. Never mind sending out samples that don't match the product.


----------



## tonygeno

I just "chatted" with Chris over at Da-Lite and he says the HP fabric is the same as it's always been. When I mentioned this thread he said people say all kinds of things on the net. Not sure he's the official spokesperson, but that's what CS is saying over at Da-Lite.


----------



## airscapes

Will post the photos and the Invoice that states to use older HP fabric to match the sample that the customer has been comparing to the new HP screen. I love my HP screen I am keeping the screen with the Old Fabric and returning what I was sent the first time. The pictures don't lie.. but for now I feel the Da-lite is lying. All screens that come with HP fabric link to the same spec of 2.8 gain.


----------



## tigerfan33

I am interested also. I have a sample of HP coming in the next few days. The viewing angle is what I will be testing, moving it to certain sides of my current screen. I would HOPE that if I decided to go with the HP that I would get the EXACT screen as the sample material.


----------



## airscapes

I really didn't want to rock the boat and have been working privately behind the scenes with Jason for AVS and some other members. I was really hoping there would have been some announcement as a sticky at that top of the forum to denote what is going on with the HP line of fabric. Lets all just sit tight and see if what they have to say.


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/17852934
> 
> 
> It has been verified there are 2 hp fabrics and one is being phased out ..
> 
> 
> The new stuff is good just not as bright in the cone and a bit brighter outside the cone. My guess is this is cost savings for da-lite lets wait and see what they say



This may explain why Evan Powell's review sucked. He may have been given the new stuff. Just speculating. But that would explain a lot. Tryg might be able to get to the bottom of this.


----------



## Tryg

OFFICIAL NEWS:


I have talked with Da-Lite. They say they are, or have changed, their manufacturing process but are uncertain at this point if the fabrics specifications have changed. If the specificatioins have or do change from the original material they will let us know.


It will still be retroreflective and high gain. I gathered from our conversation the new manufacturing process will get more consistent results.


I'll let you know more when information is available!


I'm starting a new rumor. If you have one of the older screens it's worth a fortune...like a "Stradivarius"


----------



## Big Picture




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JHouse* /forum/post/17850322
> 
> 
> Yes. Absolutely. I also replied in the other thread again.



One other question is now bugging me now and that is: Once the projected beam is properly lined up with the bottom of the screen does it automatically line up with the top of the screen, I do understand that the light beam is not at an angle coming off the top of the lens but is flat?


Also when flipping the projector over (as in a ceiling mount) the projected beam also flips over how does this negatively affect use of a HP screen?


Thank you.


----------



## rgathright

I wonder what version my sample is that I just got. Is there a way to tell which is which. The back of my sample is black (I think-it is dark).


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Big Picture* /forum/post/17854596
> 
> 
> One other question is now bugging me now and that is: Once the projected beam is properly lined up with the bottom of the screen does it automatically line up with the top of the screen, I do understand that the light beam is not at an angle coming off the top of the lens but is flat?
> 
> 
> Also when flipping the projector over (as in a ceiling mount) the projected beam also flips over how does this negatively affect use of a HP screen?
> 
> 
> Thank you.



It manually adjusts for that. It will be all straight and square if the projector is square with the screen, after you get it adjusted. It's easy. And inverting it is irrelevant. Works the same either way.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgathright* /forum/post/17854648
> 
> 
> I wonder what version my sample is that I just got. Is there a way to tell which is which. The back of my sample is black (I think-it is dark).



I have posted my story along with the photos I think the photos will be able to answer your questions
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post17854754


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Big Picture* /forum/post/17854596
> 
> 
> One other question is now bugging me now and that is: Once the projected beam is properly lined up with the bottom of the screen does it automatically line up with the top of the screen, I do understand that the light beam is not at an angle coming off the top of the lens but is flat?
> 
> 
> Also when flipping the projector over (as in a ceiling mount) the projected beam also flips over how does this negatively affect use of a HP screen?
> 
> 
> Thank you.



As long as you keep the front of the pj lens parallel to the screen and use horizontal lens shift to adjust out any horizontal offset of the pj, you will be fine. You can expect to have to fine tune the pj's position, rotationally speaking, during installation to make sure the lens front is perfectly parallel to the screen. If it is not, the picture will keystone, meaning that one side will be slightly larger than the other, thereby making the top and bottom of the picture unlevel. Get the keystoning corrected first; then center the picture horizontally using the horizontal lens shift.


Flipping the pj over has no effect on the use of the HP screen. The gain will always be highest for viewers near the PJ lens.


ETA- JHouse, I see I have to be faster than a speeding bullet to beat your response.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/17854774
> 
> 
> I have posted my story along with the photos I think the photos will be able to answer your questions
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post17854754



Thanks for providing those photos. From what I'm seeing, the new fabric might not have enough gain to give me satisfactory brightness with an aging lamp on my Sharp XV-Z20000. DaLite might be miscalculating big time, if they intend to discontinue the old HP fabric. There are boat loads of people out there who don't give a mouse's backside about the narrow viewing cone, but who need the brightness the classic HP provides. I smell a "new Coke" type mistake brewing. I doubt this will stand once the outcries begin.


----------



## thrang

I'm being told the change affects the material used for manual screens, not fixed screens. Fixed screens have the same formulation. I'm asking for more detail, but so far have not heard any more.


Perhaps they were having a problem with the original coating flaking off the roller screens?


----------



## Warbie

Gah! I was just about to purchase an HP screen and am now undecided.


I'm in the middle of an online chat with an DaLite site operator btw and they said the HP material is going to 2.4 gain.


----------



## thrang




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Warbie* /forum/post/17855241
> 
> 
> Gah! I was just about to purchase an HP screen and am now undecided.
> 
> 
> I'm in the middle of an online chat with an DaLite site operator btw and they said the HP material is going to 2.4 gain.



Ask them if that applies to the fixed frame material as well, or manual screens only...


----------



## Warbie

They stopped answering questions on the HP material - 'new info. will be on the site once finalised'.


Does anyone know where I can get a 119" model C with the 'older' material. This may be a cunning ploy by DaLite to get those on the fence ordering quickly! Either way, I want to order now.


----------



## Tryg

Please nobody panic










Even if the "new" high power is rated at 2.4 or 2.5 gain that doesn't mean it's inferior. Chances are it will actually work for more people!


Remember you cant create light, so if the gain gets reduced it will likely produce a less extreme viewing cone (larger). This would be a good thing for those that complain the falloff outside "optimal" viewing is to great.


Looking forward to seeing the new material!


----------



## Joseph Clark

My concern would be if DaLite discontinued the old HP. A .4 gain decrease might be enough to prevent some people from getting the brightness they need. If they make both and give customers a choice, it's all good, but they need to sort that out fast, and stop shipping the new formula as if it were the old. It's bad PR, and not fair to people who are ordering now.


----------



## tigerfan33




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *joseph clark* /forum/post/17855646
> 
> 
> my concern would be if dalite discontinued the old hp. A .4 gain decrease might be enough to prevent some people from getting the brightness they need. If they make both and give customers a choice, it's all good, but they need to sort that out fast, and stop shipping the new formula as if it were the old. It's bad pr, and not fair to people who are ordering now.



+1


----------



## Warbie

Agreed. It's more the fact of not knowing what you'll get if ordering now that bugs me. I'm fine with the narrow cone and am going for one of these screens to get as bright/large an image as possible.


----------



## noah katz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/17855515
> 
> 
> Even if the "new" high power is rated at 2.4 or 2.5 gain that doesn't mean it's inferior. Chances are it will actually work for more people!
> 
> 
> Remember you cant create light, so if the gain gets reduced it will likely produce a less extreme viewing cone (larger). This would be a good thing for those that complain the falloff outside "optimal" viewing is to great.



Right.


My setup is such that I'm getting about 1.6 gain, so I might actually come out ahead.


Presumably the off-axis ambient light rejection will decrease in proportion to the gain, but we're only talking a 14% difference.


I wonder if Dalite is fudging the new spec, as that shouldn't look as different as airscapes said.


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/17854925
> 
> 
> Thanks for providing those photos. From what I'm seeing, the new fabric might not have enough gain to give me satisfactory brightness with an aging lamp on my Sharp XV-Z20000. DaLite might be miscalculating big time, if they intend to discontinue the old HP fabric. There are boat loads of people out there who don't give a mouse's backside about the narrow viewing cone, but who need the brightness the classic HP provides. I smell a "new Coke" type mistake brewing. I doubt this will stand once the outcries begin.



That would be soooooooo stupid.


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thrang* /forum/post/17855168
> 
> 
> I'm being told the change affects the material used for manual screens, not fixed screens. Fixed screens have the same formulation. I'm asking for more detail, but so far have not heard any more.



Well that would now certainly justify the higher cost of the fixed screens. This is so weird. I hope it is just a bunch of misinformation. But Evan Powell's review really threw me off.


I hope the difference is relatively trivial, and it really is an improvement, because now people searching here about the High Power could possibly be misled by all the existing posts, if they don't catch the date of the changeover. I had that same problem looking for speakers. Read a bunch of stuff and got excited and was half way through an order when I accidentally discovered the company had gone out of business and they were taking money and keeping it.


----------



## airscapes

I really wanted an official story from Da-lite in public rather than this type of thing but it was driving me nuts sitting here know that folks are buying based on something they most likely not end up getting. The Manager of Sales told me ALL models will have this and I did say (phone conversation) manual, electric and fixed.. the answer was yes. But hey, he could have just been some guy the receptionist put on when I said I wanted to speak to the CEO..


----------



## thrang

My question to my Da-Lite contact (a VP)


"Ok, so the manual is a little lower (I heard 2.4) but the fixed screens remain at the original 2.8?"


The answer:


"Yes."


----------



## airscapes

My question to your contact is wtf were they thinking not documenting the changes before shipping product and not updating samples well before shipping product. The new screen looks great but it is not what is documented.. this is bad business..


----------



## thrang




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/17856731
> 
> 
> My question to your contact is wtf were they thinking not documenting the changes before shipping product and not updating samples well before shipping product. The new screen looks great but it is not what is documented.. this is bad business..



Now, if you think I ask wtf to my contact I would still have a contact?










It is CES week, so maybe the announcement is forthcoming and production got ahead of the PR...


----------



## rgathright

Can the screen material be bought by itself?


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgathright* /forum/post/17856754
> 
> 
> Can the screen material be bought by itself?



No. People buy a cheap pull-down, like the model C, I believe, and then cut the material out.


----------



## Fabricator

well, isn't this an INTERESTING turn of events. the very day AFTER ordering my 119" manual C HP.


but, from what i can gather. this may not be a bad thing, for me.


i will post my review/impressions after setting up and using mine.

HOPEFULLY this weekend, though i am not holding my breath.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fabricator* /forum/post/17858283
> 
> 
> well, isn't this an INTERESTING turn of events. the very day AFTER ordering my 119" manual C HP.
> 
> 
> but, from what i can gather. this may not be a bad thing, for me.
> 
> 
> i will post my review/impressions after setting up and using mine.
> 
> HOPEFULLY this weekend, though i am not holding my breath.



You will be fine, what will this be replacing? I am sure you will be very happy.


----------



## Fabricator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/17858585
> 
> 
> You will be fine, what will this be replacing? I am sure you will be very happy.



a DIY 4x8'. that looks pretty darned good. here is a pic. that is not nearly as good as it really is. i nearly wet myself when this come on.


SPEED RACER. eye candy to the max. before i did any calibration to my ViewSonic Pro8100.


idk what my diy gain is. i understand it is the 1.4 range. i have some samples coming from da-lite. i will use these to get a better idea.


----------



## noah katz

"But Evan Powell's review really threw me off."


That review is pretty lame.


Besides not being able to imagine how he saw what he said he saw, he didn't even mention the HP's many noteworthy characteristics besides gain.


----------



## Warbie

I got this response from Da-Lite today:


'Thank you for the e-mail. I was told yesterday that there are two versions. The new version will have a 2.4 gain (old had 2.8). The 2.4 version will come standard on tripods, manual and electric screens. The 2.8 gain will still come standard on the fixed frame screens. You can still get the 2.8 gain on any of the tripods, manuals or electrics. You will just have to line note on the order "use 2.8 gain high power surface". I don't have all the information about the new surface, but it looks like we will be able to go over 8' in height with the 2.4 gain.'


Looks like we may have a choice, which is always nice


----------



## airscapes

Wonder when they were going to tell us? Got a boat load of folks buying screens that have specs that say 2.8 and receiving 2.4 seems like every customer that received the new formula when customer service reps and website say 2.8 should receive new screens with the fabric they ordered or a discount since you know this new stuff is cheaper to make..just look at it! Funny website still says 2.8 for picture king with HP


----------



## neverfaithful

I just ordered a Carada BW 1.4 gain 110" screen. Is 1.4 considered high gain or medium gain if there is such a thing?


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *neverfaithful* /forum/post/17861676
> 
> 
> I just ordered a Carada BW 1.4 gain 110" screen. Is 1.4 considered high gain or medium gain if there is such a thing?



No expert here but I think that is and angular reflective screen the HP is a retro reflective. There is a thread explaining the difference between the 2 types


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Warbie* /forum/post/17861054
> 
> 
> I got this response from Da-Lite today:
> 
> 
> 'Thank you for the e-mail. I was told yesterday that there are two versions. The new version will have a 2.4 gain (old had 2.8). The 2.4 version will come standard on tripods, manual and electric screens. The 2.8 gain will still come standard on the fixed frame screens. You can still get the 2.8 gain on any of the tripods, manuals or electrics. You will just have to line note on the order "use 2.8 gain high power surface". I don't have all the information about the new surface, but it looks like we will be able to go over 8' in height with the 2.4 gain.'
> 
> 
> Looks like we may have a choice, which is always nice



That is fantastic news.


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/17859377
> 
> 
> "But Evan Powell's review really threw me off."
> 
> 
> That review is pretty lame.
> 
> 
> Besides not being able to imagine how he saw what he said he saw, he didn't even mention the HP's many noteworthy characteristics besides gain.



That's what I thought too. And for them, that was out of character for him. Maybe his usual viewing position is way off to the side.


----------



## neverfaithful




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/17861777
> 
> 
> No expert here but I think that is and angular reflective screen the HP is a retro reflective. There is a thread explaining the difference between the 2 types



Yea I read about that. I thought that angular and retro depended upon where you place your projector. I don't know which one 1.4 gain is though. Pics below.


----------



## JHouse

Cool diagram. It would be neat if you could make one of these with dimension readouts on it and that could be altered by clicking and dragging the positions of the viewer, projector and screen. Talk about making things simple!


----------



## rgathright

In the future proofing and planing of setting up my permanent home this now has me wondering if I may want a DLP projector instead of a LCD one. I currently have a Mits HC6000 LCD projector. So I have been looking at a HP screen due to my current projector is low on the brightness end. The first thing I will have to check is to see if the RBE bothers me or my wife.


Are the high powered DLP projectors to bright for the HP screens?


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgathright* /forum/post/17870311
> 
> 
> In the future proofing and planing of setting up my permanent home this now has me wondering if I may want a DLP projector instead of a LCD one. I currently have a Mits HC6000 LCD projector. So I have been looking at a HP screen due to my current projector is low on the brightness end. The first thing I will have to check is to see if the RBE bothers me or my wife.
> 
> 
> Are the high powered DLP projectors to bright for the HP screens?



I would be more concerned with placement issues. To get the most out of the HP the projector needs to be at near eye level which is probably a self mount behind your heads. I think lens shift is a very important option to achieve this setup and most lower end DLPs don't have this. My DLP is table mounted in front of us. I have a real small screen with my DLP on low and iris closed and in the hot seat (Center behind projector ) using the OLD HP fabric it is as bright as the Sony CRT next to it.. move to the side seats and it is bright but not like the sweet spot! I think this would be better if it was shelf mounted at eye level shooting between the center seats.. someday in a new home with a real HT room...


----------



## rgathright

My setup will be that the projector will be ceiling mounted and about 2' 6" above our viewing height. It is being setup over a table that is between our two chairs which are about 3' to each side. It will be centered with the screen horizontal and vertically. I did the gain calculators and it works out for a gain of around 1.8>1.9.


----------



## JHouse

I think he's telling you that DLP projectors need to be either at the bottom or top of the screen and the location has to be accommodated because of the typical lack of lens shift. That probably isn't that big of a deal for the HP, especially the new material, but as far as set up, it sure is a pain in the butt. You set your projector up and turn it on and focus on the wall and that's where the screen has to go, no adjustments.


----------



## rgathright

The entire question concerning DLP may be moot if we are affected by RBE. I need to find a store somewhere in Houston to look at some DLP projectors setups.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JHouse* /forum/post/17870550
> 
> 
> I think he's telling you that DLP projectors need to be either at the bottom or top of the screen and the location has to be accommodated because of the typical lack of lens shift. That probably isn't that big of a deal for the HP, especially the new material, but as far as set up, it sure is a pain in the butt. You set your projector up and turn it on and focus on the wall and that's where the screen has to go, no adjustments.



That's for the low end DLPs. Higher end DLP projectors usually have lens shift, although it's just vertical. I don't know of any that offer horizontal lens shift. (Not sure about the mega-expensive DLP projectors.)


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgathright* /forum/post/17870641
> 
> 
> The entire question concerning DLP may be moot if we are affected by RBE. I need to find a store somewhere in Houston to look at some DLP projectors setups.



You'll want to give yourself a bit of time to adjust to DLP. Some people never see RBE, but some (like me) adjust to it pretty quickly - to the point that it doesn't bother me at all with high speed color wheels. A high speed color wheel does help (at least 4x, preferably 5x or even 6x). A small percentage of people never adjust. Watch as long as you can before you buy.


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/17870700
> 
> 
> You'll want to give yourself a bit of time to adjust to DLP. Some people never see RBE, but some (like me) adjust to it pretty quickly - to the point that it doesn't bother me at all with high speed color wheels. A high speed color wheel does help (at least 4x, preferably 5x or even 6x). A small percentage of people never adjust. Watch as long as you can before you buy.



VERY GOOD ADVICE. PM me if you want more info.


----------



## Bronco70

The new BenQ W6000 has both vertical and horizontal lens shift.


Joe


----------



## Fabricator

i now have my HP 2.8. i am not good at writing, so this will be basic.



first vid is to give an idea of what the off axis view is of the da-lite hp 2.8 screen. as you can see, the gain does drop off, but it is still plenty viewable by everyone in the room. top screen is the HP. bottom is my DIY S-I-L-V-E-R over thrifty white board. 119" 16:9 HP manual. DIY is 4'x8'.


samples are : matte white - high contrast matte white - video spectra 1.5 - the new Da-Lite high power 2.4 material.


it is very interesting how the gains change as the viewing angle changes.

the "cone", its pretty narrow. basicly, drill a hole in your skull and project through that for the most gain. next best is to wear the pj as a hat. within 1' it drops off quicky, then steadies out, but slowly drops as you go to the side. again, i really see nothing to prevent a side viewer from seeing well(enough ?)


this vid is not meant to be a definitive & scientific overview. it is just a 'basic" look at what to expect. as always, YMMV


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VabVeI5HfSA 

this one, well, there it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaLWeV1Qkdo 



here are some pics for the bandwidth challenged. sorry for the poor quality, i just couldn't hold steady enough. but they do give an idea of how the gains change with viewing angle. note that pic2 is seated, and pic3 is just under the lense, about 2 1/2' above my head.


----------



## Fabricator

shipping was fast, 5 days. the boxing was pretty sturdy, and undamaged, sept the end was bumped a little. no dents otherwise. which makes me wonder how it got that dent in it







. had to be before it was boxed. did i get a second, or a return ? idk. also. right by the little handle that you use the raise lower, right on the viewable surface, there is a scuff mark, about 1 1/2" x 1/16" total. but it is hard to see, and has no impact on the image.


my kitty inspecting the packaging. a pic of the mounting points. and some more pics.


----------



## Fabricator

more pics. everyone likes pics.


last pic is with 3 60 watts hallogens pointing kinda right at the screen.

projector is on econo.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fabricator* /forum/post/17894119
> 
> 
> i now have my HP 2.8. i am not good at writing, so this will be basic.
> 
> 
> 
> first vid is to give an idea of what the off axis view is of the da-lite hp 2.8 screen. as you can see, the gain does drop off, but it is still plenty viewable by everyone in the room. top screen is the HP. bottom is my DIY S-I-L-V-E-R over thrifty white board. 119" 16:9 HP manual. DIY is 4'x8'.
> 
> 
> samples are : matte white - high contrast matte white - video spectra 1.5 - the new Da-Lite high power 2.4 material.
> 
> 
> it is very interesting how the gains change as the viewing angle changes.
> 
> the "cone", its pretty narrow. basicly, drill a hole in your skull and project through that for the most gain. next best is to wear the pj as a hat. within 1' it drops off quicky, then steadies out, but slowly drops as you go to the side. again, i really see nothing to prevent a side viewer from seeing well(enough ?)



That vid demonstrates pretty well why I couldn't live with the HP screen, as the changing of the image with viewer position drove me crazy. YMMV of course. Seems most people are ok with it.


----------



## noah katz

Thanks for the videos and all the pic's.


I didn't know you could get the cases in black; did you have to ask for that special?


----------



## Fabricator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/17894930
> 
> 
> I didn't know you could get the cases in black; did you have to ask for that special?



yep. $20. i think they have a bunch of options.


----------



## RodK

how did the 2.4 compare to the 2.8 in your eyes. Hard to tell in vid and pics with small sample. looks almost the same to me. Just curious with your comment from the other thread .


Originally Posted by Fabricator

oh. from what i have seen. i WOULD NOT tell someone to NOT get the 2.4 .


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fabricator* /forum/post/17894119
> 
> 
> i now have my HP 2.8. i am not good at writing, so this will be basic.
> 
> 
> 
> first vid is to give an idea of what the off axis view is of the da-lite hp 2.8 screen. as you can see, the gain does drop off, but it is still plenty viewable by everyone in the room. top screen is the HP. bottom is my DIY S-I-L-V-E-R over thrifty white board. 119" 16:9 HP manual. DIY is 4'x8'.
> 
> 
> samples are : matte white - high contrast matte white - video spectra 1.5 - the new Da-Lite high power 2.4 material.
> 
> 
> it is very interesting how the gains change as the viewing angle changes.
> 
> the "cone", its pretty narrow. basicly, drill a hole in your skull and project through that for the most gain. next best is to wear the pj as a hat. within 1' it drops off quicky, then steadies out, but slowly drops as you go to the side. again, i really see nothing to prevent a side viewer from seeing well(enough ?)
> 
> 
> this vid is not meant to be a definitive & scientific overview. it is just a 'basic" look at what to expect. as always, YMMV
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VabVeI5HfSA
> 
> this one, well, there it is.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaLWeV1Qkdo
> 
> 
> 
> here are some pics for the bandwidth challenged. sorry for the poor quality, i just couldn't hold steady enough. but they do give an idea of how the gains change with viewing angle. note that pic2 is seated, and pic3 is just under the lense, about 2 1/2' above my head.



I see the dropoff of brightness, but I expected it to be almost unwatchable at an extreme angle when just the opposite is true. If anything the center position looks inaccurately bright on the main screen itself.







I could see the dropoff on the samples, but the PQ on the full 2.8 screen video from extreme angles looked excellent and in a sense more accurate than the overly bright center seat image. It makes me think in my room I would be better with 2.4. ??


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17895443
> 
> 
> I see the dropoff of brightness, but I expected it to be almost unwatchable at an extreme angle when just the opposite is true. If anything the center position looks inaccurately bright on the main screen itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could see the dropoff on the samples, but the PQ on the full 2.8 screen video from extreme angles looked excellent and in a sense more accurate than the overly bright center seat image. It makes me think in my room I would be better with 2.4. ??



I think it depends on your projector. If it's dim, then a 2.8 works better. I had to raise my new projector up to a high shelf mount so the black level wasn't too high. At the old projector position (much closer to eye level), the image was just too bright. I still have the option of lowering my pj when the lamp ages, or I could just filter it and keep it in the lower position all the time. The point is that with an HP, you have options you don't with other screens. You can use a much larger HP screen and still be bright enough with many different types of projectors. With a low gain screen, the number of options is limited, and some projector options disappear altogether. You just have to be able to live with the cone of brightness. For most people it's not an issue. For some, it is. If your viewing area is spread out quite wide, and for some ceiling mount users, other options might work better.


I'm anxious to hear from current 2.8 gain HP users who move to 2.4 gain what the differences are. That's what is most intriguing to me about the new surface.


----------



## Fabricator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RodK* /forum/post/17895209
> 
> 
> how did the 2.4 compare to the 2.8 in your eyes. Hard to tell in vid and pics with small sample. looks almost the same to me. Just curious with your comment from the other thread .
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by Fabricator
> 
> oh. from what i have seen. i WOULD NOT tell someone to NOT get the 2.4 .



to me, they are so close that its darn close to a non issue. but, as was said, it can be misleading to judge from a 6x6" sample. i am sure, had i received the 2.4, i would be just as happy, with my friends to the sides being a little bit happier. i actually feel the 2.8 cone is too small. i am going to make adjustments to get my face where i like it in the cone. and i will get used to it.

i bet the "weave" of the 2.4 is why the cone is bigger.


----------



## Fabricator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17895443
> 
> 
> I see the dropoff of brightness, but I expected it to be almost unwatchable at an extreme angle when just the opposite is true. If anything the center position looks inaccurately bright on the main screen itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could see the dropoff on the samples, but the PQ on the full 2.8 screen video from extreme angles looked excellent and in a sense more accurate than the overly bright center seat image. It makes me think in my room I would be better with 2.4. ??




i was thinking the same exact thing. i thought it would be nearly unwatchable off to the sides. i went even further to the sides than in the vids, nearly 90deg, and i could see what was on the screen with no problem. it is no worse than the 32" toshiba regza lcd 720p that i am watching right now. of cource, idk how much, if any, my projector has to do with it.



this is why i did the vids/pics the way i did. i had been wondering it myself. i had been told not to worry, while other said it was bad. now guys can see for themselves.



let me say one thing i do not like about this manual screen. it only "locks in" in about 6" increments.

i got lucky/good and nailed in my mounting. as it had to be darned close to perfect, or i would have caused problems.


----------



## Fabricator

oh yeah. we watched HARRY POTTER tHBP last night. i feel the pq was about the worse BD i have yet to see. but i did notice that blacks were just fine.


----------



## Joseph Clark

I've always felt that the HP's color and brightness uniformity (side to side) are really good, no matter where you sit. It's just that the cone dictates overall screen brightness. Even though I've moved my projector from near eye level up to a high shelf mount, the image is still excellent. My Stewart Firehawk screen had a distracting sheen, no matter where I sat. Both color and brightness uniformity on the Firehawk were also quite obviously inferior to the HP.


----------



## Fabricator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/17896351
> 
> 
> I've always felt that the HP's color and brightness uniformity (side to side) are really good, no matter where you sit. It's just that the cone dictates overall screen brightness. Even though I've moved my projector from near eye level up to a high shelf mount, the image is still excellent.



i agree. no matter where i was, the image was uniform across the screen.


----------



## badgerpilot

I need to figure out what fabric I have but I believe it is probably the 2.4 (received the screen in December) but I can't imagine a better screen. Seriously. The drop off is next to nothing on the sides and the uniformity is outstanding. Watched the playoffs this weekend and now a concert DVD. Just incredible. Still very happy with what ever I have


----------



## noah katz

"i went even further to the sides than in the vids, nearly 90deg, and i could see what was on the screen with no problem."


It's still a mystery to me how it can be, but the same is true of my 2.8 HP - it seems to be bright and clear as far off axis as it's possible to get.


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/17894264
> 
> 
> That vid demonstrates pretty well why I couldn't live with the HP screen, as the changing of the image with viewer position drove me crazy. YMMV of course. Seems most people are ok with it.



I didn't see how that video demonstrated anything. It all looked the same because the auto-iris adjusts.


This is one reason why screen shots don't work, the camera does some processing between the time the image is projected and our eye sees what the camera see's fit to show us.


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/17895624
> 
> 
> I think it depends on your projector. If it's dim, then a 2.8 works better. I had to raise my new projector up to a high shelf mount so the black level wasn't too high. At the old projector position (much closer to eye level), the image was just too bright. I still have the option of lowering my pj when the lamp ages, or I could just filter it and keep it in the lower position all the time. The point is that with an HP, you have options you don't with other screens. You can use a much larger HP screen and still be bright enough with many different types of projectors. With a low gain screen, the number of options is limited, and some projector options disappear altogether. You just have to be able to live with the cone of brightness. For most people it's not an issue. For some, it is. If your viewing area is spread out quite wide, and for some ceiling mount users, other options might work better.
> 
> 
> I'm anxious to hear from current 2.8 gain HP users who move to 2.4 gain what the differences are. That's what is most intriguing to me about the new surface.



Me too. One other phenomena is that if you are watching a projector that makes any seating position you have look bright enough, then you never complain about the viewing cone, because it looks fine from everywhere, and your eyes adjust and you can't see the fall off. However, if you are watching a lumen challenged projector (or the screen is just too big for your projector) then at the outer seating positions you may not have enough light. Those people like the sweet spot but hate the "drop off." What I can't figure out is if they change to a lower gain screen, then EVERY seating position won't have enough light, so I don't see the benefit there.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JHouse* /forum/post/17897692
> 
> 
> Me too. One other phenomena is that if you are watching a projector that makes any seating position you have look bright enough, then you never complain about the viewing cone, because it looks fine from everywhere, and your eyes adjust and you can't see the fall off. However, if you are watching a lumen challenged projector (or the screen is just too big for your projector) then at the outer seating positions you may not have enough light. Those people like the sweet spot but hate the "drop off." What I can't figure out is if they change to a lower gain screen, then EVERY seating position won't have enough light, so I don't see the benefit there.



The real question is how wide is the new cone for the 2.4 gain screen. What seems to have happened is that they've lowered the maximum gain but broadened the cone, so that, for example, people seated farther to the sides might be able to get better gain with the 2.4 than with the 2.8. We'll need measurements to know for sure.


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/17897757
> 
> 
> The real question is how wide is the new cone for the 2.4 gain screen. What seems to have happened is that they've lowered the maximum gain but broadened the cone, so that, for example, people seated farther to the sides might be able to get better gain with the 2.4 than with the 2.8. We'll need measurements to know for sure.



Don't you figure that has to be simple arithmetic? Just widen the 2.8 cone out proportionately? Of course, that assumes the 2.8 specs for % off axis and the 2.4 specs are accurate.


----------



## noah katz

"I didn't see how that video demonstrated anything."


It shows relative gain between materials at different angles.


I'd like to see the samples (actually just the 2.4, which I keep forgetting to ask for a sample of) on top of the HP.


"The real question is how wide is the new cone for the 2.4 gain screen. What seems to have happened is that they've lowered the maximum gain but broadened the cone, so that, for example, people seated farther to the sides might be able to get better gain with the 2.4 than with the 2.8. We'll need measurements to know for sure."


Seems to me all that's needed is to note the angle at which the 2.8 equal in brightness to the 2.4; presumably increasing the angle from there the 2.4 would pull farther ahead.


Of course this angle would be different for different combinations of screen/pj/viewer heights and screen/pj/viewer distances.


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/17898147
> 
> 
> "I didn't see how that video demonstrated anything."
> 
> 
> It shows relative gain between materials at different angles. ---- But that was my point. I watched both videos and saw no fall off.
> 
> 
> I'd like to see the samples (actually just the 2.4, which I keep forgetting to ask for a sample of) on top of the HP.
> 
> 
> "The real question is how wide is the new cone for the 2.4 gain screen. What seems to have happened is that they've lowered the maximum gain but broadened the cone, so that, for example, people seated farther to the sides might be able to get better gain with the 2.4 than with the 2.8. We'll need measurements to know for sure."
> 
> 
> Seems to me all that's needed is to note the angle at which the 2.8 equal in brightness to the 2.4; presumably increasing the angle from there the 2.4 would pull farther ahead.
> 
> 
> Of course this angle would be different for different combinations of screen/pj/viewer heights and screen/pj/viewer distances.---- the "cone" (for any specific percentage of gain) is something like a spot light coming from the screen. However, it is infinitely variable being brightest at the center and dimming gradually as it moves from the center. It moves around the seating area, centered on and following the location of the projector lens. It will have different "diameters" (but not much different) for any specific amount of gain at different distances.



My notes are in blue above.


----------



## bud16415




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/17897292
> 
> 
> "i went even further to the sides than in the vids, nearly 90deg, and i could see what was on the screen with no problem."
> 
> 
> It's still a mystery to me how it can be, but the same is true of my 2.8 HP - it seems to be bright and clear as far off axis as it's possible to get.



Two things people don't think about the first being your eyes iris adjustment as you move around the room viewing lesser FL's thru increased apertures. The brain / eye interaction makes for a very poor light meter.


The second thing is when you move off axis viewing a 16:9 image say, is that the AR of what you see is being compresses side to side. At some angle off line the image will be square and as you keep going towards 90 the sliver of image will be very tall with little width. Even though with gain dropping off to the sides the image being compressed brings back the feeling of brightness.


That's my take on the mystery.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bud16415* /forum/post/17899482
> 
> 
> Two things people don't think about the first being your eyes iris adjustment as you move around the room viewing lesser FL's thru increased apertures. The brain / eye interaction makes for a very poor light meter.
> 
> 
> The second thing is when you move off axis viewing a 16:9 image say, is that the AR of what you see is being compresses side to side. At some angle off line the image will be square and as you keep going towards 90 the sliver of image will be very tall with little width. Even though with gain dropping off to the sides the image being compressed brings back the feeling of brightness.



And the third thing (if you look at Da-Lite's gain versus viewing angle graph for the old HP material) is that for large angles the gain approaches 0.7--not zero, as some may think.


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/17899539
> 
> 
> And the third thing (if you look at Da-Lite's gain versus viewing angle graph for the old HP material) is that for large angles the gain approaches 0.7--not zero, as some may think.



And from that angle you are viewing a "WhiteHawk"


----------



## Fabricator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JHouse* /forum/post/17897664
> 
> 
> I didn't see how that video demonstrated anything. It all looked the same because the auto-iris adjusts.
> 
> 
> This is one reason why screen shots don't work, the camera does some processing between the time the image is projected and our eye sees what the camera see's fit to show us.




if the vid/pics showed DIFFERENT than what i saw with my eyes, i would not have posted it. what the vid/pics show, is what i saw.


----------



## Fabricator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/17898147
> 
> 
> I'd like to see the samples (actually just the 2.4, which I keep forgetting to ask for a sample of) on top of the HP.



i wanted to do that. but i didn't want to put tape on the new screen, and take a chance of the tape messing up the surface.


----------



## Jay Taylor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JHouse* /forum/post/17897664
> 
> 
> I didn't see how that video demonstrated anything. It all looked the same because the auto-iris adjusts.
> 
> 
> This is one reason why screen shots don't work, the camera does some processing between the time the image is projected and our eye sees what the camera see's fit to show us.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fabricator* /forum/post/17903851
> 
> 
> if the vid/pics showed DIFFERENT than what i saw with my eyes, i would not have posted it. what the vid/pics show, is what i saw.



The video is a perfect demonstration of what members of this forum have been talking about for years concerning perceived brightness and perceived black levels. Our eyes adjust to a dimmer image by opening our irisis to let in more light. A video camera set to its normal setting of auto exposure adjusts to a dimmer image by opening up its aperture to let in more light. So the camera set to auto exposure is revealing what our eyes see as we move out of the cone.


To see how the actual brightness and black levels of the image change the auto exposure setting on the camera would need to be turned off and set to manual exposure for all of the video. This would reveal the actual light dropoff as you changed your position.


----------



## JHouse

Good explanation. Go to manual exposure for the objective effect. But then, that isn't what we see either, because our eye works like the auto-iris. If you move really fast, you can see the dimming as your iris is adjusting. I used to pop all around my den like Monty Python trying to figure it out.


----------



## Fabricator

guys. i had my camera iris set on "cloudy", not "auto". "effects" off. so i think that it is not self adjusting, though i cannot find the manual to verify. CANON powershot a620, if someone more knowledgeable than i cares verify.


i can do more vids/pics this weekend. so if someone can advice me on how to a more scientific demonstration. speak up.


has anyone else done a vid on this ? i would find i hard to believe i am the first.


and this talk about the eye self adjusting for the brightness. i can understand this, to a certain degree. but, if that is completely true, then why the need for a positive gain screen ?


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fabricator* /forum/post/17912290
> 
> 
> but, if that is completely true, then why the need for a positive gain screen ?



There is a lower limit to our eye's response to light. Can't see in the dark, afterall. Also, the cones that see light are less sensitive than the b/w detecting rods. AND the ability to discern detail fades as the absolute light level diminishes. So there is an absolute floor for good viewing. Above that our iris makes it all relative.


----------



## ooms

is what the op on page 1 said still true today? regarding brightness and high gain being better?


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ooms* /forum/post/17912727
> 
> 
> is what the op on page 1 said still true today? regarding brightness and high gain being better?



Yes. We haven't evolved that much in the last few years.


----------



## Imageek2

If anyone is interested there are photos in my gallery of my High Power vs. a blackout cloth screen. There are photos both inside and outside the cone as well as with and without ambient light. They are here.

http://gallery.avsforum.com/showgall...ppuser/7421782


----------



## ooms




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JHouse* /forum/post/17913424
> 
> 
> Yes. We haven't evolved that much in the last few years.



i can forgive.


----------



## wxnz79




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Imageek2* /forum/post/17913530
> 
> 
> If anyone is interested there are photos in my gallery of my High Power vs. a blackout cloth screen. There are photos both inside and outside the cone as well as with and without ambient light. They are here.
> 
> http://gallery.avsforum.com/showgall...ppuser/7421782



Thanks for the photos Imageek2. Of particular interest to me is how much light the HP throws onto side walls and ceilings compared to other screens. Does anyone else have any comparisons, and would we expect the 2.4 gain to throw more onto the walls than the 2.8?


----------



## rgathright

Using Flboy's "Screen Gain Calculator" would I only need to change the gain part of it from 2.8 to 2.4 to check on my gain using the new 2.4 material.


----------



## Murilo

My new 2.8 highpowers are on the way, then i can compare screens.



Maybe this should go in the other highpower thread of old or new. After extensive viewing, i was not taking into considering the sample was at the top center of the screen, so sitting down was not fair test of the sample i had to be standing up.


Basically in my seating which will soon be altered to 4 theater in a slight circle going around the projector, the 2.8 definately provides the brightness I would want. Once I get that setup I think i will be golden.


With my current setup we have a large leather couch right below the projector. The 2.8 sample is clearly brighter.


Then we have a love seat off to the side, its fairly off angle. The first chair on the love sit which is again fairly off angle the 2.8 then equals the 2.4, the sample was lost to me sitting their. Again though I am pretty far off axis and the 2.4 finally evened out with the 2.8. And the left hand portion of the love seat, the 2.4 finally seemed slightly brighter, but this is very off angle, I dont encourage any guests to sit their and usually move the couch so its not such at an angle.


For a 2.4 screen, if they wanted to improve the viewing cone, I thought the brightness would kick in sooner, but again i am fairly off angle when the 2.4 and 2.8 finally equalled brightness. So their was not much point in going 2.4


I will say for those going with the 2.4 if you do have extremely bad viewing angles in your setup, the 2.4 will serve you well, or if you simply want a bright screen but dont want to get to bright, this is another great choice, alot of people like some brightness but might find the 2.8 strong. Fabric wise and clarity wise they are both similar and excellent when it comes to texture and clarity.


If you do get the 2.4 screen it is a great screen, and may suit you better, for me from what i can tell to me is just better because it is brighter, and still has a large viewing cone before it hits the 2.4 screen brightness.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgathright* /forum/post/17914244
> 
> 
> Using Flboy's "Screen Gain Calculator" would I only need to change the gain part of it from 2.8 to 2.4 to check on my gain using the new 2.4 material.



Yes, on the 2.4 gain. I would also make the maximum viewing angle slightly larger, say 17.5 degrees instead of 15. Also make the gain at the max viewing angle 1.2 instead of 1.4. These are only educated guesses, as I haven't seen a gain vs. viewing angle graph for the new material.


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/17914552
> 
> 
> My new 2.8 highpowers are on the way, then i can compare screens.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe this should go in the other highpower thread of old or new. After extensive viewing, i was not taking into considering the sample was at the top center of the screen, so sitting down was not fair test of the sample i had to be standing up.
> 
> 
> Basically in my seating which will soon be altered to 4 theater in a slight circle going around the projector, the 2.8 definately provides the brightness I would want. Once I get that setup I think i will be golden.
> 
> 
> With my current setup we have a large leather couch right below the projector. The 2.8 sample is clearly brighter.
> 
> 
> Then we have a love seat off to the side, its fairly off angle. The first chair on the love sit which is again fairly off angle the 2.8 then equals the 2.4, the sample was lost to me sitting their. Again though I am pretty far off axis and the 2.4 finally evened out with the 2.8. And the left hand portion of the love seat, the 2.4 finally seemed slightly brighter, but this is very off angle, I dont encourage any guests to sit their and usually move the couch so its not such at an angle.
> 
> 
> For a 2.4 screen, if they wanted to improve the viewing cone, I thought the brightness would kick in sooner, but again i am fairly off angle when the 2.4 and 2.8 finally equalled brightness. So their was not much point in going 2.4
> 
> 
> I will say for those going with the 2.4 if you do have extremely bad viewing angles in your setup, the 2.4 will serve you well, or if you simply want a bright screen but dont want to get to bright, this is another great choice, alot of people like some brightness but might find the 2.8 strong. Fabric wise and clarity wise they are both similar and excellent when it comes to texture and clarity.
> 
> 
> If you do get the 2.4 screen it is a great screen, and may suit you better, for me from what i can tell to me is just better because it is brighter, and still has a large viewing cone before it hits the 2.4 screen brightness.



Good info. Good test. Thanks.


----------



## Jay Taylor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fabricator* /forum/post/17912290
> 
> 
> guys. i had my camera iris set on "cloudy", not "auto". "effects" off. so i think that it is not self adjusting, though i cannot find the manual to verify. CANON powershot a620, if someone more knowledgeable than i cares verify.
> 
> 
> i can do more vids/pics this weekend. so if someone can advice me on how to a more scientific demonstration. speak up.



The "cloudy" setting on your camera is one of the white balance settings. If properly set, this will make the colors in your pictures and videos correct for your current lighting situation. I would use the "cloudy" setting for outdoor shots on an overcast day.


Your Canon A620 also has several exposure control settings which control the *amount* of light rather than the color balance of the light. Your camera's exposure control was probably set to *"Program AE"* mode which stands for Program Auto Exposure. That is why the exposure settings of your camera were changing as you moved in and out of the cone. Your eyes were making a similar adjustment which is why your video of the screen from different angles appeared to be similar to what you saw with your eyes.


If you are interested in making a video of the *actual* light drop off, then set your camera's exposure control to manual. Then you will video the actual light drop off as you move out of the cone. However, the video that you made in "Program AE" mode is a more accurate representation of the *perceived* brightness of your screen to the human eye as you move in and out of the cone.


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jay Taylor* /forum/post/17916989
> 
> 
> The "cloudy" setting on your camera is one of the white balance settings. If properly set, this will make the colors in your pictures and videos correct for your current lighting situation. I would use the "cloudy" setting for outdoor shots on an overcast day.
> 
> 
> Your Canon A620 also has several exposure control settings which control the *amount* of light rather than the color balance of the light. Your camera's exposure control was probably set to *"Program AE"* mode which stands for Program Auto Exposure. That is why the exposure settings of your camera were changing as you moved in and out of the cone. Your eyes were making a similar adjustment which is why your video of the screen from different angles appeared to be similar to what you saw with your eyes.
> 
> 
> If you are interested in making a video of the *actual* light drop off, then set your camera's exposure control to manual. Then you will video the actual light drop off as you move out of the cone. However, the video that you made in "Program AE" mode is a more accurate representation of the *perceived* brightness of your screen to the human eye as you move in and out of the cone.



This guy is smart and he explained it perfectly. Do what he says.


----------



## DrMark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/17894264
> 
> 
> That vid demonstrates pretty well why I couldn't live with the HP screen, as the changing of the image with viewer position drove me crazy. YMMV of course. Seems most people are ok with it.



Do you really walk around that much while watching a movie?


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DrMark* /forum/post/17934746
> 
> 
> Do you really walk around that much while watching a movie?



I know... this objection really has me confused. Watching movies is not a kinetic sport for me.


----------



## DrMark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fabricator* /forum/post/17912290
> 
> 
> guys. i had my camera iris set on "cloudy", not "auto". "effects" off. so i think that it is not self adjusting, though i cannot find the manual to verify. CANON powershot a620, if someone more knowledgeable than i cares verify.



"cloudy" is for the white balance, not for the shutter or aperture. You have to put your camera in manual mode. I have a high-power; I'll take some pictures and post them later tonight.


I'm interested in this thread because I am going to upgrade my high-power to a larger (2.4:1) screen, and I'm intrigued by the new material.


--Mark


----------



## DrMark

JHouse:



> Quote:
> It shows relative gain between materials at different angles. ---- But that was my point. I watched both videos and saw no fall off.



You need to watch the first video again. The camera's automatic iris is keeping the average picture level the same, but look at the relative brightness of the screen samples between the first 10 seconds of the clip and again at about 1 minute into the clip. The relative brightness of the screen samples changes pretty dramatically. What surprised me is that the high-power material never got darker than the mat white material. Amazing stuff.


--Mark


----------



## noah katz

I'm glad you said that.


I thought that's what I had seen, but was too lazy to watch the video again to make sure.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DrMark* /forum/post/17934873
> 
> 
> JHouse:
> 
> You need to watch the first video again. The camera's automatic iris is keeping the average picture level the same, but look at the relative brightness of the screen samples between the first 10 seconds of the clip and again at about 1 minute into the clip. The relative brightness of the screen samples changes pretty dramatically. What surprised me is that the high-power material never got darker than the mat white material. Amazing stuff.
> 
> 
> --Mark


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DrMark* /forum/post/17934746
> 
> 
> Do you really walk around that much while watching a movie?



I'm sure you can figure it out if you think a little more about it. It's should be obvious that the video of the HP isn't mimicking how we view movies, but it INDICATES a characteristic of the screen that impacts the image one will see; namely the corresponding brightness drops depending on where you sit.


The issue is that the image changes brightness significantly depending on where you sit, and this is exacerbated depending on seating arrangement.

As I am not a hermit, I enjoy watching movies with family and friends and so neither I nor other people watching end up in the sweet spot all the time.

I found it drove me nuts both that we were seeing a different image (in terms of brightness, which has impact on the way we perceive an image)

depending where we sat. Even when I'm watching alone I don't care to be

forced into a narrow selection of seating to enjoy the full brightness of the image. Sometimes I end up in the chaise portion more to the side in which case the image is significantly dimmer.


I lived with the HP screen (still have it) for quite a while and I found the viewing cone so narrow that I was conscious of the changes in brightness even when I shifted in my seat.


I now use a Stewart ST-130 and I absolutely love the fact the image looks (for all intents and purposes) the same wherever I or my family/guests sit. I had some friends over last night and I ended up at the side of the viewing sofa. After living with the HP screen it was very gratifying knowing I was seeing essentially the same image as they were - not a duller version. For much for the same reason I have always preferred plasma displays over LCDs and RPTVs, as the way the image was noticeably inconsistent from different seating positions really bothered me.


This is not to say other shouldn't enjoy the HP, as it has some terrific qualities. We all have our own criteria and some things bug me, some other things may bug you.


But...since you asked...those are the reasons.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/17939321
> 
> 
> I lived with the HP screen (still have it) for quite a while and I found the viewing cone so narrow that I was conscious of the changes in brightness even when I shifted in my seat.



Well, in THAT case I understand being bugged.


----------



## thrang




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/17939321
> 
> 
> I lived with the HP screen (still have it) for quite a while and I found the viewing cone so narrow that I was conscious of the changes in brightness even when I shifted in my seat.



I have had an HP screen for about nine months, and while I'm not disputing your personal experience, there's no way I see that kind shift within the same seat. You can barely notice the brightness change moving one seat to the left or right of center (17 feet back)


People lay on the floor and don't complain watching it....


----------



## Joseph Clark

I've had my HP for a few years, and from day one I've been able to perceive a brightness shift as I move around the room. I can even detect it while moving side to side within my seat, no more than 9 or 10 inches. I have trouble understanding how people don't pick up on it, but some just don't. Unlike Rich, it doesn't bother me even a little bit. Everyone is different, and we respond to things differently. While watching programming, I never move enough for it to become a distraction. When I get up, it's because I'm about to do something else. I certainly pay no attention to it then.


----------



## snickel

I have had a Hp screen for 5 years.My projector is mounted about a foot above my head in the seated position.It's in a room behind me and shines through a piece of optical pure glass.I can see a change in brightness when I stand up.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/17939558
> 
> 
> I've had my HP for a few years, and from day one I've been able to perceive a brightness shift as I move around the room. I can even detect it while moving side to side within my seat, no more than 9 or 10 inches. I have trouble understanding how people don't pick up on it, but some just don't.



Yep. And it's not just our imagination - measurements of the HP screen back up that there would be a measurable, perceptible change in brightness if I shift from leaning on one side to the other side of a chair. (Since I get a sore back if I remain in the same position for extended periods, I do shift in my chair a fair amount throughout a movie).


As you say, some folks pick up on it, a lot don't, and a a lot don't care either way. It was the same with LCD displays. You'd get all sorts of LCD owners saying "I don't see any change in the image when I move off-axis" with some of us plasma owners scratching our head over the fact anyone could miss it.


But, again, it's all about satisfying one's own perception and criteria. For instance, if we all followed guru Joe Kane's advice no one would ever own an HP screen. Fortunately for many HP owners they aren't so rigid and can find lots to love about the HP screen.


----------



## thrang




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *snickel* /forum/post/17939618
> 
> 
> I have had a Hp screen for 5 years.My projector is mounted about a foot above my head in the seated position.It's in a room behind me and shines through a piece of optical pure glass.I can see a change in brightness when I stand up.



I agree, standing up (three or four foot rise) you will notice some shift -


What's the optical pure glass for?


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *snickel* /forum/post/17939618
> 
> 
> I have had a Hp screen for 5 years.My projector is mounted about a foot above my head in the seated position.It's in a room behind me and shines through a piece of optical pure glass.I can see a change in brightness when I stand up.



Where did you get the glass? Does it cut ANSI CR? Does it cut brightness? Is it mounted at an angle to tame reflections? My pj is in a projection booth and I would LOVE a good working cheap glass to make it silent. Right now I have a tunnel that runs back to the pj and mates up to the front around the lens. It helps a lot but I can still hear the pj a little with the bulb on "hi".


----------



## noah katz

"My pj is in a projection booth and I would LOVE a good working cheap glass to make it silent."


How about just making a foam gasket to seal to the wall around the lens.


I was planning on doing that but found it unnecessary as very little sound gets through the hole anyway.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/17944066
> 
> 
> "My pj is in a projection booth and I would LOVE a good working cheap glass to make it silent."
> 
> 
> How about just making a foam gasket to seal to the wall around the lens.
> 
> 
> I was planning on doing that but found it unnecessary as very little sound gets through the hole anyway.



Yup... this is what I've done. I used weather stripping. But maybe I need to soundproof the tunnel some more. In all honesty, no one notices it but me. It is very quiet.


But I'm the guy who has IB subwoofers powered by a Behringer EP2500 and the Behringer's fan, heard through the woofer material, was too loud. I isolated the Behringer better in that back room and now I'm happy with that. Silence is golden!


----------



## MCaugusto

I have some questions to the "cognoscenti" here :am I to understand that the general consensus of the differences between the Da-Lite High Power and the Vutec Silverstar seem to be mainly in the "viewing cone area", whereas the High Power has a narrower viewing cone and less loss of onscreen brightness as the viewer sits away from the middle of the screen, the Silverstar has a wider viewing cone but shows more loss of onscreen brightness as one moves away from a center seating position ? That the gain of both screens are about the same (with the specified 2.8 gain of the older Da-Lite High Power screen), notwithstanding the fact that Vutec claims a gain of 6.0 ? Also, one should consider the facts that the Silverstar is much more expensive, is mounted on a permanent frame and therefore much heavier and is shipped in a huge crate; On the other hand, it has no "fabric weaves" to ever worry about, is much more durable and should last indefinitely with common care sense, and is easier, safer to wipe clean ?

According to the specs on the Silverstar screen, it can also be mounted on optional tubular legs; Are the legs included in the price or how much more would they cost ?

If you were to decide between a 92" diagonal floor-mounted screen and cost was no object, would you choose a High Power or a Silverstar ?

Thanks >>> Marcos


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MCaugusto* /forum/post/17946072
> 
> 
> am I to understand that the general consensus of the differences between the Da-Lite High Power and the Vutec Silverstar seem to be mainly in the "viewing cone area", whereas the High Power has a narrower viewing cone and less loss of onscreen brightness as the viewer sits away from the middle of the screen, the Silverstar has a wider viewing cone but shows more loss of onscreen brightness as one moves away from a center seating position ? That the gain of both screens are about the same (with the specified 2.8 gain of the older Da-Lite High Power screen), notwithstanding the fact that Vutec claims a gain of 6.0 ?



It seems the general consensus is also that the Silverstar has "sparklies" and it does "hotspot". It also has a visible sheen in very bright scenes. The HP has none of these. Am I correct? Any others chime in?


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MCaugusto* /forum/post/17946072
> 
> 
> I have some questions to the "cognoscenti" here :am I to understand that the general consensus of the differences between the Da-Lite High Power and the Vutec Silverstar seem to be mainly in the "viewing cone area", whereas the High Power has a narrower viewing cone and less loss of onscreen brightness as the viewer sits away from the middle of the screen, the Silverstar has a wider viewing cone but shows more loss of onscreen brightness as one moves away from a center seating position ? That the gain of both screens are about the same (with the specified 2.8 gain of the older Da-Lite High Power screen), notwithstanding the fact that Vutec claims a gain of 6.0 ? Also, one should consider the facts that the Silverstar is much more expensive, is mounted on a permanent frame and therefore much heavier and is shipped in a huge crate; On the other hand, it has no "fabric weaves" to ever worry about, is much more durable and should last indefinitely with common care sense, and is easier, safer to wipe clean ?
> 
> According to the specs on the Silverstar screen, it can also be mounted on optional tubular legs; Are the legs included in the price or how much more would they cost ?
> 
> If you were to decide between a 92" diagonal floor-mounted screen and cost was no object, would you choose a High Power or a Silverstar ?
> 
> Thanks >>> Marcos



I'd choose the HP, because of the SS sheen. The HP is plenty tough. With any kind of normal care, you won't damage it. It took me some deliberate and serious abuse to create a blemish on the HP sample I had (2.8 gain).


If you can deal with a relatively narrow cone, and don't have to ceiling mount, I personally see little reason to consider the SS, even if you ignore the price difference. (But I wouldn't ignore that, either, no matter how much money I had to spend on a screen.)


The SS sheen was obvious and distracting, even on the small sample I was sent. It would have bothered me a lot. The HP, IMO, is a transparent screen. You don't see grain or texture, just the image.


----------



## hrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MCaugusto* /forum/post/17946072
> 
> 
> I have some questions to the "cognoscenti" here :am I to understand that the general consensus of the differences between the Da-Lite High Power and the Vutec Silverstar seem to be mainly in the "viewing cone area", whereas the High Power has a narrower viewing cone and less loss of onscreen brightness as the viewer sits away from the middle of the screen, the Silverstar has a wider viewing cone but shows more loss of onscreen brightness as one moves away from a center seating position ? That the gain of both screens are about the same (with the specified 2.8 gain of the older Da-Lite High Power screen), notwithstanding the fact that Vutec claims a gain of 6.0 ? Also, one should consider the facts that the Silverstar is much more expensive, is mounted on a permanent frame and therefore much heavier and is shipped in a huge crate; On the other hand, it has no "fabric weaves" to ever worry about, is much more durable and should last indefinitely with common care sense, and is easier, safer to wipe clean ?
> 
> According to the specs on the Silverstar screen, it can also be mounted on optional tubular legs; Are the legs included in the price or how much more would they cost ?
> 
> If you were to decide between a 92" diagonal floor-mounted screen and cost was no object, would you choose a High Power or a Silverstar ?
> 
> Thanks >>> Marcos



For that size, I would choose a Silverstar. Have you seen a Silverstar yet?


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hrd* /forum/post/17946765
> 
> 
> For that size, I would choose a Silverstar. Have you seen a Silverstar yet?



I don't understand why the screen size is important in deciding between an SS or an HP. Their relative strengths and weaknesses remain the same. At 92", a high gain screen might not even be the best choice, unless the projector is extraordinarily dim.


----------



## MCaugusto

Ok guys, thanks for the comments and let me re-phrase my question : were i to get a 92" diagonal High Power screen, how would i go about placing it atop a wooden back frame and then mounting it onto a floor mount, so that the screen would be freestanding ?

Should i consider glueing the back of the screen to the wood frame, thus never being able again to remove it at a later time ? Or should i staple the edges of the screen to the wood frame and then install a thin strip of black material to cover the stapling ? Have any of you guys ever stapled/glued/nailed/screwed a screen material such as the one used on the High Power to a wood frame, and, if not, can it be done ? How do most people that don't use pull down screens set them up permanently on walls ?

I am a novice when it comes to mounting screens as the screen i've owned for almost 20 years is made of hard plastic material with a high-gain silver coating surface that has its own heavy-duty floor mount; It also has a clever arrangement that allows me to change the angle of viewing for the best line-of-sight onscreen brightness; Once the angle is set to my content i then tighten the nuts that hold the screen to the floor mount.

Any suggestions would be much appreciated >>> Marcos


----------



## Meret

For any Canadians considering purchasing a custom order (or standard size) high power screen, AVS will arrange the purchase and shipment through Da-lite for Canadian locations.


I got tired of calling around various larger Canadian retailers after many seemed quite confused when I wanted a custom sized screen (wanted 133" diag, but can't get the projector far enough back and 119" was too small for me). So I figured I would give our wonderful hosts a call to see if they ship to Canada and it was painless to arrange the order of a 126" diag HP screen. Yes, that extra 6" width makes a big difference on 2.35:1 movies. They confirmed with Da-lite while I was on the phone and confirmed the pricing.


Now if they could just snap their fingers so it arrived in my house the same day, that would have made it perfect










Price and service was great (of course shipping costs suck for screens). Thought I'd post a note just in case any other Canadians don't realize AVS can arrange the order at a good price.


Thanks Bobbi


----------



## edpowers




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MCaugusto* /forum/post/17953149
> 
> 
> Ok guys, thanks for the comments and let me re-phrase my question : were i to get a 92" diagonal High Power screen, how would i go about placing it atop a wooden back frame and then mounting it onto a floor mount, so that the screen would be freestanding ?
> 
> Should i consider glueing the back of the screen to the wood frame, thus never being able again to remove it at a later time ? Or should i staple the edges of the screen to the wood frame and then install a thin strip of black material to cover the stapling ? Have any of you guys ever stapled/glued/nailed/screwed a screen material such as the one used on the High Power to a wood frame, and, if not, can it be done ? How do most people that don't use pull down screens set them up permanently on walls ?
> 
> I am a novice when it comes to mounting screens as the screen i've owned for almost 20 years is made of hard plastic material with a high-gain silver coating surface that has its own heavy-duty floor mount; It also has a clever arrangement that allows me to change the angle of viewing for the best line-of-sight onscreen brightness; Once the angle is set to my content i then tighten the nuts that hold the screen to the floor mount.
> 
> Any suggestions would be much appreciated >>> Marcos



I thought about doing something similar with my most recent HP screen, but instead, I bit the bullet, and purchased a Cinema Contour HP for a lot more money. I'm handy but certainly not an expert with this kind of stuff and I was concerned that I wouldn't get sufficient screen tension going DIY. The HP material is thick and heavy. It doesn't necessarily need to be tensioned since the surface does a great job of hiding wrinkles and waves, but I figured if I was going fixed screen, I might as well do it right. The da-lite fixed screens like the cinema contour come with snaps on the edge of the HP material which you connect to the back of the frame. It fits EXTREMELY tight. I had to use a pair of pliers to get a good enough hold on the edge of the material to pull it tight enough to fit on the snaps. The frame is also very thick and solid. Overall, I'm glad I spent the extra money. With my limited skills, I doubt I would have been able to build a screen with this kind of tension and overall quality. Of course, if you have skills and enjoy DIY, its certainly possible. I probably wouldn't use glue though.


----------



## DrMark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/17939321
> 
> 
> I'm sure you can figure it out if you think a little more about it. It's should be obvious that the video of the HP isn't mimicking how we view movies, but it INDICATES a characteristic of the screen that impacts the image one will see; namely the corresponding brightness drops depending on where you sit.
> 
> 
> The issue is that the image changes brightness significantly depending on where you sit, and this is exacerbated depending on seating arrangement.
> 
> As I am not a hermit, I enjoy watching movies with family and friends and so neither I nor other people watching end up in the sweet spot all the time.
> 
> I found it drove me nuts both that we were seeing a different image (in terms of brightness, which has impact on the way we perceive an image)
> 
> depending where we sat. Even when I'm watching alone I don't care to be
> 
> forced into a narrow selection of seating to enjoy the full brightness of the image. Sometimes I end up in the chaise portion more to the side in which case the image is significantly dimmer.
> 
> 
> I lived with the HP screen (still have it) for quite a while and I found the viewing cone so narrow that I was conscious of the changes in brightness even when I shifted in my seat.
> 
> 
> I now use a Stewart ST-130 and I absolutely love the fact the image looks (for all intents and purposes) the same wherever I or my family/guests sit. I had some friends over last night and I ended up at the side of the viewing sofa. After living with the HP screen it was very gratifying knowing I was seeing essentially the same image as they were - not a duller version. For much for the same reason I have always preferred plasma displays over LCDs and RPTVs, as the way the image was noticeably inconsistent from different seating positions really bothered me.
> 
> 
> This is not to say other shouldn't enjoy the HP, as it has some terrific qualities. We all have our own criteria and some things bug me, some other things may bug you.
> 
> 
> But...since you asked...those are the reasons.



I think that if your projector is barely on the edge of being bright enough in the center of the viewing cone (and not bright enough outside of it) then you have a really good point; you want all of your guests to have a great picture.


However, there is a wide range of lumen values that are just fine for watching a movie. For example, if the brightest image was 30 foot-Lambers for you and 20 foot-Lambert for your guest, then you are fine. His irises will be a little more open than yours will, but you will still perceive the same image. I'm not saying that you won't perceive a change in brightness if you move quickly from one position to another; it takes time for your eyes to adjust to the new brightness level. But, once you adjust, you won't perceive a difference.


If, on the other hand, you have a 15 foot-Lambert image and your guest has a 10 foot-Lambert image, then your guest will probably have a sub-standard viewing experience.


I have never been able to perceive a difference in brightness on my high-power just by moving my head from side to side (but I can if I stand up). It might have to do with the screen having a non-linear drop-off in brightness. I have my projector about 3 feet above my head, so most of the quick drop-off may have already happened due to my seating position.


--Mark


----------



## nirvy111

Has anyone gone back to a neutral gain or even negative gain screen and found they prefer it?.


----------



## MCaugusto

edpowers >>> Thanks for the comments and suggestion.

Am i correct in assuming that the frame of the Da-Lite Cinema Contour High Power is simply four pieces of flat metal that are assembled and bolted together and the screen material is then "tied" to the frame through metal snaps on both the screen and the frame ? And that the frame itself does not have a full "backing" to support the entire screen material, as the screen is only supported on its edges ?

You see, my problem in setting up a wall-mounted screen is that the layout of my HT room does not allow for it, as the wall behind the screen is not flat and the ceiling above the area where the screen must be located is a two story ceiling, so the only option i have is to mount the screen onto a floor mount by means of metal legs.

I still cannot understand why manufacturers of HT screens do not offer the option of floor mounted screens by using very sturdy metal legs, and i don't mean tripods, which look kind of cheap, do not give the same stability and lack the ability to withstand bumps.

Thanks >>> Marcos


----------



## mariokrt64

This is a copy of my post on the Mitsu HC6800 PJ Forum...I thought it was more appropiate to post it in this forum as well. Feedback is welcome and appreciated since I would not have the opportunity for an audition of the screen.


Thanks,




"I have been playing with the Projector Central Calculator and got the following parameters:


1.0 For a 110Wx62H (126" diag) screen


Area= 47.4

PJ Lumens = 435 (from PJ Central Review in low lamp/mid zoom)

Screen BRT = 435/47.4= 9.2 ftL for 1.0 gain (13 ftL from PJ Central Calc.)

=25.7 ftL for 2.8 gain (37 ftL from PJ Central Calc.)


2.0 For a 120"X68" (138" diag) screen


Area=56.7

PJ Lumens=435

Screen BRT=7.67 ftL for 1.0 gain(11 ftL PJ central)

21.24 ftL for 2.8 gain (31 ftL PJ central)


These would be the probable two screen sizes I may looking at, although I think that the 120"W is a bit too large. Probably will go with 110"W or smaller. I need to check the standard sizes for a Model C HP...


The PJ Central Screen (Image) Brightness calculation appears to be in High (Std) lamp mode.


The PJ Central Calculator changes from "Recommended Image Brightmess for low ambient light" to "...for rooms with ambient light" at the 23 ftL threshold value, so it appears that 23 ftL is the minimun recomended for rooms with ambient light. So it appears that the 110W screen will be just above that value @ 25.7 ftL, however with a new lamp....


So I decided to run another calc with a 100" screen, that yields.


A=38.9 sq ft

L=435

Scr BRT=11.2 @ 1.0 gain

[email protected] 2.8 gain


So it appears that a screen width between 100-110 may be more appropiate, factoring the lamp loosing steam with usage, and being able to maintain a brighter image thru the lamp life. However, would the initial 31.3 [email protected] gain yield a too bright screen to make it unwatchable????


Since my room is about 17'8" long, I am able lo locate the projector at the recommended sweet spot of 16 to 17 ft. from PJ central calculator....


Can anyone with experience jump in...particularly those HP owners?? Pls., correct me if I made error/false assumptions in the above calculations.


Thanks for your feedback!!!!


----------



## raster8




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MCaugusto* /forum/post/17967341
> 
> 
> edpowers >>> Thanks for the comments and suggestion.
> 
> Am i correct in assuming that the frame of the Da-Lite Cinema Contour High Power is simply four pieces of flat metal that are assembled and bolted together and the screen material is then "tied" to the frame through metal snaps on both the screen and the frame ? And that the frame itself does not have a full "backing" to support the entire screen material, as the screen is only supported on its edges ?
> 
> You see, my problem in setting up a wall-mounted screen is that the layout of my HT room does not allow for it, as the wall behind the screen is not flat and the ceiling above the area where the screen must be located is a two story ceiling, so the only option i have is to mount the screen onto a floor mount by means of metal legs.
> 
> I still cannot understand why manufacturers of HT screens do not offer the option of floor mounted screens by using very sturdy metal legs, and i don't mean tripods, which look kind of cheap, do not give the same stability and lack the ability to withstand bumps.
> 
> Thanks >>> Marcos



Hi Marcos,


First another thank you to edpowers, I think there will be a Cinema Contour in my future, was planning a Model B and DIY but a proper frame will look so much better.


Marcos, Da-Lite does offer an option for what they call "T-Legs" for the Cinema Contour models, see their specs pdf:

http://www.da-lite.com/products/spec_pdfs/234.pdf 


Perhaps they will work for your setup. I found an image of T-Legs for the Da-Snap models here:

http://www.da-lite.com/products/product_pdfs/95.pdf


----------



## edpowers




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MCaugusto* /forum/post/17967341
> 
> 
> edpowers >>> Thanks for the comments and suggestion.
> 
> Am i correct in assuming that the frame of the Da-Lite Cinema Contour High Power is simply four pieces of flat metal that are assembled and bolted together and the screen material is then "tied" to the frame through metal snaps on both the screen and the frame ? And that the frame itself does not have a full "backing" to support the entire screen material, as the screen is only supported on its edges ?
> 
> You see, my problem in setting up a wall-mounted screen is that the layout of my HT room does not allow for it, as the wall behind the screen is not flat and the ceiling above the area where the screen must be located is a two story ceiling, so the only option i have is to mount the screen onto a floor mount by means of metal legs.
> 
> I still cannot understand why manufacturers of HT screens do not offer the option of floor mounted screens by using very sturdy metal legs, and i don't mean tripods, which look kind of cheap, do not give the same stability and lack the ability to withstand bumps.
> 
> Thanks >>> Marcos



Your assumptions are 100% correct. Its worth noting that the metal frame is quite heavy duty. Once the HP fabric was snapped on, I was surprised at how solid the entire screen/frame was. There was really not any bend or give in the frame on my 119" model.


Looks like those T-legs that raster8 suggested may be a nice solution for your situation.


----------



## edpowers




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mariokrt64* /forum/post/17967345
> 
> 
> So it appears that a screen width between 100-110 may be more appropiate, factoring the lamp loosing steam with usage, and being able to maintain a brighter image thru the lamp life. However, would the initial 31.3 [email protected] gain yield a too bright screen to make it unwatchable????
> 
> 
> Since my room is about 17'8" long, I am able lo locate the projector at the recommended sweet spot of 16 to 17 ft. from PJ central calculator....
> 
> 
> Can anyone with experience jump in...particularly those HP owners?? Pls., correct me if I made error/false assumptions in the above calculations.
> 
> 
> Thanks for your feedback!!!!



You need to factor in projector placement and seat placement in order to understand the gain you'll receive from a High Power. Use FLBoy's screen gain calculator to get an accurate gain number. You won't get the full 2.8 gain unless your eyes are right next to the projector lens.


In my opinion, too much brightness is a good problem to have. You can easily lower your ftL by adding a ND filter or raising the projector higher from the viewing position. As your lamp dims, you can remove the ND filter or lower the projector. Its like getting a new lamp.


----------



## mariokrt64




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edpowers* /forum/post/17971340
> 
> 
> You need to factor in projector placement and seat placement in order to understand the gain you'll receive from a High Power. Use FLBoy's screen gain calculator to get an accurate gain number. You won't get the full 2.8 gain unless your eyes are right next to the projector lens.
> 
> 
> In my opinion, too much brightness is a good problem to have. You can easily lower your ftL by adding a ND filter or raising the projector higher from the viewing position. As your lamp dims, you can remove the ND filter or lower the projector. Its like getting a new lamp.



I am planning to shelf mount on or near the back of the room (about 15 ft from screen to PJ lens). The lens would be less than 18 in from the viewers line of sight, so I figure will be close to the sweetspot for the HP. I was looking at the best case scenario from the brightness standpoint on my calculations.


Presently, I am viewing my Mitsu HC6800 on low lamp, on a 4X8 ft DYI gray screen, and the image brightness is good. I dont have a way of measuring my Image brightness, but would prefer a brigther image.


Would 30+ ftL image brightness be OK or too bright for confortable movie watching?


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mariokrt64* /forum/post/17972564
> 
> 
> I am planning to shelf mount on or near the back of the room (about 15 ft from screen to PJ lens). The lens would be less than 18 in from the viewers line of sight, so I figure will be close to the sweetspot for the HP.
> 
> 
> Would 30+ ftL image brightness be OK or too bright for confortable movie watching?



For reference, a Kuro plasma is about 35 fL. You won't get a gain of 2.8 from any practicable HP installation. With the lens 18" from the viewer's line of sight, you will get about 2.4 with the old HP material and about 2.0 with the new HP material.


My screen gain calc is linked below.


----------



## Telynau

I have been using the T-Legs on a 124" Da-Snap frame High Power screen for a couple years now and they work great. They are not super strong, but they solved the problem I have of not being able to fasten the screen to the wall.


I don't know about the Cinema Contour, but on my Da-Snap frame there is a vertical bar at the half way point that keeps the screen tightly tensioned along the horizontal axis.


My custom sized screen fit onto the frame tightly but perfectly (it is a two person job to get it on) and the T-Legs were easy to assemble. Nary a wave or a sparkle and all but undetectable surface (you can barely see it on pure white backgrounds if you look hard, which no one actually does when watching a movie). I was very worried about screen texture, as this was my first front projection rig -- but the High Power is a great screen.


Re the T-Legs, you need to tell Da-Lite how high you want the bottom of the screen so they can drill the right holes in the sides of the frame tube to mount the T-Legs.


I actually trimmed the T-Leg "feet" shorter than standard because of installation requirements and it is still sturdy enough. I don't have small children around, though, and that might be a factor. I ended up wanting a bit more height for the screen (a long story) but it was easy to mount a black painted 4x4 board to the bottom of the T-Legs -- and it made the screen even sturdier (more surface and weight at the bottom).


One comment re the Da-Snap versus the Cinema Contour, which I picked up myself from a post on AVS. If you plan on making masks for the screen, you must get the Da-Snap. The Cinema Contour is, well, contoured, so there is nothing to hold a mask. The Da-Snap is made of square tubing, so it is easy to make masks out of pink foam insulation and black velvet that will turn a 1.78 aspect ratio into 2.35 (hint -- use cardboard from an art supply house for the inside edge; the velvet pulls over it and it makes a perfectly straight edge you won't be able to get by cutting the pink foam). I obviously run a constant width setup. I had planned to go constant area, but once my wife saw a 1.78 Blue Ray picture on the screen there was no way she was ever going to watch anything smaller if she could help it. It is so immersive -- e.g., on HBO's Rome.


I use a Sony VPL VW-60 at 16.5 feet set up so it is in the dead center of the screen -- as calibrated in the room (by Jason Turk), it puts out plenty of light on the High Power at about the 350 hour mark on the bulb.


I suppose I notice the difference in screen brightness when I stand up, but honestly, it is a non-issue for anyone who is actually watching a movie from the two seats at floor height or the couch on my riser. I don't notice any difference in brightness at all when I move my head around.


By the way, is there any way to perforate a High Power screen to make it acoustically transparent? Anyone ever heard of anyone finding a way to do this?


Regards, James


----------



## Joseph Clark

Interesting about constant image height vs. constant image width. I don't have a choice because of my room, so I do constant image width. Since I watch more 16x9 content than 2.4:1, I find it less psychologically "disturbing" that way. Constant image width is certainly cheaper and easier. I'm sure I'd try CIH if I had the space, but I don't feel terribly cheated that I can't do it.


DaLite doesn't make an acoustically transparent version of the HP. I have little doubt trying to perforate one on your own would lead to misery.


----------



## MCaugusto

*** raster8, Telynau and edpowers***, Thanks to all three of you fellow enthusiasts.

I had originally scanned the Da-Lite website looking for a floor mount other than a tripod and did not find any mention of it (i found the company's website to be almost overwhelming with choices/specs/drawings/etc).

Telynau, it's my understanding that the T-legs must be ordered at the same time as the frame/screen; Do you remember how much extra you were charged for the T-legs ?

Also, Da-Lite specifies that the metal frame tube measures about three inches in width and i wonder, do the T-Legs measure the same and therefore add three inches to the total height of the frame, mounted as a floor mount ? You see, the way things look now, in case i go with a Da-Lite Da-Snap screen mounted on T-Legs i might have to fit (slide) the "feet" under my main front speakers, and i only have a little less than two inches of clearance, to make things easier !

Oh a side note, i found it interesting upon searching the internet and contrary to what most people have stated, there is very little difference in price between a 92" diagonal Vutec SilverStar screen and a Da-Lite Da-Snap screen with Pro-Trim included...


Marcos


----------



## jonathanR

Hello all:



I have a 13.5'w x 17.25'L room. I was thinking about a da-lite cosmo electrol 133" diag H.P., hopefully with 2.8 if they send it to me in the old material. I was also planning to match it with a epson 8500.


My easiest Install would be to have the projector installed in the stair closet, so its unseen, behind my seating area and have a slide peep-hole through the wall, plus it would be out of the way of traffic. It would be 84" off the ground and my viewing distance would be 13'. That would give me a gain of 1.63.


If i move my screen, closer to the viewing distance by 26" and off the wall, and hang the image to the ground I can get a gain of 1.73.


And third, I can get a gain of 1.83, but I have to hang a projector mount from my 9' ceiling and have it go down to 74" off the floor. It would be an eye sore but could do it. Of course I could reach 2.3 gain too but now were talking 60" and in the way of traffic.


I was really wanting H.P. especially to control ambient light, but now I'm second guessing myself. I'm ready to order but don't want to be disapointed. This is my first screen and projector.


Jonathan.


----------



## hrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MCaugusto* /forum/post/17975680
> 
> 
> *** raster8, Telynau and edpowers***, Thanks to all three of you fellow enthusiasts.
> 
> I had originally scanned the Da-Lite website looking for a floor mount other than a tripod and did not find any mention of it (i found the company's website to be almost overwhelming with choices/specs/drawings/etc).
> 
> Telynau, it's my understanding that the T-legs must be ordered at the same time as the frame/screen; Do you remember how much extra you were charged for the T-legs ?
> 
> Also, Da-Lite specifies that the metal frame tube measures about three inches in width and i wonder, do the T-Legs measure the same and therefore add three inches to the total height of the frame, mounted as a floor mount ? You see, the way things look now, in case i go with a Da-Lite Da-Snap screen mounted on T-Legs i might have to fit (slide) the "feet" under my main front speakers, and i only have a little less than two inches of clearance, to make things easier !
> 
> Oh a side note, i found it interesting upon searching the internet and contrary to what most people have stated, there is very little difference in price between a 92" diagonal Vutec SilverStar screen and a Da-Lite Da-Snap screen with Pro-Trim included...
> 
> 
> Marcos



The most expensive of the popular High Power screens is the Cinema Contour. The Da-Snap has a slightly less fancy frame and so is less money, but not by much. It's mainly the electrics and the manual pulldowns that have forum members really happy about pricing. I bought a 115" wide 2.35 AR High Power with the Cinema Contour frame from a local forum member because I got a great price, but the current MSRP on that item is about 2K.


FYI when pricing Silverstars: There are two frame options with the Silverstar. The wider 3.25-inch frame can cost considerably more than the thinner 1.5-inch frame. Only a limited number of dealers sell the 3.25-inch frame. Make sure you know what your are comparing/purchasing frame-wise.


I recommend you call AV Science if you are interested in a Silverstar. They always had the best prices when I was looking. There is also a place in our area that has had one on display in the past, and still might, which you could visit if you have not demoed one yet. And if you do buy one, I would be happy to bring my RS20 over to see how well the two pair off.


----------



## hrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/17947212
> 
> 
> I don't understand why the screen size is important in deciding between an SS or an HP. Their relative strengths and weaknesses remain the same. At 92", a high gain screen might not even be the best choice, unless the projector is extraordinarily dim.



I use a High Power and I've demoed a Silverstar locally maybe half a dozen times. Two of those times it was with a JVC RS1 and the image was very impressive. Not only were the brights, as Tryg said, "over-the-top", but at the same time the blacks were haunting. I have no doubt the RS20 would look even better. To me, the Silverstar wins the battle over which high gain screen gives the better image. I've experimented with adjusting the image size of my RS20 from below 90" to over 150" and was amazed at the huge change in image quality when going from the smaller to larger. Since 92" would be near the smaller end of the sizes tried, and so one where I would be looking for best image quality over raw image size, at that size I would go all out and get the better of the two high gain images. The hassles of shipping and installing something that comes in a large heavy crate has always been a concern for me, but the 92" is the smallest 16x9 screen Vutec makes and a lot easier to handle than the much more popular 120" diagonal 16x9 Silverstar, or the 59" x 140" 2.37 AR Silverstar I priced out. As far as sheen goes, I find the sheen to be a total non-issue if sitting far enough back, which is easy enough to do with a smaller screen like a 92".


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hrd* /forum/post/17977231
> 
> 
> I use a High Power and I've demoed a Silverstar locally maybe half a dozen times. Two of those times it was with a JVC RS1 and the image was very impressive. Not only were the brights, as Tryg said, "over-the-top", but at the same time the blacks were haunting. I have no doubt the RS20 would look even better. To me, the Silverstar wins the battle over which high gain screen gives the better image. I've experimented with adjusting the image size of my RS20 from below 90" to over 150" and was amazed at the huge change in image quality when going from the smaller to larger. Since 92" would be near the smaller end of the sizes tried, and so one where I would be looking for best image quality over raw image size, at that size I would go all out and get the better of the two high gain images. The hassles of shipping and installing something that comes in a large heavy crate has always been a concern for me, but the 92" is the smallest 16x9 screen Vutec makes and a lot easier to handle than the much more popular 120" diagonal 16x9 Silverstar, or the 59" x 140" 2.37 AR Silverstar I priced out. As far as sheen goes, I find the sheen to be a total non-issue if sitting far enough back, which is easy enough to do with a smaller screen like a 92".



Well, you definitely have the advantage over me, because I've never seen a full screen Silverstar. What I did when I was trying them out was to place a SS sample and an HP sample in front of my existing Stewart Firehawk. The samples were small, not more than 10 inches or so IIRC (the HP was smaller than the SS).


I tried lots of regular video material and some computer screens. The computer screens actually proved more valuable because I could freeze images, or use solid white or colored screens (from PhotoShop). As I moved around, I could see more easily how each screen surface looked from different distances and angles.


Of course, I had owned the Firehawk for some time, so I knew it pretty well, but I was still struck by how much better the HP sample looked (an impression that was born out when I installed the new HP). My Firehawk had a sheen, too, except that it resembled more a glistening snowy surface, while the SS sheen seemed more like a pewter. Neither of those is a very accurate description of what I saw, but it's how the differences still play in my memory.


I experimented a lot with the samples, and I watched them from all sorts of angles and distances, sometimes very close, but mainly from the normal viewing distance of 10-12 feet and about 16 feet. It's been quite some time, but I don't recall my impressions changing that much as I moved around. Of course, relative brightness changed with the different surfaces, but the sheens remained, as did the "transparent" nature of the HP.


That's what has never changed for me with the HP. It intrudes itself the least into my viewing. The Firehawk has a sheen that always intrudes into some types of shots, and the brightness and color uniformity are noticeably uneven.


I know that the HP does exhibit some brightness non-uniformity under certain conditions, but the only way I've ever been able to pick up on it is if I take a small, solid white computer window (from Firefox or PhotoShop) and move it rapidly right and left. I can see a shift in brightness when I do that. Since I've moved my new projector up higher, however, I have a great deal of difficulty duplicating even that effect. With the projector up close to the ceiling, brightness uniformity seems to have improved even more in my home theater.


I'd love to see a full size SS screen. If I could do that, I might change my mind. All I have to go on are the samples I was sent. With the 3 screen surfaces right next to one another, it was an easy decision for me. Since I put up the full size HP, the first impression I got from the HP sample has not changed at all.


----------



## edpowers




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MCaugusto* /forum/post/17975680
> 
> 
> Oh a side note, i found it interesting upon searching the internet and contrary to what most people have stated, there is very little difference in price between a 92" diagonal Vutec SilverStar screen and a Da-Lite Da-Snap screen with Pro-Trim included...
> 
> 
> Marcos



As already mentioned, the pulldown HPs are significantly cheaper than Da-Lite's fixed frame options. I paid quite a bit less than MSRP for my Cinema Contour, but I was still sickened by the price. Its crazy how much more expensive they are compared to the pulldowns. There have been several other posts regarding this topic and there are some valid explanations for it, but it still sucks. Having loved my past HP pulldowns, but wanting a nice looking fixed screen, I decided it was worth the extra cash.


If you aren't planning on masking, I personally thought the Cinema Contour was a worthwhile upgrade from the Da-Snap. I was able to see both at a local reseller and decided to pay $70 extra for the CC. I thought the wider bezel and contoured edge gave it a more finished, higher-end look.


----------



## hrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edpowers* /forum/post/17978993
> 
> 
> As already mentioned, the pulldown HPs are significantly cheaper than Da-Lite's fixed frame options. I paid quite a bit less than MSRP for my Cinema Contour, but I was still sickened by the price. Its crazy how much more expensive they are compared to the pulldowns. There have been several other posts regarding this topic and there are some valid explanations for it, but it still sucks. Having loved my past HP pulldowns, but wanting a nice looking fixed screen, I decided it was worth the extra cash.



The reason the fixed frame screens are so expensive is because a great deal of the cost goes into the frame. I called Da-Lite after I installed my HP and asked what the replacement cost for just the fabric was. The cost was a bit less than half the MSRP of the full screen. In other words, the replacement cost of the frame alone is more money than the replacement cost of the fabric alone. Frames are very expensive with Vutec as well. I once called Vutec to get the MSRP of a custom size Silverstar with the upgraded 3.25" frame. The rep calculated the price by figuring the square inches of the fabric multiplied by a dollar amount per square inch, then adding to that the square inches of the frame multiplied by a dollar amount per square inch. A large percentage of the screen cost was in the frame.


What is interesting is to look at pricing on Da-Lite's website. The difference between the smallest and the largest Cinema Contour will be substantial, yet the difference betwen the smallest and the largest Contour Electrol electric screen, a 92" versus a 159", is only $1242 versus $1485.


----------



## Telynau

My t-Legs are made out of 1.5 inches square aluminum tubing -- looks to be the same stuff the frame is made out of. They are 3 feet long at the base and mine are over six feet high.


The T-Legs actually attach to the sides of the frame, so they make the whole frame 3" wider, if that is a consideration.


Talk to the folks at Da-Lite about the dimensions -- they are very businesslike and will give you all the dimensions and technical information you need.


BTW, because the T-Legs are made of aluminum, any chop saw or mitre saw will cut them if need be, to meet the requirements of an installation. Just use a fine toothed blade (cheap from Harbor Freight).


Regards, James


----------



## rgathright

Was you able to just buy the fabric?




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hrd* /forum/post/17981441
> 
> 
> The reason the fixed frame screens are so expensive is because a great deal of the cost goes into the frame. I called Da-Lite after I installed my HP and asked what the replacement cost for just the fabric was. The cost was a bit less than half the MSRP of the full screen. In other words, the replacement cost of the frame alone is more money than the replacement cost of the fabric alone. Frames are very expensive with Vutec as well. I once called Vutec to get the MSRP of a custom size Silverstar with the upgraded 3.25" frame. The rep calculated the price by figuring the square inches of the fabric multiplied by a dollar amount per square inch, then adding to that the square inches of the frame multiplied by a dollar amount per square inch. A large percentage of the screen cost was in the frame.
> 
> 
> What is interesting is to look at pricing on Da-Lite's website. The difference between the smallest and the largest Cinema Contour will be substantial, yet the difference betwen the smallest and the largest Contour Electrol electric screen, a 92" versus a 159", is only $1242 versus $1485.


----------



## Meret

Since I made my purchasing decision solely from everyone's kind feedback in this thread, I'll add my 'initial' impressions of my new HP screen (I'm pretty sure it's the old 2.8 gain fabric. Specifically ordered 2.8, smooth surface, no texture of any kind). I even took a few pictures since we all love pics although a new camera will be on my wishlist this year.


Before I get to the screen itself, I feel the need to curse the builder of my house for taking short-cuts. The location we choose to install the screen is in front of our main living room window that is inset about 1.5' with 2 corners walls. I specially purchased da-lites floating wall brackets since the studs in these small corners walls are in the center, too far from the end of the screen case. I 'assumed' of course any corner has a stud. Guess I was wrong to assume. When I went to mount the left bracket, there was no stud in the corner, just drywall and a metal corner bead (thankfully, the right wall had a stud).


So after cursing and pondering the issue (since I wanted the screen up last night), I decided for now to use drywalls plugs on the one side and put up a safety chain since if that screen ever came down, not only would it probably ruin the screen, it would take out my 47" LCD TV. Here is where the screen is mounted (and yes, we have some decorating to do now to blend the room to the overall installation







).











Here is the safety chain. The wall damage is my frustration at trying to hit the stud dead on and me pulling on it to ensure it was solid. Nothing a little patch and paint won't solve later.










Onto our initial impressions. The screen is a completely smooth texture but has some minor waves along the bottom where the black pull-down is attached. These are invisible when anything is projected onto the screen.


I will remind anyone that is still debating this screen that it's beautiful but it really '*must*' fit your viewing plans. My setup right now is a 3 seat couch at 13' 5" away from the screen. I have the projector (Viewsonic Pro8100) on an adjustable shelf that I can basically raise/lower the projector from eye level to almost 4' over our heads. Currently the projector is ~2' 6" above eye level. Another picture for your viewing pleasure.










The first test we did was just watching and standing up (putting us eye-level with the lens). While there is an increase in brightness, you really have to look for it. It's most noticeable on very bright scenes. Many times it was hard to really notice the brightness change (which is a good thing imo). I went with this shelving setup so I can start with the projector mounted high and lower it as the bulb fades over time.


I found an acceptably good bright image sitting (remember projector is already 2.5' above us) anywhere within 5' of the lens. I suspect I could go to 6-7' feet either side at 13.5' away. Due to my layout, the farthest I can sit to one side is the loveseat that is 6' offset from the lens but only 10.5' away. In this position (my angle is much greater due to the closer position) I can clearly see a loss in dynamic range (my best way to describe it). It's not that the contrast is less imo (I'm not sure the right term here) but the bright areas lack punch. It's not washed out like offline viewing of an LCD panel and saying it's less bright is not a good enough description. It doesn't have the same change in brightness between dark and light colors. It's subdued somewhat. Could you watch it from here, sure the picture is still as clear and sharp, but it wouldn't be a 'great' movie experience. If I had a wider room and planned on seating more people to the sides at these distances, this would NOT be the screen to buy imo. At 16' or more, it probably would be great, but not at short distances way off center.


So at 13.5', we could nicely seat 4 people wide and get a good viewing experience (remember it's already 2.5' higher than eye level and of course I could lower the projector if needed).


So that's the initial impressions after only a few late hours of viewing. My wife loves it so it's a keeper







One last crappy picture of one of the best shots to show on a big screen. Thanks to everyone that helped me choose this screen.


----------



## noah katz

Meret,


If I were you, I'd take as much slack out of the safety chain as possible - if it starts to fall, the screen will accelerate until the slack is taken up, greatly increasing the force required to stop it.


----------



## Meret




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/18036005
> 
> 
> Meret,
> 
> 
> If I were you, I'd take as much slack out of the safety chain as possible - if it starts to fall, the screen will accelerate until the slack is taken up, greatly increasing the force required to stop it.



I have to open the next link a bit (it wouldn't slide over the hook) or move to another group of links. It has about 1 link of slack in it now. I pulled on that hook with everything I had, it will hold but I plan to remove the slack.


Now I think I just might put the same chain up on the other side so they look the same







I replaced the drywall plugs to the type with the folding flat extensions and the bracket is solid. I have no doubt it will hold the 60lbs across both brackets, but it's the strain and jerking of opening/closing the screen that concerns me. I'll keep checking to see if that bracket loosens up. I don't really have a lot of good alternatives without opening that wall and installing a stud since I don't want to touch the stucco ceiling.


Thanks for the reminder, I'm off to fix it up right now before I forget again


----------



## tigerfan33

Got my 106" hp yesterday. It is the 2.4 and I am very happy. I had samples of both and when I ordered I knew I would be happy with either material. I now have the punch of a plasma and can dial down my settings so I can have a accurate picture. Watch mostly hd satellite last night and tried out a blu ray. With the brighter picture the black bars on top and bottom on the blu ray really did seem darker. A lot more detail and with a brighter picture brings a sharper picture than before. 2.4 or 2.8 gain will get you a great picture with the right setup IMO.


----------



## Fabricator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/18036005
> 
> 
> Meret,
> 
> 
> If I were you, I'd take as much slack out of the safety chain as possible - if it starts to fall, the screen will accelerate until the slack is taken up, greatly increasing the force required to stop it.



that is not the real issue. the weak point there is the plastic of the end cap.

i have mine hanging from this point, and have wondered about it. seems kinda weak. hopefully (and expectedly) DL made the caps from a non fragile plastic.


oh. its not the speed that would break it. it would be the sudden stop....



btw. i am remarkably HAPPY with my 119" 2.8


----------



## noah katz

"that is not the real issue. the weak point there is the plastic of the end cap."


All the more reason not to increase the load on it.


----------



## Alex solomon

Art mentioned this in his AE4000 review, of using 2.35:1 high gain screen and the lens zoom on the AE4000.

_*"Since the screen is wider, there would be even more roll-off of brightness in the corners and far left and right sides of the image in general"*_


Is this true ? Can someone confirm if this is the case. When I used the All Screen Gain Calculator for the HP, I didn't see any rolloff in the calculated result. Gain is pretty much stayed the same at 106" wide screen from a throw distance of 17.5'. Is this calculator accurate ?


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alex solomon* /forum/post/18049284
> 
> 
> Art mentioned this in his AE4000 review, of using 2.35:1 high gain screen and the lens zoom on the AE4000.
> 
> _*"Since the screen is wider, there would be even more roll-off of brightness in the corners and far left and right sides of the image in general"*_
> 
> 
> Is this true ? Can someone confirm if this is the case. When I used the All Screen Gain Calculator for the HP, I didn't see any rolloff in the calculated result. Gain is pretty much stayed the same at 106" wide screen from a throw distance of 17.5'. Is this calculator accurate ?



No, a retro-reflective screen will not do this "corner roll-off" thing.


----------



## XJ6

Hi,

I realize this is the HP thread but I am just trying to address MCaugusto's questions/concerns wrt the SS. Sorry, I can never make my posts short.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MCaugusto* /forum/post/17946072
> 
> 
> ...the Silverstar has a wider viewing cone but shows more loss of onscreen brightness as one moves away from a center seating position ?...



The short answer is NO! Wider viewing cone means a lesser perception of reduction in brightness. When I was testing out the samples, in/near the middle of the "screen", the HP was almost as bright as the SS. When I moved them to the perimeter, the HP's brightness disappeared compared to what the SS was STILL showing.


> Quote:
> ..the Silverstar is much more expensive, is mounted on a permanent frame and therefore much heavier and is shipped in a huge crate? On the other hand, it has no "fabric weaves" to ever worry about, is much more durable and should last indefinitely with common care sense, and is easier, safer to wipe clean ?



The 16:9 110" diag SS I got weighed over 150lbs (maybe even 170) with the box included and 40+lbs w/o the box. That was one with the 3" frame. Its bulkiness certainly required 2 man to hang it (or 1 man, you, plus a teenager). After a year and a half it's still maintenance-free, no waves yet










> Quote:
> Are the legs included in the price or how much more would they cost ?



No, they are not included and unfortunately, accessories are usually expensive.


> Quote:
> If you were to decide between a 92" diagonal floor-mounted screen and *cost was no object*, would you choose a High Power or a Silverstar ? Thanks >>> Marcos



The SS, why not, especially if the prices are close. BTW, I took some pictures of the samples at different angles and with different primary colors, too. You can see them at http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post17472113 .

Good luck.


----------



## Alex solomon

Does anyone know where I can buy I bigger sample/fabric of the HP ?


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alex solomon* /forum/post/18049284
> 
> 
> Art mentioned this in his AE4000 review, of using 2.35:1 high gain screen and the lens zoom on the AE4000.
> 
> _*"Since the screen is wider, there would be even more roll-off of brightness in the corners and far left and right sides of the image in general"*_
> 
> 
> Is this true ? Can someone confirm if this is the case. When I used the All Screen Gain Calculator for the HP, I didn't see any rolloff in the calculated result. Gain is pretty much stayed the same at 106" wide screen from a throw distance of 17.5'. Is this calculator accurate ?



The calculator is accurate. As erkq pointed out, one of the differences between the angular reflective screen (e.g., most gain screens) and the retroreflective screen (e.g., the HP and a few other glass beaded screens) is that the gain of the AR screen drops off at the sides and corners, while the gain of the RR screen does not. In fact, it is not uncommon for the RR screen to have *slightly higher* gain at the sides and corners than at the center in many HT configurations. The gain drop off of the AR screen gets worse the wider the screen and the higher the gain.


----------



## rgathright

I received a second sample today (2.4 gain) and it is the same as the sample that was sent to me just prior to the discovery that there was a different gain screen out there.


----------



## Hynds

Hello all,


I strongly leaning towards getting a high power screen with the old 2.8 gain. However, when I learned about the 2.4 and that they use it for manual pull downs, I assumed they changed it because the old 2.8 material didn't do well in the pull down screens. Basically, my question is whether or not a model C 119 pulldown with the 2.8 gain is going to last a long time without breaking. Have people that have had similar screens had any problems? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.


Thanks,

David


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hynds* /forum/post/18107104
> 
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> 
> I strongly leaning towards getting a high power screen with the old 2.8 gain. However, when I learned about the 2.4 and that they use it for manual pull downs, I assumed they changed it because the old 2.8 material didn't do well in the pull down screens. Basically, my question is whether or not a model C 119 pulldown with the 2.8 gain is going to last a long time without breaking. Have people that have had similar screens had any problems? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> David



A friend of mine has a 119" pulldown and it's been perfect. It's a tough fabric.


----------



## edpowers

I have a 7 year old 106" HP manual pull down and it looks exactly the same as the day I bought it. I have never encountered a single problem and there is absolutely no wear and tear that I can see.


----------



## Hynds

Thanks for the replys. That's what I was hoping to hear.


----------



## Fabricator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edpowers* /forum/post/18107229
> 
> 
> I have a 7 year old 106" HP manual pull down and it looks exactly the same as the day I bought it. I have never encountered a single problem and there is absolutely no wear and tear that I can see.



how often do you up & down it ?


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fabricator* /forum/post/18112291
> 
> 
> how often do you up & down it ?



Every chance he gets... you left that wide open...


----------



## xb1032

I was concerned about the quality of a manual 106" HP model C and have had mine for 7 months + and it's worked perfectly and is very good quality. I'm hoping for the 119" in the near future (though I may go with a smaller border for a 121" or 122" screen).


----------



## Hynds

Hey guys,


I'm debating getting either a 119 or 133 inch high power. It will be matched up with a viewsonic pro8100 that will be shelf mounted a couple feet above eye level with a throw distance a little under 18 feet. I'll be able to sit up to 17 feet away from the screen. The Viewsonic is only rated at 1000 lumens, but I've read that it is a bright projector. Are their any big downsides to going with the 133. I'd like to be able to watch sports and play video games with some ambient light. Would the 133 be to big to use with ambient light. I'm definitely going to compare the images that will initially be thrown on a stretched sheet, but that won't give me an accurate read of the brightness level. Any advice would be appreciated.


Thanks,

David


----------



## edpowers




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fabricator* /forum/post/18112291
> 
> 
> how often do you up & down it ?



I no longer use it since I recently purchased a 119" HP Cinema Contour for the new theater. However, in the first 5 years, I would guess a pull down/up every third day ... so around 600 times. Maybe another 30 times over the next two years. That reminds me, does anybody want to buy a used 106" HP model C in white? PM me if interested.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/18113029
> 
> 
> Every chance he gets... you left that wide open...



I guess I'm still over 19,000 away from Wilt Chamberlain


----------



## Meret




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hynds* /forum/post/18114209
> 
> 
> Hey guys,
> 
> 
> I'm debating getting either a 119 or 133 inch high power. It will be matched up with a viewsonic pro8100 that will be shelf mounted a couple feet above eye level with a throw distance a little under 18 feet. I'll be able to sit up to 17 feet away from the screen. The Viewsonic is only rated at 1000 lumens, but I've read that it is a bright projector. Are their any big downsides to going with the 133. I'd like to be able to watch sports and play video games with some ambient light. Would the 133 be to big to use with ambient light. I'm definitely going to compare the images that will initially be thrown on a stretched sheet, but that won't give me an accurate read of the brightness level. Any advice would be appreciated.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> David



Choices, choices. Too many choices







One quickly learns setting up a home theater is nothing like buying a TV. In my previous posts above, I wanted to go 133" but the original room I was going to mount it in would not work, so I went with a custom size 126". I would have loved to go with the 159" but while I'm sure brightness would have suffered, one cannot go too big if you can sit far enough back, which I could not










I have the Pro8100 also (of course the bulb is still new) and unless you're going to be picky about perfect color temperature, it will pump out a really bright screen in 'normal' or 'cool1' that allows for a lamp or two to be on. I specifically tested watching the SuperBowl with the lamp on and lights from the hallway coming into the room and it was still like watching a TV, just a lot bigger.


If it helps, here are the things that drove my decision,


a) 235:1 movies just lack the size wow factor imo if the width is less than 110" at ~13ft back You are talking about a foot less in width between your choices and believe it or not, it's a big difference for 235:1. You need width for most BR movies that are in 235/240:1. If you sit closer of course you can go smaller. The difference when viewing 16:9 broadcasts is not as dramatic a change between those sizes.


b) I wanted that 159" but unless you get around 17+ft away, it's just too big when fast moving action scenes occur.


c) I expect the screen to outlive the PJ so while I can always show a smaller image on it if ever needed, I can't go bigger without buying a new screen (I've zoomed in to make a smaller image at times for testing and it doesn't really detract from watching something on it)


d) I actually like watching my 126" from the hallway (17' back) at times so the 133" would probably make you happy at the farthest seating position you noted. Our seating position normally is 13.5ft away


e) One other thing to watch for is height. The 133" is taller so make sure you like the total vertical placement on 16:9 material (i.e. a low ceiling may make you decide to go smaller)


f) Remember Da-lite will make a custom size ($30 cut fee) but you pay the price for the larger screen (I got lucky in they didn't use a 16:9 screen which was almost $100 more, they used a 16:10 screen that was already 110" wide)


You will get a pretty good read on brightness (knowing the HP will be brighter) when you test it on a sheet (I used BOC cloth). It's easy to get fooled when testing to just love the biggest size you can make, but throw on some movies and watch them (fast moving action, etc) as that will confirm if it's good or bad. My wife loved when I had it at 150" but we stood in the kitchen to watch it as 15'ft at the time seemed too close.


Other than my physical restrictions within the room, item 'a' is what drove my final size (maximum width I found comfortable with at 13-14ft).


I'm going to bet you choose the 133" after you finishing testing.


Good luck


P.S. A plug for our sponsor here (link at top left of forums). I had issues finding a real person that understood I wanted a custom screen order (and the 2.8 material) at various retailers in Canada, so I called AVS. They had a great price. The shipping costs were what drove up the price (Da-lite handled the broker/shipping costs) which I suspect would have been a wash if someone in Canada had offered some lesser shipping costs but more than likely a higher cost for the screen. Anyway, AVS was quick, understood what I wanted and made it real easy at a decent price.


----------



## xb1032




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edpowers* /forum/post/18114591
> 
> 
> ... That reminds me, does anybody want to buy a used 106" HP model C in white? PM me if interested...



I'm not interested but I may sell the same but in black. Have you looked into selling it used on Amazon? That might be an option.


----------



## noah katz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xb1032* /forum/post/18115499
> 
> 
> Have you looked into selling it used on Amazon? That might be an option.



Never thought of that.


What would be the advantage vs ebay?


----------



## Bruce Wayne

I have just purchased a Sharp XV-Z12000 MK2 and want an HP to mate it with. My concern is the way in which I will be installing it may lose the majority of gain. I have 9' ceilings and the projector lens when installed will be roughly at 8'. Seating distance is 15' and from lens to screen will be 16'. I want to use a 106" screen. The bottom of the screen will be 30" from the floor which means the top will be 26" from the ceiling. This puts my projector around one foot above the top of the screen and from what I have read, eliminates any benefit I would get from this screen. TRUE OR FALSE?


I dont want to drop the projector anymore as the wall it is on opens up into the kitchen and would hang obtrusivley into the room.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bruce Wayne* /forum/post/18123258
> 
> 
> I have just purchased a Sharp XV-Z12000 MK2 and want an HP to mate it with. My concern is the way in which I will be installing it may lose the majority of gain. I have 9' ceilings and the projector lens when installed will be roughly at 8'. Seating distance is 15' and from lens to screen will be 16'. I want to use a 106" screen. The bottom of the screen will be 30" from the floor which means the top will be 26" from the ceiling. This puts my projector around one foot above the top of the screen and from what I have read, eliminates any benefit I would get from this screen. TRUE OR FALSE?
> 
> 
> I dont want to drop the projector anymore as the wall it is on opens up into the kitchen and would hang obtrusivley into the room.



Most of the gain advantage of the HP will disappear under those conditions.


----------



## xb1032




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/18117221
> 
> 
> Never thought of that.
> 
> 
> What would be the advantage vs ebay?



Never tried it but I've been considering it. Some things aren't necessarily priced the best so if someone listed theirs lower than others you might get a decent price. The best I see listed there now on Amazon for a 106" model C HP is $560 shipped new. I believe it was higher than this a couple of weeks ago when I checked.


----------



## DvdJags




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xb1032* /forum/post/18126237
> 
> 
> Never tried it but I've been considering it. Some things aren't necessarily priced the best so if someone listed theirs lower than others you might get a decent price. The best I see listed there now on Amazon for a 106" model C HP is $560 shipped new. I believe it was higher than this a couple of weeks ago when I checked.



Check with AVScience I got a quote from them for a screen bigger than 106" at about that price after shipping. So a 106" screen should be lower from AVScience.


----------



## curt248

My first impressions with my new da lite hp 2.8 120in fixed frame cinemavision with a epson 8500ub.



I just finished setting up our make shift theater in the living room. Of course when the basement is done we will have a dedicated space with black ceilings and dark walls and full light control etc.


We just watched iron man (it's dark out). All I can say is wow! The detail is amazing. The da lite hp (high power) 2.8 screen looks really good. The 2.8 gain is definitely not too much gain. You would think it would be too bright, but it's not. Also the off angle viewing gain lost is not very noticeable at all. Even at the largest angle (80 to 85 degrees), you can still easily see everything that's on the screen (unlike lcd tv's). After seeing this screen, I can't imagine using a screen with a 1.3 or so gain (those lose gain off angle as well). I think it would be quite dim. It would probably be more like a movie theater. That's not a compliment. Every time I go to a movie theater and watch for screen (image) quality, it looks washed out and grainy.


btw the clarity on our 120in 16:9 screen is outstanding. It's nothing like the grainy images they have at the theaters. With the larger sized screen, there appears to be more relative detail than a high def tv (63in plasma) due to being able to see tons of stuff you could never see with a smaller screen. Obviously there can't be more detail (same resolution), but it appears like there is more.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *curt248* /forum/post/18138916
> 
> 
> My first impressions with my new da lite hp 2.8 120in fixed frame cinemavision with a epson 8500ub.
> 
> 
> 
> I just finished setting up our make shift theater in the living room. Of course when the basement is done we will have a dedicated space with black ceilings and dark walls and full light control etc.
> 
> 
> We just watched iron man (it's dark out). All I can say is wow! The detail is amazing. The da lite hp (high power) 2.8 screen looks really good. The 2.8 gain is definitely not too much gain. You would think it would be too bright, but it's not. Also the off angle viewing gain lost is not very noticeable at all. Even at the largest angle (80 to 85 degrees), you can still easily see everything that's on the screen (unlike lcd tv's). After seeing this screen, I can't imagine using a screen with a 1.3 or so gain (those lose gain off angle as well). I think it would be quite dim. It would probably be more like a movie theater. That's not a compliment. Every time I go to a movie theater and watch for screen (image) quality, it looks washed out and grainy.
> 
> 
> btw the clarity on our 120in 16:9 screen is outstanding. It's nothing like the grainy images they have at the theaters. With the larger sized screen, there appears to be more relative detail than a high def tv (63in plasma) due to being able to see tons of stuff you could never see with a smaller screen. Obviously there can't be more detail (same resolution), but it appears like there is more.



Nothing beats a big screen. I don't care how close I sit, no matter the resolution, a small screen just doesn't do it for me.


----------



## badgerpilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *curt248* /forum/post/18138916
> 
> 
> My first impressions with my new da lite hp 2.8 120in fixed frame cinemavision with a epson 8500ub.
> 
> 
> 
> I just finished setting up our make shift theater in the living room. Of course when the basement is done we will have a dedicated space with black ceilings and dark walls and full light control etc.
> 
> 
> We just watched iron man (it's dark out). All I can say is wow! The detail is amazing. The da lite hp (high power) 2.8 screen looks really good. The 2.8 gain is definitely not too much gain. You would think it would be too bright, but it's not. Also the off angle viewing gain lost is not very noticeable at all. Even at the largest angle (80 to 85 degrees), you can still easily see everything that's on the screen (unlike lcd tv's). After seeing this screen, I can't imagine using a screen with a 1.3 or so gain (those lose gain off angle as well). I think it would be quite dim. It would probably be more like a movie theater. That's not a compliment. Every time I go to a movie theater and watch for screen (image) quality, it looks washed out and grainy.
> 
> 
> btw the clarity on our 120in 16:9 screen is outstanding. It's nothing like the grainy images they have at the theaters. With the larger sized screen, there appears to be more relative detail than a high def tv (63in plasma) due to being able to see tons of stuff you could never see with a smaller screen. Obviously there can't be more detail (same resolution), but it appears like there is more.



+1 I have a 61" DLP but there is no comparison to my 106" HP/Epson 8100! It is amazing to me how much more detail I see, and yes, the picture is much clearer and detailed than a movie theater.


----------



## Bruce Wayne

I have decided to mount the Sharp on a cart and wheel it in when I want to watch a movie. This is so I can keep the outstanding bang for buck Mark II and use it in conjunction with the highpower screen. But concerning the viewing angle and loss of gain, if I am sitting on a 7' wide sofa, 16' from a 106" screen will I still be in the "cone zone"? hehe, I think I just made up a term. I suck at math, so thats why I ask.


Also, wheres the best place to find the HP in a 106" pulldown?


----------



## badgerpilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bruce Wayne* /forum/post/18140697
> 
> 
> I have decided to mount the Sharp on a cart and wheel it in when I want to watch a movie. This is so I can keep the outstanding bang for buck Mark II and use it in conjunction with the highpower screen. But concerning the viewing angle and loss of gain, if I am sitting on a 7' wide sofa, 16' from a 106" screen will I still be in the "cone zone"? hehe, I think I just made up a term. I suck at math, so thats why I ask.
> 
> 
> Also, wheres the best place to find the HP in a 106" pulldown?



I got mine here . Ships direct from the factory. I have my epson 8100 on a cart also, 13' back, and an L-shaped sofa. Not a bad seat in the house! No math involved for me, just an awesome picture. Off axis viewing is excellent. That Mark II deal was awesome - Enjoy!


----------



## Joseph Clark

Contact AVS before you buy. They have great prices and service, and they run this little web site called AVS Forum.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bruce Wayne* /forum/post/18140697
> 
> 
> But concerning the viewing angle and loss of gain, if I am sitting on a 7' wide sofa, 16' from a 106" screen will I still be in the "cone zone"? hehe, I think I just made up a term. I suck at math, so thats why I ask.



I would think you'd have adequate resources in the Batmobile to figure it out, but if not, you can always use my screen gain calculator linked below. You don't need math skills to use it--just tape measuring skills.


----------



## craftech

Mine is 106 inches. I think any larger would be overkill for me anyway. I really like the Hi Power and the projector is ceiling mounted to boot.


John


----------



## Blue Rain

Flyboy


This is the 4th time I tried your screen gain calc and it won't let me

enter anything. Read only message keeps coming up.


What am I doing wrong ?


Thanks




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/17973123
> 
> 
> For reference, a Kuro plasma is about 35 fL. You won't get a gain of 2.8 from any practicable HP installation. With the lens 18" from the viewer's line of sight, you will get about 2.4 with the old HP material and about 2.0 with the new HP material.
> 
> 
> My screen gain calc is linked below.


----------



## Blue Rain

Dear CEO Of Da Lite


I'm buying the Panny ae4000u so of course I need a screen to go with it. I intended to buy a 1.4 gain from another vendor but decided to read up on other screens before I made my final choice .


I decided to click on this thread and see what all the hoopla was over your

HP 2.8 gain screen..after all this thread is 79 pages long so I figure there has to be something to it ...eh ?



Keep in mind I read the entire thread..all 79 pages and decided this was the screen for me...until......I get towards the end of the thread and see that the 2.8 has been swapped out and a 2.4 has been sent to customers without telling us and still advertizing it as 2.8 *When in Fact it's Not*..oohh the joy.. *NOT !*


After seeing the difference in the ( 2.8/2.4) pictures posted by the members here I'm feeling disappointed thinking I can no longer get the 2.8 133 " electric version .


Good thing I read this entire thread otherwise I would never have known.If I can't get the 2.8 133" electric version I'll spend my money with another brand.


Imagine how I felt after reading (Took a Long Time) this entire *Huge Thread* and getting excited thinking this is a great screen ..I'm sold this is for me ! ...then getting towards the very end of this *Huge Thread* and to have my hopes crushed.


I will see if I can still get the 2.8 but this is a pain now hoping I get the correct screen or not.


Please reconsider phasing out the 2.8 . Imagine yourself reading this entire *Huge Thread* and getting to the end only to find out it's no longer available and to have your excited joy crushed !

*NOT A GOOD FEELING*


This thread isn't going away so things will get worst for you once you *STOP* providing the 2.8 version. People will read this thread just like I did and feel cheated ! Hopefully I can still get lucky and get a 2.8 .


Down the road other's won't even have a choice and will be furious which could take a turn for the worst and drive them away to another vendor.


Not all of us can use a fixed screen or have the $ for a fixed screen. Please re-think your plan and keep the option for a 2.8 on the electric screens.


Do we home theater people not matter to you ?


If you don't there's always some other guy/gal around the corner willing and waiting to step in where you left off and provide the customers with what *They Want*


If you continue with this plan of getting rid of the 2.8 on all models at years end except the fixed screen guess what ? Your thread which is 79 pages long will die out and a new thread will start with that guy/gal who's been waiting just around the corner to step in where you left off ..which was a *Great* product that you decided to walk away from.


How can you walk away from something the people want that you *already had ?* It's not like we want you to make something you didn't have.


If it's about the bottom dollar (Savings with the 2.4 ) that will only last until that new gal or guy steps in and provides the customer with what they want...then you will lose all those pennies you saved and more..*Loyal Customers !*


Ask other CEO's about what happened to Coke and Tampons years ago..the public isn't stupid . This is the age of the *WORLD WIDE WEB* and pulling a fast one on us doesn't work anymore . *We Will Find Out* just like we did with you exchanging the 2.8 for a 2.4 . Every Audio/Video forum will know about this slick move. Remember..projectors and screens are getting cheaper by the day so this market can only go one way and that is *UP* and you can be *The leader in the DIY Home Market* in addition to your niche of the high end market.

*Smart Business Is Looking Ahead At The Bigger Picture....Your're Thinking 60" Screen When You Should Be Thinking 150" Screen.*

*What Was This Person Thinking Who Made This Bone Head Decision !*

*Fire Them..I know I would Have ! I Never Heard Of a Company Getting Rid Of a Successful Product especially in Todays Market !*


I would think long and hard before pulling the plug on the 2.8 ..at least give us a choice and keep the 2.8 alive and don't let if fall to the wayside at the end of the year.

*It's Not Too Late To Redeem Yourself In Our Eyes..The Public Can Be Very Forgiving If You Extend A hand And Admit Your Wrong Doing*


I will be emailing the link to this thread to other vendors..I'm sure someone would love to pick up where you left off.

*Matter Of Fact I'll Email This Thread Directly To The CEO Because Sometimes They're Not Even Aware Of These Bone Head Decisions Being Made By someone Trying To Look Good By Saving Cutting/Cost Hoping For A Promotion and Or Raise...When In Reality In The Long Run It Will Turn Out To Be A Bad Decision*


BLUE


----------



## Tryg

Dear Blue Rain,


You crushed my hopes of thinking you knew what you are talking about.


Maybe you should:


See the product

Get the product

Understand why Da-Lite made the change

or spend less time putting your whole life's hopes and dreams on what other people pontificate about











Then post


----------



## airscapes

Well if you really want one.. I would get it now while they are still filling orders with the 2.8!


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/18148522
> 
> 
> Maybe you should:
> 
> 
> See the product
> 
> Get the product
> 
> Understand why Da-Lite made the change



Why did Dalite make the change? Why without telling anyone or updating there docs to reflect that change? Why the for lack of better term "Bait and Switch" Not telling vendors or even their own customer support people?


----------



## Blue Rain




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/18148587
> 
> 
> Why did Dalite make the change? Why without telling anyone or updating there docs to reflect that change? Why the for lack of better term "Bait and Switch" Not telling vendors or even their own customer support people?



I agree with you and will not even bother to reply to the above poster with his snide remarks.


----------



## airscapes

Well the above poster is the guy that reviewed the product and started this 79 page thread and I have a lot of respect for him. I bought the HP sight unseen after reading this thread.. unfortunately I didn't get what I expected.... and still really don't know WHY.. Your post was a bit off topic, there is a thread I started which would have been a better place to post your disappointment.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1213577


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Blue Rain* /forum/post/18148623
> 
> 
> I agree with you and will not even bother to reply to the above poster with his snide remarks.



Please let us know what you choose instead of the 2.4 gain HP. It will be an eye-opener (pun intended) if there's anything out there that does this "high gain" thing as well as even this inferior material.


----------



## GoCaboNow

I kinda figured the 2.4 product would be more marketable for Da-lite. I would think a wider viewing cone would appeal to more folks. Lose a little gain but gain a little on the off axis. I am surprised they have not marketed the change. I love my 2.8 and all seating is within the screen width but a little more flexibility seems like a good thing. I guess not on this thread with all you hard core gain freaks.


----------



## Alex solomon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/18148522
> 
> 
> Dear Blue Rain,
> 
> 
> You crushed my hopes of thinking you knew what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> Maybe you should:
> 
> 
> See the product
> 
> Get the product
> 
> Understand why Da-Lite made the change
> 
> or spend less time putting your whole life's hopes and dreams on what other people pontificate about
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then post



Tryg,


Have you had a chance to view the 2.4 gain? If yes, what differences do you observe between the two. I would also like to know why Da-lite made the change to the 2.4


I am trying to decide which screen to get. I have viewed the samples of both side by side in my HT and prefer the 2.4. The colors don't seem to be to too vivid/exaggerated as the 2.8 and the blacks don't look too washed out. Viewing angle is also better on the 2.4. I am not sure the result would be the same when the image is projected on a 115" screen. FIY, throw distance would be 17.5 feet and PJ would be shelf mounted 1-3' above eye level. I appreciate your input. Thanks.


----------



## Hughman

I received a 2.4 and 2.8 sample awhile ago and will add a couple photos comparing what I consider important differences between the two and that is visible texture. I've compared both to my existing 2.8 gain screen presently in my theater which is identical to the 2.8 sample I received. I'm providing three photos of the screens which clearly show my points.


Despite damn near every account of the 2.8 screen saying how smooth and texture free it is I've always seen a texture with the 2.8 screen, on both 2.8's I've had in my theater and a sample I received a couple years ago. I see this same texture on the newer sample as well. The first photo below shows the "paisely" type optical texture from the 2.8 screen presently in use. The second photo shows the two newer samples, 2.4 on left and 2.8 on right, which similarly shows the optical texture from the 2.8 version but, and this is key, which is absent on the 2.4 gain.


The final photo clearly depicts the base material texture of the two screens, 2.8 on left and the weaved 2.4 screen on right, the 2.8 screen is substantially physically smoother than the 2.4. So the 2.8 gain screen is physically texture free but exhibits an optical texture while the 2.4 gain screen is, relatively speaking, optically texture free but has physical texture. In my theater at both my approx 11 foot and 16 viewing distances the 2.4 gain screens physical texture can not be seen whereas the optical texture of the 2.8 is clearly present therefore (from the small sample within the confines of my viewing conditions at least) the 2.4 provides a cleaner and smoother looking image the than 2.8.


----------



## Joseph Clark

Your photos are puzzling. I've never seen anything like that on my HP. What was on the screens when you took the photos? The photos appear colored, and it looks in one as though it's a shot of an object, not the blank screen. The textures are there in the photos, and they appear to be severe. That's what I don't understand. I've never seen anything like that with a blank Photoshop screen, white or colored.


----------



## Hughman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/18149363
> 
> 
> What was on the screens when you took the photos?.



On the second, side by side, photo I placed a cd case on the screens for size reference. Other than that there isn't anything on the screens. Is that what you're referring to?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/18149363
> 
> 
> The photos appear colored, and it looks in one as though it's a shot of an object, not the blank screen.



All three shots were taken under different lighting conditions, the first I believe was luminated by the projector, the second incadescent lighting and the blue tint was under sunlight through a window.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/18149363
> 
> 
> The textures are there in the photos, and they appear to be severe. That's what I don't understand. I've never seen anything like that with a blank Photoshop screen, white or colored.



Once you know what to look for it's easy to see and photo by getting the lighting correct. As noted I've seen this on 4 different samples of this screen, two samples are full screens cut from Model C roll-down units while the other two are from small samples sent by Da-lite, the most recent one received a couple weeks ago.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughman* /forum/post/18149539
> 
> 
> 
> Once you know what to look for it's easy to see and photo by getting the lighting correct. As noted I've seen this on 4 different samples of this screen, two samples are full screens cut from Model C roll-down units while the other two are from small samples sent by Da-lite, the most recent one received a couple weeks ago.



Take a damp micro fiber cloth and wipe down one of the samples that has this funky look to it.. Go ahead and rub it good with the damp clean cloth.. Let us know if it changes anything.. My sample looked like that till I washed it off...

My screen (2.8) does not look like that.


----------



## simonpickard

Hiya,


I'm thinking of buying this..

http://cgi.ebay.com/DA-LITE-58x104-P...item5190813b13 


The 119" Perm Wall screen. My question is, if I move house or something can you take it apart again? I wouldn't be doing this often of course, but just wanted to know that it can be done if needed?


Regards,

Simon


----------



## Hughman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/18149649
> 
> 
> Take a damp micro fiber cloth and wipe down one of the samples that has this funky look to it.. Go ahead and rub it good with the damp clean cloth.. Let us know if it changes anything.. My sample looked like that till I washed it off...
> 
> My screen (2.8) does not look like that.



Been doing that on the samples and discarded portions of the cut screens for a couple years from time to time and to humor you just did it again to the new sample, no difference . Your sample must have had dust or dirt on it. The first two shots accentuate the issue, you'll note in the last shot it's not there at all.


----------



## hrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *simonpickard* /forum/post/18149652
> 
> 
> Hiya,
> 
> 
> I'm thinking of buying this..
> 
> http://cgi.ebay.com/DA-LITE-58x104-P...item5190813b13
> 
> 
> The 119" Perm Wall screen. My question is, if I move house or something can you take it apart again? I wouldn't be doing this often of course, but just wanted to know that it can be done if needed?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Simon



Few, if any, forum members have talked about actually owning a perm-wall, so you might not get any answers here. Try calling Da-Lite.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Blue Rain* /forum/post/18148350
> 
> 
> Dear CEO Of Da Lite
> 
> 
> I'm buying the Panny ae4000u so of course I need a screen to go with it. I intended to buy a 1.4 gain from another vendor but decided to read up on other screens before I made my final choice .
> 
> 
> I decided to click on this thread and see what all the hoopla was over your
> 
> HP 2.8 gain screen..after all this thread is 79 pages long so I figure there has to be something to it ...eh ?
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind I read the entire thread..all 79 pages and decided this was the screen for me...until......I get towards the end of the thread and see that the 2.8 has been swapped out and a 2.4 has been sent to customers without telling us and still advertizing it as 2.8 *When in Fact it's Not*..oohh the joy.. *NOT !*
> 
> 
> After seeing the difference in the ( 2.8/2.4) pictures posted by the members here I'm feeling disappointed thinking I can no longer get the 2.8 133 " electric version .
> 
> 
> Good thing I read this entire thread otherwise I would never have known.If I can't get the 2.8 133" electric version I'll spend my money with another brand.
> 
> 
> Imagine how I felt after reading (Took a Long Time) this entire *Huge Thread* and getting excited thinking this is a great screen ..I'm sold this is for me ! ...then getting towards the very end of this *Huge Thread* and to have my hopes crushed.
> 
> 
> I will see if I can still get the 2.8 but this is a pain now hoping I get the correct screen or not.
> 
> 
> Please reconsider phasing out the 2.8 . Imagine yourself reading this entire *Huge Thread* and getting to the end only to find out it's no longer available and to have your excited joy crushed !
> 
> *NOT A GOOD FEELING*
> 
> 
> This thread isn't going away so things will get worst for you once you *STOP* providing the 2.8 version. People will read this thread just like I did and feel cheated ! Hopefully I can still get lucky and get a 2.8 .
> 
> 
> Down the road other's won't even have a choice and will be furious which could take a turn for the worst and drive them away to another vendor.
> 
> 
> Not all of us can use a fixed screen or have the $ for a fixed screen. Please re-think your plan and keep the option for a 2.8 on the electric screens.
> 
> 
> Do we home theater people not matter to you ?
> 
> 
> If you don't there's always some other guy/gal around the corner willing and waiting to step in where you left off and provide the customers with what *They Want*
> 
> 
> If you continue with this plan of getting rid of the 2.8 on all models at years end except the fixed screen guess what ? Your thread which is 79 pages long will die out and a new thread will start with that guy/gal who's been waiting just around the corner to step in where you left off ..which was a *Great* product that you decided to walk away from.
> 
> 
> How can you walk away from something the people want that you *already had ?* It's not like we want you to make something you didn't have.
> 
> 
> If it's about the bottom dollar (Savings with the 2.4 ) that will only last until that new gal or guy steps in and provides the customer with what they want...then you will lose all those pennies you saved and more..*Loyal Customers !*
> 
> 
> Ask other CEO's about what happened to Coke and Tampons years ago..the public isn't stupid . This is the age of the *WORLD WIDE WEB* and pulling a fast one on us doesn't work anymore . *We Will Find Out* just like we did with you exchanging the 2.8 for a 2.4 . Every Audio/Video forum will know about this slick move. Remember..projectors and screens are getting cheaper by the day so this market can only go one way and that is *UP* and you can be *The leader in the DIY Home Market* in addition to your niche of the high end market.
> 
> *Smart Business Is Looking Ahead At The Bigger Picture....Your're Thinking 60" Screen When You Should Be Thinking 150" Screen.*
> 
> *What Was This Person Thinking Who Made This Bone Head Decision !*
> 
> *Fire Them..I know I would Have ! I Never Heard Of a Company Getting Rid Of a Successful Product especially in Todays Market !*
> 
> 
> I would think long and hard before pulling the plug on the 2.8 ..at least give us a choice and keep the 2.8 alive and don't let if fall to the wayside at the end of the year.
> 
> *It's Not Too Late To Redeem Yourself In Our Eyes..The Public Can Be Very Forgiving If You Extend A hand And Admit Your Wrong Doing*
> 
> 
> I will be emailing the link to this thread to other vendors..I'm sure someone would love to pick up where you left off.
> 
> *Matter Of Fact I'll Email This Thread Directly To The CEO Because Sometimes They're Not Even Aware Of These Bone Head Decisions Being Made By someone Trying To Look Good By Saving Cutting/Cost Hoping For A Promotion and Or Raise...When In Reality In The Long Run It Will Turn Out To Be A Bad Decision*
> 
> 
> BLUE



I am probably as cynical and non trusting as you and I am a business owner as well. Having said that, while I agree with some things you have said, beyond a doubt I disagree with most of it. You want something, you don't need it and while that puts you in the drivers seat to some extent, it doesn't really justify your point of view, especially since you haven't actually had the screen in your presence to see it and try it.


Look, Da-lite put out a new material, but they changed their website after the fact. That does NOT in any way mean they intentionally were misleading anyone or promoting deceitful business practices. Would you please provide proof of them intentionally being misleading and intentionally trying to scam you? Your thinking that they are doesn't prove anything other than hear say.


I am sure as much as we think we are all that to Da-lite, we are just a small part of their entire product line and customers. I am planning on buying a screen from them and am planning on getting a manual HP 2.8.


----------



## noah katz

My 2.8 doesn't look anything like those photos either.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/18148587
> 
> 
> Why did Dalite make the change?



Did you ask them?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/18148587
> 
> 
> Why without telling anyone or updating their docs to reflect that change? Why the for lack of better term "Bait and Switch" Not telling vendors or even their own customer support people?



Most likely they changed the product, got it out for sale and failed to communicate with their web page person. Sometimes in business the cart comes before the horse unfortunately, but that doesn't always dictate that something was intentionally being done to mislead. They probably didn't tell anyone, because they probably didn't assume that people had to have the 2.8 and or that their would be that big a difference or a host of other reasons? Did you call and ask why? Or are you assuming from the way they handled it that they were doing something unethical intentionally?


I do Da-Lite didn't communicate well internally or to customers and that is poor business practice.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *simonpickard* /forum/post/18149652
> 
> 
> Hiya,
> 
> 
> I'm thinking of buying this..
> 
> http://cgi.ebay.com/DA-LITE-58x104-P...item5190813b13
> 
> 
> The 119" Perm Wall screen. My question is, if I move house or something can you take it apart again? I wouldn't be doing this often of course, but just wanted to know that it can be done if needed?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Simon



Finally a link or site that has the actual width of the screen including borders. Even Da-Lite doesn't list it on their site, unless I missed it. I had to call them to get the full width including the frame borders.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18150905
> 
> 
> 
> Look, Da-lite put out a new material, but they changed their website after the fact. That does NOT in any way mean they intentionally were misleading anyone or promoting deceitful business practices. Would you please provide proof of them intentionally being misleading and intentionally trying to scam you? Your thinking that they are doesn't prove anything other than hear say.
> 
> 
> I am sure as much as we think we are all that to Da-lite, we are just a small part of their entire product line and customers. I am planning on buying a screen from them and am planning on getting a manual HP 2.8.



Not sure what proof you need but here is a response from the Dalite Sales Rep when I brought the difference in fabric to everyone's attention.

_Doug,

This is what I has been explained to me - Da-Lite has two versions of

High Power fabric. We can replace your screen with the sample material

that you have. The new screen will be "just like" that sample you

recieved. I was not given the insights of the fabric issue due to being

company information. I appreciate asking about your screen issues.


Thank You_



Point being no one, not AVS which is one of their vendors, nor their own sales people new they were shipping something other than what they had been in the past. Draw your own conclusion but no matter how you spin it, it is misleading. Oh and what make you thing big corporation don't by electric screens.. and schools and churches and well I would guess that fixed screens are the smaller segment of their sales! Nuf said in this tread about this issue please use the other HP fabric thread that deals with the topic.

Thanks!


----------



## Tryg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alex solomon* /forum/post/18149276
> 
> 
> Tryg,
> 
> 
> Have you had a chance to view the 2.4 gain?




No, I have not got a chance to see it.


I probably should, but I usually like to do reviews in the fall....plus I want to read another 56 pages of bitching an complaining about the product, calling Da-Lite the anti Christ and blaming the rest on George Bush.










By page 57 someone will have actually bought one and probably start a new thread about how awesome it is











Also Da-Lite didn't design this screen for HT addicts. They designed it for business sales. They probably sell 100 pallets full of them for every 1 HT purchaser that's a sniveling little whiner


----------



## tigerfan33




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/18152578
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also Da-Lite didn't design this screen for HT addicts. They designed it for business sales.



This is the part that most people don't even know or have forgotten.








I also need to add with the 2.4 I can watch with the lights on and have the same picture off angle (no wash out) as my matte white with the lights off. In the cone it is my big plasma, lights on or off.










With lights on the matte white would be really washed out sitting at any position.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tigerfan33* /forum/post/18154684
> 
> 
> This is the part that most people don't even know or have forgotten.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also need to add with the 2.4 I can watch with the lights on and have the same picture off angle (no wash out) as my matte white with the lights off. In the cone it is my big plasma, lights on or off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With lights on the matte white would be really washed out sitting at any position.



Yes. Of course the contrast takes a big hit, but the amazing thing about watching the HP with the lights on is just how good it still looks. I have 9 small track light spots in my theater, and two shine onto the screen somewhat. Since I have no lights directly behind me that shine forward, it's still a surprisingly watchable image. That wasn't the case with my other screens.


----------



## hrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18151006
> 
> 
> Finally a link or site that has the actual width of the screen including borders. Even Da-Lite doesn't list it on their site, unless I missed it. I had to call them to get the full width including the frame borders.



The overall sizes are in the "Specification Data Sheet" PDF. To find the specs for the Cinema Contour fixed frame screens, for example, you would go to the products page, put your cursor on "Fixed Frame Screens" on the product categories list on the left, select "Cinema Contour" from the drop-down menu, and click on "Specification Data Sheet" on the product documents list on the right (scroll down a bit).

http://www.da-lite.com/products/ 

http://www.da-lite.com/products/spec_pdfs/234.pdf


----------



## ms20003

I have a W6000. Will high power be too bright in a white room with good light control when the lights are off? Also I think the contrast is good with my 1.1 screen. Is everything going to wash and go greyish with the new HP screen? I am concerned if I should have got the 8500ub if i wanted a HP screen.... What are anyone's thoughts?


----------



## edpowers




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ms20003* /forum/post/18160977
> 
> 
> I have a W6000. Will high power be too bright in a white room with good light control when the lights are off? Also I think the contrast is good with my 1.1 screen. Is everything going to wash and go greyish with the new HP screen? I am concerned if I should have got the 8500ub if i wanted a HP screen.... What are anyone's thoughts?



You need to give more information. What size screen? Where are you locating the projector? Is it up high, down low, etc. ? Throw distance?


----------



## ms20003




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edpowers* /forum/post/18161398
> 
> 
> You need to give more information. What size screen? Where are you locating the projector? Is it up high, down low, etc. ? Throw distance?



Sorry, Projector will either be right above my head or at ceiling (only if it still looks ok). If not it can stay right above my head. Throw distance is about 15-17 feet but can vary to match what I need. Screen size will be a 120" or 133".


Thanks for all the help.


P


----------



## edpowers




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ms20003* /forum/post/18160977
> 
> 
> I have a W6000. Will high power be too bright in a white room with good light control when the lights are off? Also I think the contrast is good with my 1.1 screen. Is everything going to wash and go greyish with the new HP screen? I am concerned if I should have got the 8500ub if i wanted a HP screen.... What are anyone's thoughts?
> 
> 
> Projector will either be right above my head or at ceiling (only if it still looks ok). If not it can stay right above my head. Throw distance is about 15-17 feet but can vary to match what I need. Screen size will be a 120" or 133".
> 
> 
> Thanks for all the help.
> 
> 
> P



The W6000 is definitely a bright projector, but I still think it would look great on a big 133" screen. Your black levels will definitely rise as your overall brightness increases, but they'll rise in tandem with your whites, so you don't lose any contrast. Even in eco-mode, you are probably looking at around 800 lumens with a new bulb. The higher you mount the projector, the lower your brightness will be. Also, you typically can gain a bit more contrast and lose a bit of brightness by moving your projector further back. The W6000 has a pretty small range and only loses about 12% brightness from closest to furthest, so its probably not a big difference in this case. You could move the projector back as far as 23.5 feet with a 133" screen.


You could also add a ND filter to your projector if you feel like its too bright and then remove it once your bulb ages ... its like getting 2 bulbs for the price of 1. Having too much brightness is a great problem to have!


I would actually be less worried about brightness and more worried about audible noise with the W6000. Its a relatively loud projector. I personally wouldn't want it right above my head. The Epson 8500 UB is significantly quieter but not nearly as bright in best mode.


----------



## mariokrt64




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edpowers* /forum/post/18161842
> 
> 
> The W6000 is definitely a bright projector, but I still think it would look great on a big 133" screen. Your black levels will definitely rise as your overall brightness increases, but they'll rise in tandem with your whites, so you don't lose any contrast. Even in eco-mode, you are probably looking at around 800 lumens with a new bulb. The higher you mount the projector, the lower your brightness will be. Also, you typically can gain a bit more contrast and lose a bit of brightness by moving your projector further back. The W6000 has a pretty small range and only loses about 12% brightness from closest to furthest, so its probably not a big difference in this case. You could move the projector back as far as 23.5 feet with a 133" screen.
> 
> 
> You could also add a ND filter to your projector if you feel like its too bright and then remove it once your bulb ages ... its like getting 2 bulbs for the price of 1. Having too much brightness is a great problem to have!
> 
> 
> I would actually be less worried about brightness and more worried about audible noise with the W6000. Its a relatively loud projector. I personally wouldn't want it right above my head. The Epson 8500 UB is significantly quieter but not nearly as bright in best mode.



I have heard a few times about the ND filter..where can I get more info in the forum....where can you buy it??


----------



## edpowers




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mariokrt64* /forum/post/18162829
> 
> 
> I have heard a few times about the ND filter..where can I get more info in the forum....where can you buy it??



Do a search in the $3500+ projector forum for ND Filter. There are a lot of old posts regarding filters in general. Some projectors have threads on the lens to apply filters, others require a diy solution. You can buy the filters at any store that sells cameras and lenses, etc.

Here is a good place to look at various ND Filters ...
http://www.camerafilters.com/pages/nd.aspx


----------



## nirvy111

How does the High Power compare to a quality angular reflective screen with some gain in terms of outright picture quality?. If one can achieve close to 20ftl's using a good quality AR screen I wonder if the results would be better.


I'm just saying because I have the hc3800 and in it's brightest mode, 20ftl's is acheivable doing over 10 foot wide image on a 1.2 gain AR screen, plus it has the added advantage of an easier setup(ceiling mount without keystone).


----------



## Murilo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/18152578
> 
> 
> No, I have not got a chance to see it.
> 
> 
> I probably should, but I usually like to do reviews in the fall....plus I want to read another 56 pages of bitching an complaining about the product, calling Da-Lite the anti Christ and blaming the rest on George Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By page 57 someone will have actually bought one and probably start a new thread about how awesome it is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also Da-Lite didn't design this screen for HT addicts. They designed it for business sales. They probably sell 100 pallets full of them for every 1 HT purchaser that's a sniveling little whiner



And not notifying the consumer or sales partners that they were making a large change to the material? Yup nothing wrong with that. Da-lite could probably send you a large peice of white printing paper to try out and youd love it.


That said I do love the 2.8 alot, and the 2.4 still is great, but try to look at both sides. Imagine how much you love your 2.8 now imagine they send you the lower gain 2.4 without warning after you already paid for what you thought was the 2.8, you honestly would not mind?


----------



## Tryg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/18165468
> 
> 
> And not notifying the consumer or sales partners that they were making a large change to the material? Yup nothing wrong with that. Da-lite could probably send you a large peice of white printing paper to try out and youd love it.
> 
> 
> That said I do love the 2.8 alot, and the 2.4 still is great, but try to look at both sides. Imagine how much you love your 2.8 now imagine they send you the lower gain 2.4 without warning after you already paid for what you thought was the 2.8, you honestly would not mind?



They did send me what I thought was 2.8 gain. Turned out it was 3.1. The reality here is:


1. Measuring gain and marketing your product is not an exact science. These are screens not medical instruments.

2. There is no agreed to method for measuring gain in the industry. If you started pointing the finger at companies...they all would be guilty.


Look, if Ford promises you your car will go X MPH or get X MPG and then it doesn't, do you get your panties in a bind? Probably not. The fact is very few products actually meet their marketing claims. How about lumens and projectors!!!!


What you should do is erase the marketing specs from your brain. Then review the product. Even the "inferior" 2.4 gain material will likely blow away the competition. And it's probably not 2.4 gain


----------



## RodK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/18181963
> 
> 
> What you should do is erase the marketing specs from your brain. Then review the product. Even the "inferior" 2.4 gain material will likely blow away the competition. And it's probably not 2.4 gain



This is why we are all waiting for you to review this new material as you are the resident high power Guru.


For the record, I have received samples of both materials and there is quite a difference in them. The 2.4 gain is thinner and textured. I don't think the thinner material will hang as well and will possibly curl on retractable screens. I ordered mine with 2.8 based on these assumptions and all the positive reveiws on the original material.


P.S. I am very happy with the price and service I got here in Canada for this.


----------



## Joseph Clark

Does DaLite still offer both 2.8 and 2.4 fabrics in all the model variations, or has that changed since the 2.4 material was introduced? Somewhere along the way, I've become confused on that issue.


----------



## RodK

you can still get the 2.8 in retractable screens but only if you special request it. there is no extra charge.


----------



## mariokrt64




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edpowers* /forum/post/18164630
> 
> 
> Do a search in the $3500+ projector forum for ND Filter. There are a lot of old posts regarding filters in general. Some projectors have threads on the lens to apply filters, others require a diy solution. You can buy the filters at any store that sells cameras and lenses, etc.
> 
> Here is a good place to look at various ND Filters ...
> http://www.camerafilters.com/pages/nd.aspx



Would you know if I can get one for a Mitsu HC6800, in case I do?


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RodK* /forum/post/18182670
> 
> 
> you can still get the 2.8 in retractable screens but only if you special request it. there is no extra charge.



Guess I'd better take really good care of my 2.8 Cinema Contour then.


----------



## Fabricator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/18185198
> 
> 
> Guess I'd better take really good care of my 2.8 Cinema Contour then.



yeah. could be a collectors item some day.


----------



## daONES1

I know this info is out there somewhere on this website I just need help finding it. I'm finally getting rid of the 61" DLP and moving to a projector/screen setup. I need help understanding what important questions and considerations I need to know before deciding on the perfect screen. For instance - the importance of "gain". Bottom line I need a quick and dirty SCREENS FOR DUMMIES course.


----------



## Tryg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *daONES1* /forum/post/18187919
> 
> 
> I know this info is out there somewhere on this website I just need help finding it. I'm finally getting rid of the 61" DLP and moving to a projector/screen setup. I need help understanding what important questions and considerations I need to know before deciding on the perfect screen. For instance - the importance of "gain". Bottom line I need a quick and dirty SCREENS FOR DUMMIES course.



read the reviews below


----------



## Murilo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/18181963
> 
> 
> They did send me what I thought was 2.8 gain. Turned out it was 3.1. The reality here is:
> 
> 
> 1. Measuring gain and marketing your product is not an exact science. These are screens not medical instruments.
> 
> 2. There is no agreed to method for measuring gain in the industry. If you started pointing the finger at companies...they all would be guilty.
> 
> 
> Look, if Ford promises you your car will go X MPH or get X MPG and then it doesn't, do you get your panties in a bind? Probably not. The fact is very few products actually meet their marketing claims. How about lumens and projectors!!!!
> 
> 
> What you should do is erase the marketing specs from your brain. Then review the product. Even the "inferior" 2.4 gain material will likely blow away the competition. And it's probably not 2.4 gain



Jesus, i dont know how to respond to this? Measuring gain? Its not about measuring gain, it has nothing to do with it. They sent an entirely different material altogether, I have directly compared them the 2.8 also shows a bit less screen texture as well, go read airscapes post although I know it will be hard for you as a part-time da-lite employee.


We didnt need to measure gain you can clearly see from airscapes photos a large difference in brightness, i have them both right here and also see this.


We dont need to measure anything, its a different fabric then they sent to us. They sent me 2, 2.8 samples and i ordered that, my dealer thought he ordered that for me, and we received not only lower gain, but completely different material. I find the 2.8 not only brighter on axis, but clearer and I believe seems to have more overall pop to the picture, the two do produce a different picture, i even had to adjust my projector settings for the 2.8 compared to the 2.4. Again airscape has good photos to show.


I have no idea how you can even defend this. This is not marketing specs this is real world viewing, unlike yourself i am not speculating i have both screens right infront of me.


And your ford analysis does not make sense, if ford sent me a sample like da-lite sent me or let me test a car and i purchased that car based on the test car they sent me which blew me away, i loved the car, how it felt, how it drove, you better damn well believe anyone would be pissed to find out they sent you an entirely different car model. Furthermore you find out that it looks the same and is even called the same, but inside and under the hood it was completely different from the test car i fell in love with, it drove and handled completely different.


You were lead to believe you were purchasing a product and you received another. Its not just lower gain its an entirely different material. So ford would have to send me an entirely different car internally with different parts to even make a similar comparison. And imagine how pissed dealers would be (like the ones i am dealing with now) to find out they didnt even notify them of the change in material and now da-lite is also telling them they are not paying shipping back to da-lite if the customer ordered a 2.8 and received a 2.4.


Again its not just lower gain its a new material and they do look quite a bit different in appropriate viewing environments (dark room, projector close to eye level, seating on axis)


Da-lite could have easily avoided this by just telling dealers were switching to a new highpower material, except for fixed frames. Please update your website or advertising, or alert customers who are purchasing, this new material is 2.4 gain, and a different material altogether, if they want samples just have them contact us.



I am a big fan of your review and work here, but this is a little much with your defending the company for doing something very shady, unless your employed by them, then i completely understand.


----------



## Tryg

I have not seen the new material but it sounds like a big enough change that Da-Lite should call this product a different name. Not "High Power".


Would it be more palatable if they renamed the new product, then discontinued the "High Power" product?


Coke tried to do that







Wait till they bring back the High Power Classic


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/18197521
> 
> 
> I have not seen the new material but it sounds like a big enough change that Da-Lite should call this product a different name. Not "High Power".
> 
> 
> Would it be more palatable if they renamed the new product, then discontinued the "High Power" product?
> 
> 
> Coke tried to do that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait till they bring back the High Power Classic



That would have been the way I would have done it. Then they could raise the price on the old stuff that every one wants









Sorry I guess it is just the HT people that want the old stuff..


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/18197521
> 
> 
> Coke tried to do that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait till they bring back the High Power Classic



Yes, I agree. This new 2.4 stuff should be "New High Power". Coke marketing all the way.


----------



## billwgd

Or perhaps the old 2.8 gain fabric could be called "retro HP".


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *billwgd* /forum/post/18198777
> 
> 
> Or perhaps the old 2.8 gain fabric could be called "retro HP".



But ... they BOTH are retro.


----------



## billwgd

Indeed, but the 2.8 is more retro, both reflective-wise and time-wise


----------



## billwgd

Below is a link to a document which includes the complete decision tree that Da-Lite employs to recommend front-projection screen surfaces. I vaguely recall that someone claimed that Da-Lite never recommends the high-power surface. Not only is that not true, but one can see precisely the conditions in which they do recommend it, cf. pp. 14-16.
http://www.dalite.com/downloads/HOW_Front_Selection.pdf


----------



## 37fiat

Just thought I'd post my impressions of my own Da-lite HP screen purchase.


I bought the 119" model C manual screen through HD.ca, and they were pretty good at getting everything worked out. I originally ordered the 2.4 version of this screen in the middle of January, but by the end of January it still wasn't in production, and after contemplating the 2.4 versus the 2.8, I asked them at that time to have the material changed to the 2.8. They did this and my screen arrived 3 weeks later.

It is in fact the 2.8, and it arrived in perfect condition.


I'm using the Mitsubishi HC6800, and the throw is 12'4" for the 119" screen.

Projector is shelf mounted 21" above eye level and viewing distance is between 12' and 12'10".

Farthest usual viewing position is 4' off center.


I must say, I am really impressed and happy with this screen!


Tryg was bang on with his review.


No screen texture to speak of, can't notice ANY waves at all when the image is being projected (although when the projector is off, looking from the side and with just the right lighting, there are a few minor waves in the fabric)


The viewing angle that seems to be a problem for some, from my own perspective is being blown out of proportion.

I find that the image can be viewed comfortably at 7' off center while being as close as 6' to the screen. Not the same as from dead center, but still an enjoyable experience for the viewer. Perhaps I'm not as critical in this regard as others, but it sure looks good to me.


This screen works really quite well with some lights on too. In fact, at night I can turn the overhead lights on fully in my living room (2 x 60W incandescent) and still enjoy a decent (albeit somewhat washed out) picture. When the lights are dimmed to 50%, it's as good as other regular 1.0 screens with mid range projectors that I've seen in total darkness. In total darkness the 2.8 HP has an amazing clarity and pop that sure does make me smile.

In fact I swear that if I leave the green 'coming attraction" preview screen at the beginning of a disc on too long, I'll get a green tan!!


But seriously it's a great product that I feel has more to offer than any other I've seen yet. I'm certainly no video/ home theater expert, but I do know what I like. And I really like this HP screen. Probably would like the 2.4 version of this as well, but can't compare the two, so no sense in worrying about it.

If there's one thing I'd do differently though, and if I had the extra cash, I'd definitely get the electric version of this screen.

Not only because I'm lazy and it would be pretty cool, but because the electric screen can be stopped at nearly any point in it's descent, whereas with the manual model C screen with the large roller, you're limited to 9 1/2" - 10" stop positions. This may not be an issue to most, but mine had 1" more drop than I had asked for, and is now just barely clearing the tweeter on my center channel. Not a big deal really, but with the electric I could've easily varied the height of the screen.


My projectors may change in the years to come, but I think this screen is a keeper.










By the way, in my opinin, Tryg was bang on in his review of this screen. This review and forum convinced me about the HP. Thanks Tryg!


----------



## Hughmc

^^ These reviews keep coming in consistently making the same claims and the owners seem more than happy. Great news since I am getting the same screen. 119 inch 16x9 2.8 gain. The screen and AE4000 should be here the week of the 15th. I will be leaving my screen down most often, but the electric would be slick. THe 200.00 price difference just didn't justify it for me knowing the screen would be down more than up.


----------



## Alex solomon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18217868
> 
> 
> ^^ These reviews keep coming in consistently making the same claims and the owners seem more than happy. Great news since I am getting the same screen. 119 inch 16x9 2.8 gain. The screen and AE4000 should be here the week of the 15th. I will be leaving my screen down most often, but the electric would be slick. THe 200.00 price difference just didn't justify it for me knowing the screen would be down more than up.



I have the AE4000 and I just can't decide between the 2.4 and the 2.8. From the samples I got from Da-lite, the 2.4 is not as bright as the 2.8 which I prefer in my batcave theater. I am also worried about the much elevated blacks on the 2.8 but it is very difficult to tell what blacks will look like when you don't have a white matte screen underneath. I would like to know your take of the HP and AE4000 combo especially regarding blacks and darker scenes.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alex solomon* /forum/post/18219331
> 
> 
> I have the AE4000 and I just can't decide between the 2.4 and the 2.8. From the samples I got from Da-lite, the 2.4 is not as bright as the 2.8 which I prefer in my batcave theater. I am also worried about the much elevated blacks on the 2.8 but it is very difficult to tell what blacks will look like when you don't have a white matte screen underneath. I would like to know your take of the HP and AE4000 combo especially regarding blacks and darker scenes.



I sent the 2.4 screen back and kept the 2.8. My projector has a max contrast spec of 4000:1 with iris closed... Look at the AE4000 spec and tell me what you think I would have done? I can tell you from a physical point of view, that 2.4 is thinner and will probably wrinkle more readily and not clean as well compared to the 2.8. If you calibrate your projector correctly once you get your new screen, you will be thrilled with the image including the black. And you will even like the image with the lights on (assuming you are in the cone of pleasure)!


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alex solomon* /forum/post/18219331
> 
> 
> I have the AE4000 and I just can't decide between the 2.4 and the 2.8. From the samples I got from Da-lite, the 2.4 is not as bright as the 2.8 which I prefer in my batcave theater. I am also worried about the much elevated blacks on the 2.8 but it is very difficult to tell what blacks will look like when you don't have a white matte screen underneath. I would like to know your take of the HP and AE4000 combo especially regarding blacks and darker scenes.



I raised my projector up to a high shelf mount (where I had my 720p DLP projectors back in the day), because the black level was too high (110" 2.8 HP - 4000 on "best" settings) when my 4000's lamp was new. With about 900 hours, and the projector still up high, the black level is good. Of course, a ND filter would work, too, but there was no expense involved in raising the projector. I also like having the projector up and out of the way. Of course, I may want to lower it when the lamp ages still more. There's always that option.


The best solution (if your black level is high) is to place the projector as close to eye level as possible, and add a filter (preferably variable). That way, you can adjust the filter, or remove it, for just the right amount of gain. One great thing about the 2.8 is that it gives you so many options without compromising the image.


----------



## airscapes

No one mentions if they recalibrate the projector.. if your Darks are washed out, have you adjusted the brightness and contrast properly?? The adjustments used on a matte white screen (out of box) are not the proper adjustments for a 2.8 gain screen. My contrast is set to -9 down from +9 with matte white.. brightness is down to 0 and could probably be s bit lower but I like the shadow detail.


----------



## Fabricator

this is for the forum database.


i have a HP 2.8. i have a few "sparkles" , about the size of a pixel.

but, all but 1 is VERY HARD to see. even when trying very hard to see them.

the 1, i can see it on certain scenes, IF i have my head in "just the right spot".

if i move 1" in any direction = gone.


as far as i am concerned, this is a non-issue.


just sayin.

thank you, drive through.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fabricator* /forum/post/18221356
> 
> 
> this is for the forum database.
> 
> 
> i have a HP 2.8. i have a few "sparkles" , about the size of a pixel.
> 
> but, all but 1 is VERY HARD to see. even when trying very hard to see them.
> 
> the 1, i can see it on certain scenes, IF i have my head in "just the right spot".
> 
> if i move 1" in any direction = gone.
> 
> 
> as far as i am concerned, this is a non-issue.
> 
> 
> just sayin.
> 
> thank you, drive through.



I think those sparkles can be cause by a glass bead being out of place or loosely attached. I noticed this once or twice while looking at my screen surface under a microscope. I would guess if you happen to catch one of these out of place beads you could get an unwanted shine.


The black levels that Joe was talking about is the ability of the projector to project no light. If contrast and brightness are not adjusted properly once one get their 2.8 gain screen the out of box settings or setting made for the old screen will crush the whites and the blacks will be washed out. Yes, no matter how well your calibrate your projector, if you projector can not display back well, that flaw will be amplified with the 2.8 gain.

Matte white with Dull flat image and great blacks, or HP with vibrant plasma like image with slighting elevated black levels... to each his own! I don't think anyone has been disappointed with the 2.8, I know I didn't like the overall PQ and lack of gain of the 2.4 as much as the 2.8. BTW the black will be better because the flaw of the projector will not be amplified as much.. so if you are really paranoid about watching blackness you might like the 2.4. Just don't compare it to the 2.8 sample once you get it, or you will want to send it back.


----------



## noah katz

"If contrast and brightness are not adjusted properly once one get their 2.8 gain screen the out of box settings or setting made for the old screen will crush the whites and the blacks will be washed out."


Whites will not be crushed, as that means the screen has different gain for different brightness levels.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/18222838
> 
> 
> Whites will not be crushed, as that means the screen has different gain for different brightness levels.



GOOD for you for expressing it so simply. Jeez... this concept of an "active" non-linear screen will never die...


----------



## Joseph Clark

Your projector will determine the contrast ratio of the image you see. The HP will affect how bright the image is. If you don't like the black level, it's easy enough to lower it with ND filters or by raising the projector. Such techniques can get the black level as low as you want. Your projector is responsible for basic image quality and contrast.


I happen to feel that the HP is a "transparent" screen, unlike many others. I don't see the screen during a movie - just the movie. I had a Stewart Firehawk, and I could always see a snowy sheen during bright scenes. I had a Draper that was basically a 1.0 gain. It showed wrinkles badly, and it was too dim for me to get the image size I wanted. The HP has no sheen, shows no wrinkles and allows me to go as big as my room can accommodate. That's 3 serious problems eliminated by the HP. When my projector's lamp was new, it took me about 20 minutes to raise the projector and solve a problem with a black level I was uncomfortable with. (Instead, I also could have added a ND-filter to the projection lens. Same result.)


Tell me how long it takes to solve a problem with a screen that shows wrinkles. Or to fix the fact that once you get past 100" the screen is just too dim to enjoy. Or to get rid of a sheen that's a basic feature of the screen surface itself. Elevated black levels are easy enough to fix with a screen - any screen. You can't fix a screen's basic "character." You can't make it brighter than it's capable of being. You can't remove a sheen that's inherent in the materials used to create it. Ironing it, or re-tensioning it, usually won't get rid of tough wrinkles and creases.


People often question the one thing about the HP that is its greatest asset - the ability to increase brightness. Increasing brightness increases black level, but that's what you want to happen, or you'd be buying some other screen. If it does it's job too well, the fix is simple and cheap. Other fixes for an image that's too dim are not cheap - like getting a brighter projector.


When this topic was last visited, others corrected a flaw in my earlier comments - namely, that adjusting contrast and brightness on a projector can create a brighter image or lower the black level, but doing so affects the contrast. Adjusting contrast and brightness should not be lumped in with filtering the lens or raising the projector. They are basic projector functions that will determine overall contrast. The HP's impact on black levels, if it is too great, can be tamed simply and inexpensively, but the methods to do so need not affect the projector's basic contrast, and it doesn't (from where I sit, anyway) impact the image quality in any negative way.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Whites will not be crushed, as that means the screen has different gain for different brightness levels.



Well maybe my terminology is incorrect but using the contrast and brightness settings that looked good on a Matte white screen, the white was blown out on this 2.8, to me if the detail is blown out it is crushed.. There are many folks out there (just read the posts) that do not bother to adjust the user controls, they expect the out of box setting to be correct.. Point I was trying to make is, you may need to make some adjustment when using a high gain screen compared to a white wall or a screen with a gain of 1.


----------



## Meret




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/18223407
> 
> 
> Well maybe my terminology is incorrect but using the contrast and brightness settings that looked good on a Matte white screen, the white was blown out on this 2.8, to me if the detail is blown out it is crushed.. There are many folks out there (just read the posts) that do not bother to adjust the user controls, they expect the out of box setting to be correct.. Point I was trying to make is, you may need to make some adjustment when using a high gain screen compared to a white wall or a screen with a gain of 1.



I think I'll respectively disagree







I've been fooling with my calibration for awhile and have been evaluating the differences between the HP and BOC cloth (i.e. near 1 gain) and either you are crushing whites or you are not. Crushing whites is coming from the projector settings, not from the screen. The HP may seem too bright compared to a 1 gain screen but it has no effect on crushing whites. It does increase black level proportionately to how much light is output on a 100% black screen.


I think a common a mistake many make is as you implied, they are boosting contrast to get a brighter image on a 1 gain screen thus crushing whites.


----------



## Alex solomon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/18221085
> 
> 
> I sent the 2.4 screen back and kept the 2.8. My projector has a max contrast spec of 4000:1 with iris closed... Look at the AE4000 spec and tell me what you think I would have done? I can tell you from a physical point of view, that 2.4 is thinner and will probably wrinkle more readily and not clean as well compared to the 2.8. If you calibrate your projector correctly once you get your new screen, you will be thrilled with the image including the black. And you will even like the image with the lights on (assuming you are in the cone of pleasure)!



My PJ is calibrated for the matte screen so that is a problem right there. Da-lite is sending me a bigger 12 x 12 sample. Adding that to the 7 x 7" sample will give me some area to work with. I will try to calibrate the PJ for the HP and go from there. If I still can't decide, I will go with the 2.8 as it is probably be easier to sell in the used market. I am also ping ponging between 115" and 110". Someone has mentioned getting a screen is like a breast implant. You will always wish you ave gone bigger. I sure don't want to have that kind of regret









FYI, viewing distance is 15.5'.


----------



## Alex solomon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/18221226
> 
> 
> I raised my projector up to a high shelf mount (where I had my 720p DLP projectors back in the day), because the black level was too high (110" 2.8 HP - 4000 on "best" settings) when my 4000's lamp was new. With about 900 hours, and the projector still up high, the black level is good. Of course, a ND filter would work, too, but there was no expense involved in raising the projector. I also like having the projector up and out of the way. Of course, I may want to lower it when the lamp ages still more. There's always that option.
> 
> 
> The best solution (if your black level is high) is to place the projector as close to eye level as possible, and add a filter (preferably variable). That way, you can adjust the filter, or remove it, for just the right amount of gain. One great thing about the 2.8 is that it gives you so many options without compromising the image.



I couldn't find any information about the type and size of the ND filter for the AE4000. Do you use an ND filter ? if so, what kind ?


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alex solomon* /forum/post/18224374
> 
> 
> I couldn't find any information about the type and size of the ND filter for the AE4000. Do you use an ND filter ? if so, what kind ?



Sorry, Alex, but I don't use one. There have been posts on AVS from people who've bought or built them, but so far I've just moved the projector up and down to adjust brightness to my liking. I did try once to find one for the 4000, but the photo store I tried didn't have one large enough. My issue was resolved nicely by moving the projector up to a high shelf mount, so I dropped it. I actually like the pj up there and out of the way. The HP maintains its other good qualities, even though I'm not getting as much gain with the pj that high up.


----------



## Fabricator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *alex solomon* /forum/post/18224361
> 
> 
> i am also ping ponging between 115" and 110". Someone has mentioned getting a screen is like a breast implant. You will always wish you ave gone bigger. I sure don't want to have that kind of regret :d
> 
> fyi, viewing distance is 15.5'.




133"


----------



## curt248

at 15 feet with a hp 2.8, I wouldn't want smaller than a 133 inch.


I have a 119 inch at 10 feet and that seems to be the sweet spot.


----------



## robber616




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *curt248* /forum/post/18225306
> 
> 
> at 15 feet with a hp 2.8, I wouldn't want smaller than a 133 inch.
> 
> 
> I have a 119 inch at 10 feet and that seems to be the sweet spot.



i have 126" at 12 feet , still want 133"


----------



## billwgd

For reference, THX recommends a 36 deg viewing angle, so 11.8' viewing distance from a 106" diag 16:9 screen; 13.3' from 119"; and 14.1' from a 126", e.g. see the Viewing Distance Calculator http://myhometheater.homestead.com/v...alculator.html


----------



## Jay Taylor

I have a 133" HP at 11'.

At 15.5' I wouldn't be happy with anything less than 150", but at that size brightness becomes a big factor.


IMHO the THX specs are what some critical viewers think we should be using and way wider screens are for fun! fun! fun! [flame suit on]


----------



## curt248

What would the thx specs be on a movie theater sized screen? How about IMAX? With seating positions 10 to 100 feet away from the screen, I don't think the calculators are used in actual movie theater spaces.


If you go to a movie theater, where do you like to sit? I like the bottom to the bottom 1/3 of the top tier of modern movie theaters. Others sit at the back yet others at the front. The seating distance is more about personal preference.


With high def and blu-ray, you can sit very close to the screen without any visible pixalation. I'd say you could sit as close as 1X (or same distance as the width (not diagonal) of the screen). I think I'm siting at 1.2X at 10ft from my 119 inch diagonal screen (it's about 8 ft wide).


To me it is a waste of the $$ for the screen if you are going to sit farther away. You could just as well buy a smaller screen and sit much closer. Everything is relative with theaters (and everything else). The closer you sit the bigger the screen will appear.


At 10ft from the 119in screen, it seems very much like going to the real theater and sitting at the first row of the top tier of modern stadium seating theater. Farther away would be like moving to farther back rows of the theater. I never like to sit at the back row of a theater so I would never sit 20 feet back from my 119in screen.


You could theoretically sit 5 feet (guessing) from a 55in tv to get the same effect I have at 10ft with my screen.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jay Taylor* /forum/post/18228051
> 
> 
> I have a 133" HP at 11'.
> 
> At 15.5' I wouldn't be happy with anything less than 150", but at that size brightness becomes a big factor.
> 
> 
> IMHO the THX specs are what some critical viewers think we should be using and way wider screens are for fun! fun! fun! [flame suit on]



I agree. 1x sw is great for 2.35 material. A little overwhelming for 16:9 though. But I have a neighbor who loves to sit down front for BSG on BD! She says she's a freak!


----------



## noah katz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/18223066
> 
> 
> Your projector will determine the contrast ratio of the image you see.



Partially; the on-screen CR is determined by the pj, the screen, the room, and the lighting, all of which are independent variables.


----------



## noah katz

Fair enough; I should have said that the brights might *look* crushed, but objectively they're not.


Nor did I mean to say that recalibration might not be requiored to account for our eyes' different response to higher brightness levels.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/18223407
> 
> 
> Well maybe my terminology is incorrect but using the contrast and brightness settings that looked good on a Matte white screen, the white was blown out on this 2.8, to me if the detail is blown out it is crushed.. There are many folks out there (just read the posts) that do not bother to adjust the user controls, they expect the out of box setting to be correct.. Point I was trying to make is, you may need to make some adjustment when using a high gain screen compared to a white wall or a screen with a gain of 1.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/18228930
> 
> 
> Partially; the on-screen CR is determined by the pj, the screen, the room, and the lighting, all of which are independent variables.



I was referring to a projector's native contrast ratio. The wrong room, screen and/or lighting can destroy any projector's on-screen contrast, no? Given ideal lighting and room conditions, the HP isn't going to affect a projector's contrast in any meaningful way, right? And given less than ideal room and lighting conditions, the HP may improve on-screen contrast over other screens (by, for instance, rejecting ambient light coming from the sides of the screen). Or, if the lighting is coming from right behind the projector, the on-screen contrast may be reduced dramatically.


----------



## edpowers




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/18229226
> 
> 
> I was referring to a projector's native contrast ratio. The wrong room, screen and/or lighting can destroy any projector's on-screen contrast, no? Given ideal lighting and room conditions, the HP isn't going to affect a projector's contrast in any meaningful way, right? And given less than ideal room and lighting conditions, the HP may improve on-screen contrast over other screens (by, for instance, rejecting ambient light coming from the sides of the screen). Or, if the lighting is coming from right behind the projector, the on-screen contrast may be reduced dramatically.



+1


In really simple terms, the gain of the HP will raise both black level and brightness, leaving the contrast ratio unchanged.


----------



## noah katz

OK; I wasn't really sure of the context of your statement, so addressed what seemed like a bit of overgeneralization.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/18229226
> 
> 
> I was referring to a projector's native contrast ratio. The wrong room, screen and/or lighting can destroy any projector's on-screen contrast, no? Given ideal lighting and room conditions, the HP isn't going to affect a projector's contrast in any meaningful way, right? And given less than ideal room and lighting conditions, the HP may improve on-screen contrast over other screens (by, for instance, rejecting ambient light coming from the sides of the screen). Or, if the lighting is coming from right behind the projector, the on-screen contrast may be reduced dramatically.


----------



## Fabricator

screw THX. my system SMOKES thx in every way.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fabricator* /forum/post/18231420
> 
> 
> screw THX. my system SMOKES thx in every way.



How do you "smoke" a viewing angle or eye level?


----------



## ms20003

Well I just got my 133" HP screen. So far I think I may be the only person out there that is disappointed. I have a BenQ w6000 projector and the screen when showing any scenes with whites is grainy. Does this happen to anyone else? Is this normal? What could be causing this? I noticed it was grainy on my old screen as well but the new screen has really brought it out. It is only in bright backgrounds (no it wasn't the way it was intended in the movie, I compared it to my LCD). Also I sit 15' feet away from my screen. Any help or thoughts?


Thanks,

P


----------



## billwgd

Did you recalibrate for the 2.8 HP? I had to turn the contrast (white-level) almost all the way down to avoid white crush. Even still I have much more contrast vs. a white wall, and I see *much* more detail. This includes the good and the bad (e.g. artefacts in the original source - perhaps explaining your "white grain").


----------



## edpowers




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *billwgd* /forum/post/18239335
> 
> 
> Did you recalibrate for the 2.8 HP? I had to turn the contrast (white-level) almost all the way down to avoid white crush. Even still I have much more contrast vs. a white wall, and I see *much* more detail. This includes the good and the bad (e.g. artefacts in the original source - perhaps explaining your "white grain").



What you are calling "white crush" is more likely just a problem of having an image that is too bright. You are better off moving the projector lens away from your viewing level to reduce the HP's effective gain or adding an ND filter to reduce brightness. You are losing on/off contrast by lowering the white-level on the projector.


----------



## billwgd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edpowers* /forum/post/18240585
> 
> 
> What you are calling "white crush" is more likely just a problem of having an image that is too bright. You are better off moving the projector lens away from your viewing level to reduce the HP's effective gain or adding an ND filter to reduce brightness. You are losing on/off contrast by lowering the white-level on the projector.



This was just a quick by-eye calibration. Without reducing contrast I was losing detail, e.g. in Ch.8 of Land of the Lost there's a scene where they're standing on a large white crystal which has a matrix of thin grey lines - see attached screen capture (from PC not PJ). Some of these lines disappear if contrast is too high. What's the correct way to correct for that? Are there any free calibration discs for help setting brightness and contrast? Setup is a Sanyo Z5 about a foot above and behind eye level, 12' from 106" Da-Lite 2.8 HP.


----------



## dryeye




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *billwgd* /forum/post/18240824
> 
> 
> This was just a quick by-eye calibration. Without reducing contrast I was losing detail, e.g. in Ch.8 of Land of the Lost there's a scene where they're standing on a large white crystal which has a matrix of thin grey lines - see attached screen capture (from PC not PJ). Some of these lines disappear if contrast is too high. What's the correct way to correct for that? Are there any free calibration discs for help setting brightness and contrast? Setup is a Sanyo Z5 about a foot above and behind eye level, 12' from 106" Da-Lite 2.8 HP.



It's not free but probably is the best calibration disc a do it yourselfer can buy. http://www.spearsandmunsil.com/ 

It's very user friendly too.


----------



## csedaniel




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ms20003* /forum/post/18239176
> 
> 
> Well I just got my 133" HP screen. So far I think I may be the only person out there that is disappointed. I have a BenQ w6000 projector and the screen when showing any scenes with whites is grainy. Does this happen to anyone else? Is this normal? What could be causing this? I noticed it was grainy on my old screen as well but the new screen has really brought it out. It is only in bright backgrounds (no it wasn't the way it was intended in the movie, I compared it to my LCD). Also I sit 15' feet away from my screen. Any help or thoughts?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> P



You are probably seeing mosquito noise. It is probably inherent in the source. Was this bluray, dvd, or broadcast?


The high power is most definetly not the problem. What the high power is doing is allowing you to see artifacts within the image that were always there...just very, very difficult to discern because the image was so dim.


It is much easier to see artifacts on a large bright image than a large dull image. It is also easier to see artifacts on a large bright image than a much smaller bright image (the reason you didnt see it on your lcd). However, if you looked very closely and didnt see it on the lcd and it is not source based, then your pj is the culprit


----------



## ms20003

Ya it was on a blu ray but not apparent when i watch it on my LCD tv. I assume its the projector now the question is how to get it to stop lol. I need a good noise reduction box that is somewhat cheap or sell my w6000 and get a 8500ub if that is better.


Thanks,

P


----------



## ms20003

Does anyone have quite a few waves on there model c HP screen? I know you can't see them when watching the screen but when my projector isnt on they are quite noticable (maybe about 7-12 waves)


----------



## nirvy111




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ms20003* /forum/post/18344368
> 
> 
> Does anyone have quite a few waves on there model c HP screen? I know you can't see them when watching the screen but when my projector isnt on they are quite noticable (maybe about 7-12 waves)



If it's a pull down screen then yeah, the fabric will get wavey, they all do that. You could try tensioning the bottom somehow that might help.


----------



## thrang




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ms20003* /forum/post/18344368
> 
> 
> Does anyone have quite a few waves on there model c HP screen? I know you can't see them when watching the screen but when my projector isnt on they are quite noticable (maybe about 7-12 waves)



Yes, I am on my fifth HP screen - the first four were 119", the last being basically wave-free; the three prior 119's all exhibited some subtle but noticeable horizontal banding.


I sold that screen to go to 133, and this one has some vertical banding


In all instances, I am and was using a fixed frame (Cinema Contour), so I've always felt that this could also occur as part the manufacturing or storage process, or perhaps slight errors in tension alignment of the snaps.


In this last case, it is only really somewhat noticeable during hockey games (which I do watch alot of..







), but not during regular TV or movies, and frankly, I'm tired of the exchange and rebuilding process!


I love everything else about the screen, and still find myself amazed at it's performance in other ways, but most screens I've had have had some waves (I think they are variations in the reflectivity back to the main viewing cone, and they disappear as you move more off axis a bit...)


----------



## Fabricator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ms20003* /forum/post/18344368
> 
> 
> Does anyone have quite a few waves on there model c HP screen? I know you can't see them when watching the screen but when my projector isnt on they are quite noticable (maybe about 7-12 waves)



my 119" C has some smaller waves at the bottom. only noticable when looking for them, with the pj off.


----------



## edpowers




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thrang* /forum/post/18345353
> 
> 
> Yes, I am on my fifth HP screen - the first four were 119", the last being basically wave-free; the three prior 119's all exhibited some subtle but noticeable horizontal banding.
> 
> 
> I sold that screen to go to 133, and this one has some vertical banding
> 
> 
> In all instances, I am and was using a fixed frame (Cinema Contour), so I've always felt that this could also occur as part the manufacturing or storage process, or perhaps slight errors in tension alignment of the snaps.
> 
> 
> In this last case, it is only really somewhat noticeable during hockey games (which I do watch alot of..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ), but not during regular TV or movies, and frankly, I'm tired of the exchange and rebuilding process!
> 
> 
> I love everything else about the screen, and still find myself amazed at it's performance in other ways, but most screens I've had have had some waves (I think they are variations in the reflectivity back to the main viewing cone, and they disappear as you move more off axis a bit...)



I previously owned a Model C Pulldown that had waves (but disappeared when the projector was on). I currently have a 119" Cinema Contour and the material is perfectly tensioned with no waves. If I had a wave on my Cinema Contour I would have immediately returned it ... especially considering how much more expensive they are.


----------



## mariokrt64




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *billwgd* /forum/post/18240824
> 
> 
> This was just a quick by-eye calibration. Without reducing contrast I was losing detail, e.g. in Ch.8 of Land of the Lost there's a scene where they're standing on a large white crystal which has a matrix of thin grey lines - see attached screen capture (from PC not PJ). Some of these lines disappear if contrast is too high. What's the correct way to correct for that? Are there any free calibration discs for help setting brightness and contrast? Setup is a Sanyo Z5 about a foot above and behind eye level, 12' from 106" Da-Lite 2.8 HP.



AVS free calibration discs with calibration patterns:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=948496


----------



## brettmf

Newbie to projectors and screens so forgive me if this is a stupid question but...

I see a lot of good reviews on the High Power but I also see quite a bit of reference to this being designed for viewer level projectors.


Mine will be a ceiling mount and I am debating at this point between the Mitsubishi 3800 or Panasonic PT AE4000.


I like Da Lite products but wondering if High Power is the right choice.


Thanks!


----------



## FLBoy

The HP is a good screen no matter where you put the PJ, but if you need gain, you won't get much with a PJ mounted way up high. Get an extension pole for your PJ mount if you need more gain. Feel free to use my screen gain calculator linked below to see what I mean.


ETA- You won't be able to place the HC3800 lower (without using digital keystone correction), due to its fixed offset and lack of lens shift. OK with the panny, however.


----------



## RickAVManiac

Did the High Power good with room reflection ? I have a light control room but with some color furnitures and floor, so there is some light reflection that goes back to the screen and washout the picture... Is the High Power can help in that kind of situation ?


Thanks,


Eric


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RickAVManiac* /forum/post/18356023
> 
> 
> Did the High Power good with room reflection ? I have a light control room but with some color furnitures and floor, so there is some light reflection that goes back to the screen and washout the picture... Is the High Power can help in that kind of situation ?



Yes. I use the High Power in my living room, which has standard off-white walls and ceiling, and light beige floor tile. My projector is mounted near seated eye level, so I get a bright picture with no noticeable washout from reflected light.


----------



## RickAVManiac




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/18356661
> 
> 
> Yes. I use the High Power in my living room, which has standard off-white walls and ceiling, and light beige floor tile. My projector is mounted near seated eye level, so I get a bright picture with no noticeable washout from reflected light.



If it's true it will be great.


My current setup is a 1.2 gain screen and the washout due to the room reflection is really annoying...


Eric


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RickAVManiac* /forum/post/18360070
> 
> 
> If it's true it will be great.
> 
> 
> My current setup is a 1.2 gain screen and the washout due to the room reflection is really annoying...
> 
> 
> Eric



That's the great thing about the HP. It can make a projector look good when other screens would be completely overwhelmed by the ambient light. I can watch something when my room lights are up full. I almost never have to do that, of course, but it's really pretty amazing to see. I had a Draper screen whose image was unwatchable with a small amount of ambient light.


----------



## nirvy111

Light colored walls isn't necessarily a bad thing especially with the High Power. When I repainted my room dark, top to bottom, the effect created a bit too much contrast between the bright image on the HP screen and the rest of the room, the result was I suffered some eye strain and discomfort. With lighter walls the incresed ambient light tends to balance things out, less contrast between the walls and the image so not such a strain on the eyes. I'll admit though the image did improve quite a bit with the darker room.


----------



## RickAVManiac




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nirvy111* /forum/post/18360883
> 
> 
> Light colored walls isn't necessarily a bad thing especially with the High Power. When I repainted my room dark, top to bottom, the effect created a bit too much contrast between the bright image on the HP screen and the rest of the room, the result was I suffered some eye strain and discomfort. With lighter walls the incresed ambient light tends to balance things out, less contrast between the walls and the image so not such a strain on the eyes. I'll admit though the image did improve quite a bit with the darker room.



It's good to know but why (technically) the High Power is better at room reflection than the classic 1.0 / 1.3 gain screen ?



Eric


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RickAVManiac* /forum/post/18363613
> 
> 
> It's good to know but why (technically) the High Power is better at room reflection than the classic 1.0 / 1.3 gain screen ?
> 
> 
> 
> Eric



It is retroreflective. The light get reflected back to where it came from. So you are sitting in the viewing cone looking at light from the projector being sent back to the projector. reflected light from the wall get sent back to the wall and does not effect the light returning to you all that much.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/18363671
> 
> 
> It is retroreflective. The light get reflected back to where it came from. So you are sitting in the viewing cone looking at light from the projector being sent back to the projector. reflected light from the wall get sent back to the wall and does not effect the light returning to you all that much.



That and the walls are lit less to start with because of the retroreflective nature of the screen.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RickAVManiac* /forum/post/18363613
> 
> 
> It's good to know but why (technically) the High Power is better at room reflection than the classic 1.0 / 1.3 gain screen?



It is because the HP has a much narrower viewing cone than a 1.0 / 1.3 gain screen. This means that the HP will illuminate your walls, ceiling, and floor much less than a 1.0 / 1.3 gain screen will. In addition, any light that is present on your walls, ceiling, and floor that is more than 30 degrees off the viewer's line of sight to the screen will be attenuated by a factor of about 3, relative to the gain of the HP to light coming from a correctly positioned projector (i.e., a projector more nearly aligned with the viewer's line of sight to the screen). Note, however, that the HP will illuminate the wall behind the projector, and is also sensitive to light on that wall, so it is best if that wall is kept as dark as possible.


----------



## nirvy111

I'm not going to repaint my room white or anything just something a bit lighter than the dark blue I choose but keep the rear wall as is or possibly paint it black. It should lighten the room up a bit without effecting the image too much, I hope. I get eye strain pretty easily so it's just something you have try for yourself.


----------



## FLBoy

That should work.


----------



## RickAVManiac




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/18363868
> 
> 
> It is because the HP has a much narrower viewing cone than a 1.0 / 1.3 gain screen. This means that the HP will illuminate your walls, ceiling, and floor much less than a 1.0 / 1.3 gain screen will. In addition, any light that is present on your walls, ceiling, and floor that is more than 30 degrees off the viewer's line of sight to the screen will be attenuated by a factor of about 3, relative to the gain of the HP to light coming from a correctly positioned projector (i.e., a projector more nearly aligned with the viewer's line of sight to the screen). Note, however, that the HP will illuminate the wall behind the projector, and is also sensitive to light on that wall, so it is best if that wall is kept as dark as possible.



Great post.


Thanks,


Eric


----------



## FLBoy

Thank you.


----------



## RickAVManiac

I look at Da-lite web site and it is me or High Power is not available in 2.35:1 for manual pull down and electric screen?



Eric


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RickAVManiac* /forum/post/18391674
> 
> 
> I look at Da-lite web site and it is me or High Power is not available in 2.35:1 for manual pull down and electric screen?



It's my understanding that Da-Lite will make you just about anything you want. Suggest you talk to Jason at A V Science Store.


----------



## RickAVManiac




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/18392025
> 
> 
> It's my understanding that Da-Lite will make you just about anything you want. Suggest you talk to Jason at A V Science Store.



Thanks,


Your right, I found a little software on Da-Lite web site that let me design my screen with all my dimensions and other specs... At the end, the software also give me the quote...



Eric


----------



## Phacoman

I'm having trouble picking a good screen for the epson 8500ub. I keep reading the forums and people seem to advocate the elite screens, the da-lite high power, the silverstar, and the black diamond pretty heavily. I know that a big determinant is room characteristics so I'll tell you all mine.



I have a large finished basement which is shaped like the T shaped tetris piece. I have the theater going into one nook of the T. Its size (the nook) is about 13x20 feet. I plan on having two rows of seats with the first at 12' and the second at 18' on a riser. I plan on having a screen of between 106-120" with the projector ceiling mounted either 13' or 15' back from the fixed frame screen. The pj will be about 7' off the ground. At the present time, I do not have good lighting control. Half of my room has windows which are uncovered but fortunately that side faces east so it only receives direct light in the morning. But, in the afternoon there is significant natural light but not directly shining in. I plan on getting blackout blinds at some point. I plan on using the theater primarily for evening movies but will also certainly host some afternoon football parties. Another bummer is that we have fluorescent lighting down there which will be eventually removed but not in the near future.


Will the High Power be beneficial with this ceiling mounted arrangement? Will the Elite CineWhite be good enough with only 1.1 gain? How about Elite PowerGain? Elite is definitely the one that best fits the budget. Is the black diamond worth the price? Is the Silverstar good for this situation and is it worth the money? So many questions.


From reading the forums, it seems like the Elite CineWhite would be good enough for most of the viewing like night movies, and definitely the most affordable. But, I suspect the punch of the screen may seem washed out for the afternoon football parties.



Do you guys have any thoughts, suggestions, or insights for how I can not break the bank and still get full enjoyment from the epson?



Thanks in advance and sorry for the wordy post!


----------



## Alex solomon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RickAVManiac* /forum/post/18391674
> 
> 
> I look at Da-lite web site and it is me or High Power is not available in 2.35:1 for manual pull down and electric screen?
> 
> 
> 
> Eric




Call Jason here @ AVS. I ordered my 115" 2.35 HP 2.8 gain screen from him.


----------



## Alex solomon

I have used my Da-lite HP 2.8 gain screen in my batcave theater for a couple of weeks now. I am very happy I went ahead with this screen. This is one fantastic screen! While the elevated black level is noticeable in dark material and does affect image quality negatively (poor blacks and poor shadow detail in the very dark scenes only), the overall image quality in other areas is just mind blowing. I will take this trade off any day of the week. This screen shows every detail and as such, I see mosquito/video noise in most SD DVDs and some HD material. I am going to buy a Denon DVP-602CI video possessor to help reduce/eliminate the noises. Another negative is that I find myself marveling at the picture instead of concentrating on the movie.







But that is welcome distraction!!!


----------



## airscapes

Alex, on the black issue.. now that you have been enjoying this screen for a while and then read other peoples posts about black level concerns, do you (personalty speaking of course) now find these concerns silly when thinking about the over all PQ or do you feel that they are justified?

Or in another way, would you give up the other positive aspects of the image for a true fade to black?


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alex solomon* /forum/post/18421474
> 
> 
> While the elevated black level is noticeable in dark material and does affect image quality negatively (poor blacks and poor shadow detail in the very dark scenes only)



Remember that the elevated black level would be the same if you simply had a brighter projector. Would a brighter projector be a detriment? If so, maybe put an ND filter on it to dim it back down and then you'll have a way to maintain brightness when the bulb ages. It's a good thing!


----------



## Alex solomon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/18421562
> 
> 
> Or in another way, would you give up the other positive aspects of the image for a true fade to black?



Maybe you missed it in my post but I did say..."I will take this trade off any day of the week."


I also would like to say thank you for all who have helped in choosing this screen, especially you airscapes.


----------



## Alex solomon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/18421974
> 
> 
> Remember that the elevated black level would be the same if you simply had a brighter projector. Would a brighter projector be a detriment? If so, maybe put an ND filter on it to dim it back down and then you'll have a way to maintain brightness when the bulb ages. It's a good thing!



I did explore the ND filter but found the lens thread on the AE4000 is just for aesthetic. Can't attach any filter to it. My Sharp z12000 needs all the brightness I could give it when the Iris set to high contrast mode.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alex solomon* /forum/post/18422601
> 
> 
> Maybe you missed it in my post but I did say..."I will take this trade off any day of the week."
> 
> 
> I also would like to say thank you for all who have helped in choosing this screen, especially you airscapes.



Na, I saw it.. Was just hoping you would elaborate on the insignificance for future prospective owners. It seems to be something that really bothers people and I personally don't get it. Maybe it is because my screen is so small... I don't have a late model projector with supper high contrast ratio.. Anyway I am glad I was helpful and that I didn't steer you wrong!


----------



## vidger

Hi guys,


I 've been reading almost all the pages of this thread, and as far as I'm concerned , this has done a fantastic job in convincing me of the benefits of a high gain retro-reflexive screen. I just have a question regarding my situation that I think did not get an straight answer in this topic.


my setup is the following: PJ: JVC RS1, about 15feet from the screen (I plan on buying a perm-wall hdtv 133" diagonal) The projector is about 5feet high, the heads of the viewers will be at about 3.5 feet high.


My question is not about the height of the projector, it is roughly in the same plane as the eyes of the viewers, but about the size of the screen. Considering that I like big picture, i like to sit close to the screen to enjoy every details, the viewers eyes (only two seats, on axis) would be at roughly 13feet away from the screen.Is it a problem?, Isn't it too close to cause hotspotting, or uniformity issues, since the angle is quite large (40degrees)


Thanks in advance for your responses.


Regards from Belgium


----------



## FLBoy

Vidger- Hot spotting is generally not a problem with the HP screen. If you would like to see some quantitative answers, just use my All Screen Gain Calculator (linked below) and try a few different seating arrangements and projector positions.


In my own HT, I prefer two seats on either side of a small table, with the projector slightly behind the viewers at a height equal to seated eye level. The projector shoots over the table and between the two main viewing positions. The viewers can communicate visually with one another, and the table makes a convenient spot for popcorn and drinks.


When you use my calculator, don't be shocked that the numbers will show some amount of gain non-uniformity, even with the HP. Humans generally won't notice a gradual brightness variation that is less than 2:1 unless they use a test instrument. Now if you REALLY want to see some horrible gain non-uniformity, put parameters for a high-gain *angular* reflective screen into the calculator!


----------



## Jay Taylor

Vidger, our living room/home theater is optimized for two seats, 11 feet from a 133" 16:9 HP screen with a gain of 2.8. The picture is beautiful and we notice no hot spotting. We are using a Panasonic PT-AE4000U projector.


We love the immersion of sitting 11 feet away from this sized screen and wouldn't change anything at this time.


----------



## vidger

Thank you guys,

Results given by the Excel sheet are really good, I think I found the ultimate screen for my viewing conditions!!


Thanks again


Regards


----------



## bucknuts07

Sorry for the question, I dont have excel on my computer and wasnt able to get the calculator to work. My basement has 7ft ceilings. I recently bought a epson 8500ub, and a grandview fixed frame 112". My projector mount does have a pole extension that would probably put the projector at 66" or so. My basement is only 15ft wide, and I sit about 12 ft from the screen. I like the image the projector is displaying on my grandview screen 1.0 gain, but I wonder if high power would work in my enviroment ?


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bucknuts07* /forum/post/18470842
> 
> 
> I wonder if high power would work in my enviroment ?



It should work just fine.


BTW, the calc will run in the spreadsheet portion of Open Office, which is a free download. (Just google Open Office.)


----------



## lpw

If I decide to get an electric screen with HP, do I need to get it tab tensioned? I've been reading here that because the HP is so thick, waves/ripples aren't a problem which is why some people get a manual pull down with it. Therefore, is it ok to get a non-tensioned electric screen with HP (2.8 gain version)?


The cost difference from non-tensioned to tension is quite large whereas the jump from manual to non-tensioned electric is relatively small.


Thanks!


----------



## RodK

You can NOT get the HP tensioned. The HP works great non tensioned, it does not show any waves.



P.S. seeing as you are in Canada, I would recommend HD.ca for your screen. They were great to deal with and had excellent pricing. My first screen had a defect and they promptly ordered me a replacement that is now good.


----------



## lpw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RodK* /forum/post/18483833
> 
> 
> You can NOT get the HP tensioned. The HP works great non tensioned, it does not show any waves.
> 
> 
> 
> P.S. seeing as you are in Canada, I would recommend HD.ca for your screen. They were great to deal with and had excellent pricing. My first screen had a defect and they promptly ordered me a replacement that is now good.



Thanks for the quick response - that's good to know! Did you get a manual pull down (Model B or C?) or an electric one?


----------



## Joseph Clark

The most recent Widescreen Review has an interview with JVC execs about 3D. Apparently, they will be introducing a 3D front projector that uses active shutter glasses. The HP 2.8 screen should be a perfect companion for such a pj. Maybe even this year, but more likely 2011 before it ships.


----------



## RodK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lpw* /forum/post/18483959
> 
> 
> Thanks for the quick response - that's good to know! Did you get a manual pull down (Model B or C?) or an electric one?



I got a 110" model C 2.8 with a black case and I am VERY happy with it. Not as hard to roll up and down as it would have been to wire in an electric screen. Definitely not as cool, but the picture is exactly the same


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/18484053
> 
> 
> The most recent Widescreen Review has an interview with JVC execs about 3D. Apparently, they will be introducing a 3D front projector that uses active shutter glasses. The HP 2.8 screen should be a perfect companion for such a pj. Maybe even this year, but more likely 2011 before it ships.



UGh! Unfortunately the glasses are the other reason(most everyone just bought HDTV's in the US in the last few years) why 3D will not be mainstream. People at home are really not going to be into wearing the glasses for extended periods of time.


As of yet little or no AVSer's are reporting in having watched any 3D channels, the Isles/Ranger game that was on a week or so ago...if the early tech adopters aren't touching it yet or much at all, it says a lot.


----------



## Alex solomon

I have been enjoying my HP screen for sometime now and I have never retracted the screen back to it's case, not even once. I just let it hang down all the time. Will this cause wave to develop over the long term or is a wave something I should never worry with HP screen ?


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18486331
> 
> 
> UGh! Unfortunately the glasses are the other reason(most everyone just bought HDTV's in the US in the last few years) why 3D will not be mainstream. People at home are really not going to be into wearing the glasses for extended periods of time.
> 
> 
> As of yet little or no AVSer's are reporting in having watched any 3D channels, the Isles/Ranger game that was on a week or so ago...if the early tech adopters aren't touching it yet or much at all, it says a lot.



Take a look over in the new 3D Central section to discover some AVS members who are very excited about 3D - despite the fact that there are virtually no sources of 3D available yet (and not even one 3D Blu-ray disc for purchase, anywhere) and just a tiny number of sets.


----------



## jostenmeat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alex solomon* /forum/post/18486571
> 
> 
> I have been enjoying my HP screen for sometime now and I have never retracted the screen back to it's case, not even once. I just let it hang down all the time. Will this cause wave to develop over the long term or is a wave something I should never worry with HP screen ?



I don't think it matters if you retract or leave it down, you will develop waves, period. It's just a matter of how discernible the waving may become to you or other viewers.


----------



## sb1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alex solomon* /forum/post/18486571
> 
> 
> I have been enjoying my HP screen for sometime now and I have never retracted the screen back to it's case, not even once. I just let it hang down all the time. Will this cause wave to develop over the long term or is a wave something I should never worry with HP screen ?



I've had my HP for a couple of years now, and any waves that form aren't going to be noticeable once the image is on it (in my experience).


One thing that IS noticeable - accidentally creasing an area in the middle of the screen while you're trying to hang it and drop it. I was hanging just the material for a reference point before building my frame, so the fabric was unsupported. The "point" of the crease (where it started) will leave a very ugly spot that is highly visible with a light colored image on the screen.


----------



## Tryg

That's why they don't like selling material only







...and price it usually more than just a manual pull down


----------



## sb1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/18490170
> 
> 
> That's why they don't like selling material only
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and price it usually more than just a manual pull down



Actually, Tryg, I did buy the pull down in a stock 16:9 model, and cut my 2.35:1 screen out of that and built my own frame. I was doing a "quick let's check it out" test before I had the frame done and it bit me in the ass.


But, you do have a great point. The material is very fragile if great care isn't taken.


----------



## badgerpilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sb1* /forum/post/18490481
> 
> 
> Actually, Tryg, I did buy the pull down in a stock 16:9 model, and cut my 2.35:1 screen out of that and built my own frame. I was doing a "quick let's check it out" test before I had the frame done and it bit me in the ass.
> 
> 
> But, you do have a great point. The material is very fragile if great care isn't taken.



Good to know.


----------



## hammester

I am thinking about picking this screen up but had a couple of questions. I am thinking of getting a 120" high power model b screen. My project is mounted approx. 7 feet high and 15 feet away. I will be sitting about 16feet away from the screen. Directly behind me and the projector are 3 windows. The windows have blinds and curtains but during the day light will still shine in. How will the windows effect the screen? Will the high power screen work well being ceiling mounted and me siting 16 feet away? Thank alot.


----------



## FLBoy

ham- In a word, no. PJ ceiling mounted bad. Light behind the viewer bad.


Hang the screen at the window end of the room and mount the pj near seated eye level if you want great results with the HP screen.


----------



## Jay Taylor

Hammester, I don't think you'll be happy with any projector or screen combination in that location until you install blackout curtains or something similar over the windows.


I installed blackout curtains next to the window glass behind the more attractive living room/home theater curtains. I ordered them from blackoutcurtains.com and installed them myself.


Then I had blackout shades installed by a pro to separate our living room/home theater from the bright skylights in the entranceway and dining room. The result is that we can make our theater a bat cave in the middle of the day.


----------



## noah katz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/18497388
> 
> 
> ham- In a word, no. PJ ceiling mounted bad.



I ran his numbers (guessed at screen and seat heights) and got 1.6 gain; seems fine to me if he can fix the window problem.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/18498076
> 
> 
> I ran his numbers (guessed at screen and seat heights) and got 1.6 gain; seems fine to me if he can fix the window problem.



Yeah, but why drink beer when you could be drinking Champagne?


----------



## sb1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/18498475
> 
> 
> Yeah, but why drink beer when you could be drinking Champagne?



Because Beer is a man's beverage.


----------



## noah katz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/18498475
> 
> 
> Yeah, but why drink beer when you could be drinking Champagne?



What would that be?


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/18500445
> 
> 
> What would that be?



Nectar of the gods. Known only to those who put their projectors in the right place.


----------



## noah katz

ah, not what you drink but where you drink it


----------



## Lebronze

My Da-Lite Hi Power 119" is set to be delivered tomorrow. I bought the perm-wall and plan to make a velvet border. I got tired of the waves in my pulldown screen.


Projector is going to be practically as close to eye level as possible (obviously raised so that the top of your head isnt visible). Using an Epson 6500 I'm hoping the colors really pop, because on my current 1.0 gain screen everything looks flat and dull.


Thanks for all of the reviews and comments, I spent wayyyyyy too long reading this thread.


----------



## badgerpilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lebronze* /forum/post/18502188
> 
> 
> My Da-Lite Hi Power 119" is set to be delivered tomorrow. I bought the perm-wall and plan to make a velvet border. I got tired of the waves in my pulldown screen.
> 
> 
> Projector is going to be practically as close to eye level as possible (obviously raised so that the top of your head isnt visible). Using an Epson 6500 I'm hoping the colors really pop, because on my current 1.0 gain screen everything looks flat and dull.
> 
> 
> Thanks for all of the reviews and comments, I spent wayyyyyy too long reading this thread.



Congrats! My Epson 8100 pops on my 106" HP! It looks like a giant plasma. I don't think that you will be disappointed.


----------



## sb1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *badgerpilot* /forum/post/18502212
> 
> 
> Congrats! My Epson 8100 pops on my 106" HP!



I'm seriously considering that projector as a hold over until 3D gets here. My old 720p Panny needs a new bulb, but that Epson is so cheap I think it would just be best to grab one. I've just never really cared that much about the video side, as I've always been an audio guy. That paradigm is now shifting, though.


----------



## badgerpilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sb1* /forum/post/18502912
> 
> 
> I'm seriously considering that projector as a hold over until 3D gets here. My old 720p Panny needs a new bulb, but that Epson is so cheap I think it would just be best to grab one. I've just never really cared that much about the video side, as I've always been an audio guy. That paradigm is now shifting, though.



It's tough to beat for the price. Got mine last fall on the BB deal. Still can't believe how cheap it was







I figure that I'll keep it for about 2 years and then see what's out there for the same price. I really couldn't see spending a lot since the technology is advancing so quickly


----------



## Joseph Clark

Didn't Best Buy have the Epson 8100 for $1,000 for a week or so when it was first introduced? Ridiculous.


----------



## lpw

I've been browsing through the Da-Lite website on the different models for the electric screens and I'm more confused than before about what electric screen I should be getting. What do most of you use? I have my basement ceiling completely open right now, so I could do a ceiling recessed screen. Or I could just use a ceiling mounted one. But I'm confused between all the different models - Contour, Cosmopolitan, Designer Contour, Designer Cinema, etc., etc. Why so many models? I'm thoroughly confused - please help! Thanks!


----------



## hrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lpw* /forum/post/18509461
> 
> 
> I've been browsing through the Da-Lite website on the different models for the electric screens and I'm more confused than before about what electric screen I should be getting. What do most of you use? I have my basement ceiling completely open right now, so I could do a ceiling recessed screen. Or I could just use a ceiling mounted one. But I'm confused between all the different models - Contour, Cosmopolitan, Designer Contour, Designer Cinema, etc., etc. Why so many models? I'm thoroughly confused - please help! Thanks!



The Contour Electrol seems to be popular here. I've read posts in the forum saying the Contour Electrol is worth the extra money over the Cosmopolitan Electrol. The Designer Contour Electrol and Designer Cinema are both listed as available only up to 106" diagonal in HDTV format, which might be smaller than you are wanting. Forget all the ones that say tensioned, as the High Power does not come in the tensioned lines.


----------



## Lebronze

Installed my High Power last night, and wow. Alot brighter than I expected when sitting in the sweet spot. Honestly I feel like I bought a new projector it looks so good.


Only problem is that I have two seats off to the side and it basically looks like a 1.0 gain screen from there. Oh well, a small price to pay for what I should have bought over 2 years ago!


----------



## airscapes

There is a reason the captain sits in "His" chair







Wow, that is bright


----------



## Murilo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/18497388
> 
> 
> ham- In a word, no. PJ ceiling mounted bad. Light behind the viewer bad.
> 
> 
> Hang the screen at the window end of the room and mount the pj near seated eye level if you want great results with the HP screen.



I have mine ceiling mounted so do many others. But you need a mount with large drop to get the effect of the highpower. Im sitting 2 inches below the lens. Getting much further apart between the lens and eye level, the gain really drops off. I only notice a very small drop off in brightness sitting compared to standing (when im under the projector) and that small dip in brightness was welcomed by me, it hid noise and artifacts well.


According to the gain calculator im getting 2.2 gain. It really feels more like 3.0 though.


Honestly i would not want it any brighter.


My projector puts out about 600 lumens. And my screen is only 96. I closed the manual iris almost completely because i found the high power to bright.


I also found sitting to close to eye level with the lens, my projector also showed video noise, dlp projectors are prone to video noise, but artifacts were more noticeable when i have the projector near eye level, it was just to much gain for me and noise became to noticeable, i like it much better raised a bit and its still really bright.


Depending on how big your screen is or how bright your projector is i have seen people switch to a ceiling mount or raise their projector higher with the highpower since it is that bright. For me i love a bright picture, I have a pansonic plasma that puts out over 56 ftl in custom mode, thats about 3 to 4 times what most projectors put out. But i still find with my setup i would not want my projector any closer to eye level or any more gain.


Even now my eyes and my guests eyes hurt sometime. We watched men who stare at goats recently and during some bright scenes it was overwhelming even yet and hurt our eyes.


So imo unless you have a really big screen, or a low light output projector you dont want to mount it to close to eye level. I would say a little over 1inch to 2inch between your eye level and the lens is where i found the sweet spot.


----------



## sb1

Had quite a few drinks Wednesday night and decided to build a new frame for my HP. Let's just say by the end of the project (and the bottle I had) there were some waves on the screen. It wasn't too bad, considering. I had forgotten just how hard it is to put raw HP material with no snaps or anything onto a frame and get it straight. All in all, it's workable. Stapling the velvet to the wooden frame was a bit tedious, but building a new frame is always fun after drinking and deciding to get started at 10:00 on a week night. I believe this was the fourth frame I've built, and by far the quickest and laziest. The first time I tried to frame the HP material I finally gave up on it after not being able to get the staples in the right place to prevent the wavy screen....even though you really can't see the waves when the image is projected. Fun time, but a rough morning the next day. Gotta get started on these things earlier in the day.


----------



## Lebronze




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sb1* /forum/post/18529231
> 
> 
> Had quite a few drinks Wednesday night and decided to build a new frame for my HP. Let's just say by the end of the project (and the bottle I had) there were some waves on the screen. It wasn't too bad, considering. I had forgotten just how hard it is to put raw HP material with no snaps or anything onto a frame and get it straight. All in all, it's workable. Stapling the velvet to the wooden frame was a bit tedious, but building a new frame is always fun after drinking and deciding to get started at 10:00 on a week night. I believe this was the fourth frame I've built, and by far the quickest and laziest. The first time I tried to frame the HP material I finally gave up on it after not being able to get the staples in the right place to prevent the wavy screen....even though you really can't see the waves when the image is projected. Fun time, but a rough morning the next day. Gotta get started on these things earlier in the day.



Ever hear of the weekend?







lol


----------



## sb1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lebronze* /forum/post/18530187
> 
> 
> Ever hear of the weekend?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol



Ha! Amazing what a little alcohol does to your decision making process.


----------



## Alex solomon

I have had my HP screen for a couple of months now and I am very happy with it. I am now ready to buy a second, this time a 16 x 9 HP screen. Many thanks again to all who patiently anwsered my annoying repetitive questions.


----------



## ragman78

I am thinking of teaming the HP with the HD20. How many people here are using the HP screen with DLP projectors? From the research i have done it seems better suited to LCD. I am looking at a 133" screen 15.5' away, which would put the projector a little over 10" above the screen, which seems far from the optimal level for retroreflectiveness. Would i be better off with a different screen? The viewing will be done with full light control for movie watching at night but there are some side windows which face east that i would like to be able to leave open a bit so its not pitch black for sports viewing.


----------



## edpowers




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ragman78* /forum/post/18558108
> 
> 
> I am thinking of teaming the HP with the HD20. How many people here are using the HP screen with DLP projectors? From the research i have done it seems better suited to LCD. I am looking at a 133" screen 15.5' away, which would put the projector a little over 10" above the screen, which seems far from the optimal level for retroreflectiveness. Would i be better off with a different screen? The viewing will be done with full light control for movie watching at night but there are some side windows which face east that i would like to be able to leave open a bit so its not pitch black for sports viewing.



I don't think its better suited to LCD, I think its better suited to projectors with vertical lens shift capabilities which, in the lower price categories, tend to be LCDs. If you plan on using a manual pull down and don't want to spend money on a tab tension system, I'd go with the HP regardless of whether you get a big gain from your seating position. The HP hides wrinkles and waves better than any other material that I know of. Use FLBoy's calculator to figure out your gain.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ragman78* /forum/post/18558108
> 
> 
> I am thinking of teaming the HP with the HD20. Would i be better off with a different screen?



Not necessarily, but you sure as heck would be better off with a different projector. The fixed vertical offset of the HD20 will reduce the gain of the HP to a puny level (about 1.3, depending on your exact setup). Have you considered the ViewSonic Pro8100? Its street price is not much more than that of the HD20, and it has vertical and horizontal lens shift. There probably are others, but that one came to mind first.


----------



## airscapes

Not sure what your setup is.. you said ceiling mounted but if you currently don't have something ceiling mounted and a table mount is possible, you would be good to go with the HP and that projector.. I know the ceiling mount is much safer and out of the way..


----------



## ragman78

Unfortunately ceiling mounting is the only option for me. When i use projector central's projector calculator pro at 15.6' and plug the viewsonic in, at only 126", i want 133", it says i can only get 9 FL. Similarly with the Panasonic AE4000 at 133" i am only going to get 13FL. The HD20 meanwhile will throw 133" with 15FL. So would the gain of of the HP make up for the lack of FL of these other 2 projectors on such a large screen?


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ragman78* /forum/post/18563344
> 
> 
> So would the gain of of the HP make up for the lack of FL of these other 2 projectors on such a large screen?



It would if you use an extension pole to lower the projector to a height closer to seated eye level. The HP is easily capable of a gain in excess of 2.0 when the viewer's eyes are close to the projector lens. With the Panny that would give you 13 x 2 = 26 FL, which is a good place to start, given that projection lamps dim as they age.


----------



## RobertR

Years ago, I had my CRT projector floor mounted, and was very happy with my 80" wide high power screen. Bright, razor sharp picture with no hot spotting. When I built my home theater, I put the projector on the ceiling, and accepted the idea that I couldn't take advantage of the High Power's gain. I used a piece of Wilsonart laminate, which had gotten a lot of praise in this forum. It was cheap, so I decided why not? Well, the picture was "nice", but it never really popped, and there was noticeable hotspotting, which began to bug me more and more. I finally decided to see if the High Power would make a big difference. I taped a sample to my Wilsonart screen, and could see that it was _noticeably_ brighter, even if I wasn't getting the full advantage of the gain. I could also see that mounting the High power wouldn't cause focus or color shift problems. I went ahead and took the plunge. I bought a Model C screen, and cut it to fit my home-built steel frame. I attached the material to the frame with small neodymium disc magnets, which have tremendous gripping power, and allow me to get a nice, flat surface.


My reaction? WOW! It makes a HUGE difference! Even watching from the first row, which has the greatest vertical angle from the projector, the brightness level is MUCH better with the High Power. The hotspotting is GONE. Colors are wonderfully vivid, and there's a perceived increase in sharpness as well. After reading all the concerns about increased black level, I'm pleased to see that it isn't a concern. My projector has a DEEP black level (you cannot see your hand in front of your face during an all-black scene), and it doesn't appear elevated at all (I put up an all-black test pattern to verify this). The result is a big increase in contrast ratio. The brightness from the back row (which puts eye level about 8 inches below the projector) is ENORMOUS. I'm ecstatic.


I'm really glad I read this thread and made the jump. I was careful to specify the 2.8 material when ordering.


----------



## Warbie

After much waiting and planning my 119" screen arrived and i'm mostly happy with the results. My only real gripe - which after reading this thread was one I didn't expect - is visible screen surface. The image is wonderfully crisp and vibrant, but any scene with a bright, plain portion to the image has a sparkly sheen. At first I was worried there were some odd patches on the material, but after displaying an all white image the sheen is visible over the entire surface. It's not as obvious as the sheen you see on something like studiotek 130, but it is something I notice 5-10 times in each movie and it does detract from the experience. Other than this the screen delvers as promised.


Do you guys really not seen the sheen?


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Warbie* /forum/post/18636117
> 
> 
> After much waiting and planning my 119" screen arrived and i'm mostly happy with the results. My only real gripe - which after reading this thread was one I didn't expect - is visible screen surface. The image is wonderfully crisp and vibrant, but any scene with a bright, plain portion to the image has a sparkly sheen. At first I was worried there were some odd patches on the material, but after displaying an all white image the sheen is visible over the entire surface. It's not as obvious as the sheen you see on something like studiotek 130, but it is something I notice 5-10 times in each movie and it does detract from the experience. Other than this the screen delvers as promised.
> 
> 
> Do you guys really not seen the sheen?



No, there's no sheen with my 2.8 gain screen. That's what sold me on it.


Which HP did you get - the old or new surface?


----------



## RobertR

No sheen here either. It's essentially "invisible".


----------



## Warbie

It's the old material, I think. Putting an old sample over the material shows no difference - if anything the newer screen is brighter.


Is it possible I got a bad batch?







In every other regard the screen acts as people have described in this thread and produces a very good image. It's also possibe i'm being overly critical and nitpicking a little - an old 1.3 gain angular reflective screen has more of a sheen. With the DaLite it's actually more of a very slight shimmer - but there nonetheless.


----------



## airscapes

You may have gotten the wrong fabric. There is NO sheen on either 2.4 or 2.8 I have a real small screen compared to the rest of you and a rather close throw and there is NO sheen, sparkle or texture. I would call my dealer and get them to replace the screen.


----------



## Warbie

The fabric is retro reflective so, unless they do another white retro reflective material, this is a high power of some flavour. I will contact Dalite, but seeing as I live in the UK and had to import the screen the damage is done cost wise.


Can someone try this for me please: on both the sample I have and on the full screen when I very lightly - almost not touchng - rub my fingesr along the material it is very slightly textured. Like lose, spread out specs of ultra, ultra fine sand. Running my finger over it 'normally' feels perfectly smooth.


I'll try and get some pictures up of the sheen - althugh my camera is poor and my photography skills even poorer!


----------



## airscapes

Check the pictures I posted of the 2 fabrics these may help.

The thead
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1213577 

This is a link a the end of my first post with the photos
http://mysite.verizon.net/airscapes/dalitehp.html


----------



## Warbie

Thanks for that. I've had my nose against the monitor looking at your pics and up against the screen and tbh the only thing i'm succeeding in is looking rather silly







I'm still not sure what the material I have is.


The sample I have was sent from someone in the UK who said it was the older 2.8 material - the sample is exactly the same as the screen material btw - but there's a chance they could have been mistaken as they recieved it 3 or 4 months ago. Would any of you guys on the other side of the pond mind if I sent you my sample to compare? It's difficult to get a comparison here as it's virtually impossble to source HP screens in the UK (importing cost more than the screen







).


----------



## FLBoy

No sheen here. I use a seated-eye-level projector mount, and my (2.8) HP is transparent. Are you by any chance using a high projector mount? The only reports I remember reading in which the user was complaining of being able to see the screen were with a high mount.


----------



## Warbie

This is with my head about 20" under the pj.


----------



## Joseph Clark

Since I switched to a brighter projector, I moved it up to a high mounting position, near the ceiling. Still no sheen. The gain decreased, of course, but it's still just as "transparent."


----------



## nirvy111

I do see a sheen and or screen texture on my High Power when it's viewed at full gain but it's slight and really only visible on solid white objects. Either the screen is damaged in some way, like some of the glass beads have dislodged making the light reflection uneven and therefore screen surface visible or that it's just charactorisitic of the High Power fabric. I've always assumed it was inherent in the fabric. I've just purchased another larger HP screen so I will be interested to see if the effect is visible on that one.


The HP screen I have now is the 2.8 gain version I've had for 18months and I'm hoping the new one will be aswell.


By the way the fabric should feel perfectly smooth when you run your finger along it. I had a sample piece that was wrecked and the surface felt like very fine sand, I'm guessing that's unstuck glass beads moving around. If the screen feels like that than it's definately damaged.


----------



## Warbie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nirvy111* /forum/post/18639787
> 
> 
> I do see a sheen and or screen texture on my High Power when it's viewed at full gain but it's slight and really only visible on solid white objects.



I did some playing around last night and experienced the same thing. At lower gain the shimmer vanishes (and then the few wrinkles on the screen become visible), at full gain the waves vanish and the slight shimmer comes back. It's also only visible on solid white (or bright) objects.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nirvy111* /forum/post/18639787
> 
> 
> Either the screen is damaged in some way, like some of the glass beads have dislodged making the light reflection uneven and therefore screen surface visible or that it's just charactorisitic of the High Power fabric. I've always assumed it was inherent in the fabric. I've just purchased another larger HP screen so I will be interested to see if the effect is visible on that one.



I'd be interested to know too. If this sheen was the result of a faulty or damaged screen i'd order another in a heart beat, but i'm not entirely convinced it is. Regardless it's the best material/screen i've had in my HC so far.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nirvy111* /forum/post/18639787
> 
> 
> By the way the fabric should feel perfectly smooth when you run your finger along it. I had a sample piece that was wrecked and the surface felt like very fine sand, I'm guessing that's unstuck glass beads moving around. If the screen feels like that than it's definately damaged.



It's my sample that feels like this. After checking last night the screen surface is smooth to the touch. However, they both have the shimmer.


----------



## drapp1952




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Warbie* /forum/post/18640382
> 
> 
> If this sheen was the result of a faulty or damaged screen i'd order another in a heart beat, but i'm not entirely convinced it is. Regardless it's the best material/screen i've had in my HC so far.



I've ordered 2.8 three times (long stories as to how that happened) and all have had sheen. My present HP is perhaps three years old. Frankly, I haven't noticed the sheen for some time due likely to a combination of adaptation and bulb dimming; I think I noticed it more when my bulb(s) were younger and light output from my JVC RS1 brighter. Bottom line: the gain with this screen far outweighs the sheen, at least for my 116" X 65" image which wouldn't be viewable with a lower gain screen and any bulb older than 300 hours or so.


----------



## hotshu

Are there any labelings or serial numbers on a high power screen or case, so that you can confirm it is indeed the high power fabric?


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hotshu* /forum/post/18673231
> 
> 
> Are there any labelings or serial numbers on a high power screen or case, so that you can confirm it is indeed the high power fabric?



An easy way to tell is with a flashlight. Have someone (or some thing) hold the flashlight, aiming it at the center of the screen. The light on the screen should be noticeably brighter when you stand close to the flashlight compared to when you walk away from it to one side or the other. Now pick up the flashlight and take it with you as you again walk to one side. The brightness should change very little. If the screen behaves as I have described, it is retroreflective. If it is a new Da-lite screen, it is the High Power.


----------



## RobertR




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hotshu* /forum/post/18673231
> 
> 
> Are there any labelings or serial numbers on a high power screen or case, so that you can confirm it is indeed the high power fabric?



My case had "2.8" written on it.


----------



## sb1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hotshu* /forum/post/18673231
> 
> 
> Are there any labelings or serial numbers on a high power screen or case, so that you can confirm it is indeed the high power fabric?



The only way to tell is to count each individual bead on the entire screen. If you get over 5 million then you have an HP. Sorry, this may take some time.


----------



## Daman S

Hello! First of all thanks for such an informative thread to all who have been contributing here, reading all this data has convinced me to spring for a new screen in my setup.


I'm planning to get a CIH 120" wide HP one for my setup which would be a great upgrade from the 92" diagonal i have right now. I have written to Jason here at avs and am waiting for his response.


I do want a fixed frame version and am wondering if this unit i see in b&h ( http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...on_Screen.html ) is the correct high power screen or i might be missing out something since i read somewhere on the thread that the high power screens do not come in fixed frame configurations?


Also wondering if i should spring for a 2.4 vs 2.35.. i have a Sony VPL-VW 40 btw. It's ceiling mounted currently at about 7 ft, but ill fabricate an arm for it that should drop it down to a foot or two about my seated position.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daman S* /forum/post/18692271
> 
> 
> I do want a fixed frame version and am wondering if this unit i see in b&h ( http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...on_Screen.html ) is the correct high power screen or i might be missing out something since i read somewhere on the thread that the high power screens do not come in fixed frame configurations?
> 
> 
> Also wondering if i should spring for a 2.4 vs 2.35.



The HP is most definitely available in fixed frame. Here's a link. Da-Lite will make any aspect ratio you want. There may be a small extra charge if you want something nonstandard. Jason is your best bet. If he doesn't see your email soon, you may have better luck phoning him at 877-823-4452 ext 102.


----------



## Daman S




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/18692411
> 
> 
> The HP is most definitely available in fixed frame. Here's a link. Da-Lite will make any aspect ratio you want. There may be a small extra charge if you want something nonstandard. Jason is your best bet. If he doesn't see your email soon, you may have better luck phoning him at 877-823-4452 ext 102.



Thanks a lot! That cleared up some of the confusion for me as i saw a lot of comments from people who mentioned they were noticing waves in their drop down screens.


Jason just replied back with a quote as well


----------



## brentg1978

Hey, I've been reading the forum for a couple of weeks now, and based on what everyone is saying I'm looking at getting either the 8100 or the 8500UB. I'm going to be able to control ambient lighting for the most part when watching movies, but I want to be able to allow a little ambient lighting in when I'm watching football games. What type of screen would you guys recommend for this application? I've been looking at the Elite EZFrame, Focupix, and Tribal Screens. Can I use a white screen, or will I need a gray screen to accomdate the amibient lighting? Any insight you guys can provide would be awesome! Thanks


----------



## RodK

Seeing as you are posting in the DaLite hi power thread,..... um...., I will suggest the high power.







. Seriously though , I love my high power and it works great with some ambient light. The Epsons can be bright, but are dimmer than my JVC in best mode so the high power would help here as well. I am not a fan of gray screens.


P.S. I got the 2.8 high power screen. If you need a retractable screen, the high power is great here as well as it does not show any waves that may develop.


----------



## curt248

I'd say, if you can swing it, get the da lite high power (hp) 2.8 and the 8500ub. I researched intensely for a few months before pulling the trigger. I debated with myself a lot on whether the HP would be too dark on the seats closest to the side walls. It really turned out to be a non issue. I just looked last night at about a 40 degree angle and everything looked fantastic. Not only was it watchable, it looked great. This is because at these extreme angles the high power screen still has close to 1.0 gain. If you check the gain charts most screens, especially those that start off as 1.4 gain or less end up at about 1.0 at moderate viewing angles. The big pluses are that at moderate viewing angles the high power still has gain of ~1.8 or more. That means that the worst seat in the house has more gain than the best seat on other screens.


The main problem with projectors their brightness abililty. Nothing looks worse than a faded out projector image (think commercial movie theater). The best way to look for what is important in projector setup is to see what the expensive projectors (20K or more) projectors do that $3000 pj's do not. What I noticed is that the expensive pj's produce darker blacks (why I bought 8500ub over pani ae-4000, the jvc would have been even better but I didn't want to spend the extra $$) and they put out much more lumens (they are brighter). That is why the high power screen is so killer. It makes our measly $3000 pj's have an image that is as bright as the 20K and up pj's.


Oh and btw the final result with the high power screen (I have a 119inch fixed frame) and the 8500ub is outstanding. I am so impressed. It's hard to find words to describe how much better the image looks than what I was expecting. The picture looks much sharper than my old 55in sony wega lcd tv. I don't know how they do it, but it appears to have more detail than smaller tv's (I think because you can actually see the details with the bigger image). 1080P is so good. Maybe it's because pj manufacturers know that people who buy them are concerned with picture quality.


The other thing is that the picture is so bright. At night the images literally jump off the screen. It is insane how much color and contrast the image has.


The high power screen is really good with ambient light too. Apparently much better than other screen materials. I have a room that has tons of light coming in during the day and the dynamic setting makes it totally watchable. When using the best setting, it is more reminiscent of a commercial movie theater with the dim lights on before or sometimes during the previews.


----------



## jrlnc

I have some ambient light, but can cut it down when necessary.


I want to project to a 106" screen from about 12 feet. I always run in low lamp mode.


Currently I'm using a Graywolf II with 1.8 gain. I'm not happy with this screen because of its imperfections, banding and I think the gray color is distorting things.


----------



## RodK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrlnc* /forum/post/18709523
> 
> 
> I have some ambient light, but can cut it down when necessary.
> 
> 
> I want to project to a 106" screen from about 12 feet. I always run in low lamp mode.
> 
> 
> Currently I'm using a Graywolf II with 1.8 gain. I'm not happy with this screen because of its imperfections, banding and I think the gray color is distorting things.



As long as you could have your hw 15 near eye level, go for it.


----------



## jrlnc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RodK* /forum/post/18709708
> 
> 
> As long as you could have your hw 15 near eye level, go for it.



Yes, it is at eye level. It is mounted directly behind the viewing area and almost perfectly centered horizontally and vertically. I use no keystone adjustment and a tiny bit of vert & horiz lens shift.


----------



## RodK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrlnc* /forum/post/18709911
> 
> 
> Yes, it is at eye level. It is mounted directly behind the viewing area and almost perfectly centered horizontally and vertically. I use no keystone adjustment and a tiny bit of vert & horiz lens shift.



thats how I have my RS10 set up with my 110" 16X9 2.8 high power and I am extremely happy with it.


----------



## airscapes

I saw a 85" Greywolf with and epson 9100 at a high end store the other week and was not impressed a all. My 720P Mitsubishi HC3000 on my 65" tripod Picture King HP blew it way. Yes the 1080p with blue ray input was a bit more detailed than my projector, but for brightness and pop the HP is so much better, you could not give me the the gray screen! I just wish I had room for a bigger HP screen!


----------



## jrlnc

I did a chat conversation with a Da-lite person the other day, and they said they were afraid I would have "hot-spotting" with the Hi Power, so he tried to steer me towards the Video Spectra material.


My projector is not terribly bright. It is rated at 1000 lumens, but probably more like ~530 with LOW lamp and the iris settings I watch it at.


The High Power is a bargain for the performance. I think I'll get it. So if I get the Model B with CSR, is that what anyone else has?


----------



## airscapes

Regardless of what is mounted on.. be it portable, pull down or fixed screen.. make sure you read this first before you order.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1213577


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrlnc* /forum/post/18711308
> 
> 
> I did a chat conversation with a Da-lite person the other day, and they said they were afraid I would have "hot-spotting" with the Hi Power, so he tried to steer me towards the Video Spectra material.



That is the WORST advice I have ever heard of anyone getting from a Da-Lite associate. The HP is a retroreflective screen. Retroreflective screens are the most hot-spot-free gain screens one can buy.


I imagine that some trainer must have told the associate that the higher gain *angular* reflective screens have a greater tendency to hot-spot (which is true). The associate then seems to have assumed that *all* high gain screens have a greater tendency to hot-spot (NOT true for the retroreflective HP). Sounds as if Da-Lite needs to do a little remedial training for its chat associates.


----------



## doublewing11

After having a view of the Runco 750i, I would really like to go the LED route but due to the LED's lack of light output I see no chance to fill a 140" wide 2:37 scope screen.


I have lots of flexibility due to new construction but am intrigued if the HP can be used in the fore mentioned application. I haven't viewed the Sim2 Micro 50 which is rated 100 lumens more than the Runco, but suffice....same old issue.


Would the HP be the cure all for a large scope screen mated with the current LED projector offerings?


----------



## RodK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrlnc* /forum/post/18711308
> 
> 
> I did a chat conversation with a Da-lite person the other day, and they said they were afraid I would have "hot-spotting" with the Hi Power, so he tried to steer me towards the Video Spectra material.
> 
> 
> My projector is not terribly bright. It is rated at 1000 lumens, but probably more like ~530 with LOW lamp and the iris settings I watch it at.
> 
> 
> The High Power is a bargain for the performance. I think I'll get it. So if I get the Model B with CSR, is that what anyone else has?



Like I said, I am using a JVC RS10 with my HP. The JVC is brighter than the Sony and I have absolutely no hot spotting with mine. It really is an amazing screen and I am sure you will be very happy with it for many years. I am using a model C with no CSR, but I am the only one who rolls it up and down.


----------



## nirvy111

deleted post


----------



## jrlnc

Thanks airscapes for all the info.


I skimmed through that thread and understand that they have possibly changed the specs for the HP material. It looks like it is still very good (not as bright, but wider viewing angle) and that most people like it. Some even prefer it.


That being said I ordered a Model B w/ CSR today. The supplier told me it was a 2.8 gain, but that it would be "made to meet my size/feature/material choices". I don't know if that means I'll get the old material or the new. I'm not too concerned. I expect that it will be much better than what I have now.


I'll let you all know how it works out.


-Jim-


----------



## nirvy111

I deleted my post #2555. As it turns out my screen just needed a good clean with a damp cloth. Now I don't see much, if any brightness difference between it and my older 2.8 gain HP. It would seem I have the 2.8 version after all but I'm still not sure.


----------



## greg1292

I just listed on on Videogon if anyone needs a good deal 116" DASNAP.

Don't need the Hi gain screen anymore.


----------



## mlang46




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *doublewing11* /forum/post/18712333
> 
> 
> After having a view of the Runco 750i, I would really like to go the LED route but due to the LED's lack of light output I see no chance to fill a 140" wide 2:37 scope screen.
> 
> 
> I have lots of flexibility due to new construction but am intrigued if the HP can be used in the fore mentioned application. I haven't viewed the Sim2 Micro 50 which is rated 100 lumens more than the Runco, but suffice....same old issue.
> 
> 
> Would the HP be the cure all for a large scope screen mated with the current LED projector offerings?



Yes if you have a small audience


----------



## RodK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mlang46* /forum/post/18730798
> 
> 
> Yes if you have a small audience



the viewing cone is not as bad as some people make out


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RodK* /forum/post/18731580
> 
> 
> the viewing cone is not as bad as some people make out



That's a fact! Outside the cone is a gain of 1, it isn't an LCD display, you can sit way to the side and enjoy a very good picture. The fact of the matter is, since you are the captain, you get the captains chair right in the sweet spot.. guests can live with the side seats and they love the picture.









My screen is so small most everyone is out of the cone and they love the picture... wife sits in the hot seat says she can not tell the difference.. we as the obsessed nuts are the only ones that will every know or care.. other are just happy for a big clear picture that they don't have at home!


There is another thread up in the 

I sure wouldn't want the video spectra ... here's the link
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post18733900


----------



## jrlnc

Well, this is a surprise. I was originally told that it would probably be here towards the end of _next_ week.


The reason I did not use a smiley (







) icon, is that there are 2 things bothering me about it. I will get them out of the way before I talk about the other aspects of this screen.

Except for the packing slip, I have no idea what the hell this screen material is. There is nothing printed on the box, the documentation or the screen casing itself. I have to assume that it is the new HP 2.4 material. I don't really know.
*Now for the real problem -- the screen casing is damaged.* And I don't mean a couple of little scratches. In fact, the paint is not broken at all. The casing itself is bent in two places to the left of center facing the projection surface. These bends are not dents but look more they are puckered outward as though pliers or a crowbar had been used.
















The shipping carton was in perfect shape and didn't have a scratch or crease on it, so I assume it was like this when they packed it. At first I thought is was a superficial bend and I could bend it back. No way, the metal is too thick and it would have taken a lot of force to do this.


It's unfortunate that my experience with this screen had to start out badly. I'll call Focused Technology Monday and see what they can do. If they offer to let me keep it and knock a significant amount off the price, I may try to fix it myself. Otherwise I expect a new replacement.

*On to the screen itself. . . .*

Keep in mind that I was previously using a GrayWolf II gray screen with 1.8 gain.


The roller mechanism and the projection surface itself is in perfect shape. So I went ahead and hung it up and tried it out on some blu-ray material.


There are several ways this is such an improvement over my old screen I don't know where to begin:
Surface consistency is PERFECT - from top to bottom, corner to corner.
The screen is very flat for a pull-down. There are no waves or wrinkling. Unlike my other screen was from day one.
The viewing cone is MUCH WIDER than my other screen, which has lower gain. I don't know how that works, but it is amazing. Of course the sweet spot is brighter, but the dropoff in brightness is very subtle. Most of my movie guests are so uninformed about these kinds of things they won't notice.
Black Level did rise a bit. I expected it to and it is one adverse affect of going from a gray to white screen.
Brightness is up sharply. It is like having the lamp on HIGH instead of LOW.
Contrast looks the same. Overall black is higher, but with any picture the contrast is still great.
Colors appear very vivid (and I don't mean like torch mode that lots of displays have for stores)
The CSR feature works great for a manual pull-down screen. It is slow and quiet and doesn't almost jump off the wall brackets when it reaches the top.


In terms of visual quality, the only thing I don't like is the higher black levels. Every thing else looks good.


For any of you who are wondering -- there are NO hotspots, no banding, no sparkly sheen like my other screen. All of this and still a higher gain and wider viewing cone.


I did try it with a little ambient lighting. It is not as immune to washout as I thought it would be.


I have to say that overall, this is a really nice screen.


----------



## airscapes

Make sure your ambient light is off to the sides and in front of the viewer. Bias lighting can help the preserved contrast(make blacks look blacker) and reduce eye strain if the image is to bright as long as it can be added without effecting the screen.


----------



## quickfire

just orderd dalite high power 119".........should receive it next week!


Im pairing it with Epson 8100..........anybody have this same setup....in a light contolled room?


If so what settings are you using?


Are TOM'S settings in the 8100 thread right for this screen......?He calibrated his on a gray wolf II.........seems to me that their should be a different calibration since the high power is alot brighter from the get-go.


----------



## jrlnc

I notified the seller about the problem with the Da-Lite Hi Power screen being damaged. The casing is beat up pretty badly, but the roller mechanism and the screen surface itself are undamaged. I took the opportunity to hang it up and try it out.


I have to say it -- *I definitely don't like the Hi Power screen*. Yes, you gain a lot of overall image brightness, but blacks and contrast are very poor.

I think this screen would work in a bat cave with black ceiling and walls, but that is not the case with my environment. I couldn't stand it. Sci-fi movies with shots of space, stars, and spaceships look like a crappy washed out LCD. I don't care how good the colors and overall picture brightness are.


When I called the seller to get a replacement, I asked for the Da-Lite High Contrast Matte White instead. It arrived yesterday and I've already previewed a lot of material on it. It has great blacks, but only a 1.1 gain so not as bright as my other screens. It is still quite acceptable. This is the screen that I will be going with permanently for my home theater. Here are all the advantages over the other screens:

Great contrast and blacks
No "sparklies" or hotspots
Wide viewing cone with NO visible dropoff in brightness or color
Very refined screen surface. Great consistency, No wrinkling or blemishes.
No visible grain stucture


I like the CSR (controlled screen return) also. The screen goes up slowly and smoothly without flying off the wall bracket.


The Da-Lite seller said I could most likely keep the other screen since they filed a claim with the shipper.


It would still be usable by someone who didn't mind all the damage on the outer casing.


So now I have my screen, with 2 others to dispose of:
Da-Lite Model B with CSR High Contrast Matte White (keeping)
Da-Lite Model B with CSR Hi Power (selling)
Gray Wolf II (selling)


All 3 are 106". For a while I could do some back and forth comparisons and evaluations, but the High Contrast is my new baby. It is very hard to demo and choose a screen without doing it in your own home and your own setup!


----------



## airscapes

Just wondering if you calibrated your projector with the HP or at least properly set the brightness and contrast settings, did you try low lamp mode with iris closed if applicable? Where was the projector mounted.. i.e. how much gain were you really getting? Blacks do seem more elevated when you are out of the viewing cone.


----------



## jrlnc

@airscapes:


I did try it on LOW lamp and tried turning the Iris to Manual and cranking it down. The overall picture level was so dead looking I didn't like it.


As for the other questions, I don't know how to calibrate a projector. A friend of mine is coming over next week to look at it and I was going to ask him to do it. The blacks were so washed out on the Hi Power screen I don't know if there is anything you can do to make it look acceptable. I may be wrong.


I am a complete novice to projectors since this is my first and I've only had it a couple of months. I just want to turn it on and watch, not worry about all the settings. It seems that projector systems are much more complicated than a plasma.


----------



## edpowers




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrlnc* /forum/post/18761193
> 
> 
> @airscapes:
> 
> 
> I did try it on LOW lamp and tried turning the Iris to Manual and cranking it down. The overall picture level was so dead looking I didn't like it.
> 
> 
> As for the other questions, I don't know how to calibrate a projector. A friend of mine is coming over next week to look at it and I was going to ask him to do it. The blacks were so washed out on the Hi Power screen I don't know if there is anything you can do to make it look acceptable. I may be wrong.
> 
> 
> I am a complete novice to projectors since this is my first and I've only had it a couple of months. I just want to turn it on and watch, not worry about all the settings. It seems that projector systems are much more complicated than a plasma.



The high gain screen raises brightness which by default raises black levels. The fact that it raises both brightness and black levels means the on/off contrast remains the same. The HP screen actually does wonders in non-light controlled rooms by rejecting off-axis ambient light.


It sounds like you just don't prefer the brighter image and prefer the dimmer image/wider viewing cone, lower black level that a 1.1 gain screen provides. One way to tame a high power screen with a new projector bulb is to add a ND filter to your projector. Once the bulb ages, you remove the ND filter to get your brightness back. Keep in mind, you are going to lose half of your current brightness over the next ~1000 hours of viewing. Another way to tame the brightness is to use a bigger screen!


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrlnc* /forum/post/18761193
> 
> 
> @airscapes:
> 
> 
> I did try it on LOW lamp and tried turning the Iris to Manual and cranking it down. The overall picture level was so dead looking I didn't like it.
> 
> 
> As for the other questions, I don't know how to calibrate a projector. A friend of mine is coming over next week to look at it and I was going to ask him to do it. The blacks were so washed out on the Hi Power screen I don't know if there is anything you can do to make it look acceptable. I may be wrong.
> 
> 
> I am a complete novice to projectors since this is my first and I've only had it a couple of months. I just want to turn it on and watch, not worry about all the settings. It seems that projector systems are much more complicated than a plasma.



You didn't say what projector, but you did say you had a gray screen. If brightness was set for a gray screen I can see how it could be wayy to high for a high power. My projector is an old 720p HC3000 with a on/off contrast ratio of 4000:1 with the iris closed. Black level is raised but it is NOT washed out. If the other screen works for you and the HP is free.. no harm done! But I really think if the HP picture is that bad with the lights out.. something else is wrong. In a dark room, and a fade to black, my HP does not glow any more than my 32" Sony Wega CRT that is right next to it. Granted the CRT is adjusted for a lighted room but still, blacks are about the same.


There is a calibration forum, you may want to take a read over there of the stickies up top .. look for the basics. One thing I had a hard time understanding was the setting of "Brightness" effects black level more Brightness more washed out blacks. "Contrast" effects how bright the whites are. Names kind of confused me for a long time..


----------



## jrlnc

I have a Sony VPL-HW15 LCOS projector.


I don't know how to adjust those kind of settings. I will ask my friend to do that next week and see if he can make the Hi Power screen look right.


----------



## Joseph Clark

A bright light (or bright walls) behind the projector could cause the HP to look washed out. The HP does a great job of rejecting ambient light from other directions, but light from behind can affect it seriously. That's because it's retroreflective, so light coming from the same direction as the projector's lens is the worst.


Projectors work best if you can control ambient light, no matter where it's coming from.


----------



## Warbie

Small update re. sheen on the HP (for anyone who cares







) - I moved my projector further back and lowered it a foot or so and the sheen is noticeably less visible. Just as bright, but far less obvious - not sure of the science behind that.


Quick question - my manual pulldown has some pretty bg waves in it. They vanish completely during use due to High Power witchcraft, but bug me nonetheless. Has anyone here had success in reattaching the screen material? The screen was imported from the states and sending it back isnt an option.


----------



## airscapes

Hey great to hear you found a solution that works for you!

Taking off the fabric would probably be doable, getting it back on strait enough to prevent the waves would probably be very very difficult. Personally, knowing myself as I do.. I would end up taking it apart to see how it is attached to the roller. I broke every toy I ever got as a child, taking it apart to see how it worked! Since you are not in a position to just order another new screen if it all goes wrong, I would either live with the waves or send it back.

Not sure if this would work in your situation, but there are many who just cut the HP fabric off the roller and build a DIY fixed frame using the fabric. I understand it is very hard to get pulled and stapled on to the frame smoothly since it is so heavy.


----------



## nirvy111

High Power fabric is sensative to, bend it too sharply and the glass beads will flake off leaving a mark. If your going to frame it just make sure you keep the fabric nice and flat at all times.


----------



## airscapes

Good to know and makes sense if you have ever looked at the way those tiny beads are packed on the 2.8 with a microscope. If not see attached photo.


----------



## entertainman

HP might have my vote. I've been getting screen samples from Da-Lite and Draper and comparing them. With my projector less than 2 feet above my head and full ambient light blazing through my very light colored drapes, I got a bright colorful image. I'd have to see how it performs during the nighttime but there was no comparison between the video spectra and the HP-HP wins. So brighter screen + reduced chance of screen wrinkling + longer lasting lamp (from not having to set the brightness as high) = a great option imo so far.


For those of you who have an HP, is the reduced resolution from movies noticeable?


Thanks,

Dave


P.S. I have an Epson 8500UB if you care and loving it!


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *entertainman* /forum/post/18795383
> 
> 
> HP might have my vote. I've been getting screen samples from Da-Lite and Draper and comparing them. With my projector less than 2 feet above my head and full ambient light blazing through my very light colored drapes, I got a bright colorful image. I'd have to see how it performs during the nighttime but there was no comparison between the video spectra and the HP-HP wins. So brighter screen + reduced chance of screen wrinkling + longer lasting lamp (from not having to set the brightness as high) = a great option imo so far.
> 
> 
> For those of you who have an HP, is the reduced resolution from movies noticeable?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> P.S. I have an Epson 8500UB if you care and loving it!



What reduced resolution from movies? The HP is capable of fully resolving 1920x1080 - and quite beautifully.


----------



## RobertR




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/18769191
> 
> 
> there are many who just cut the HP fabric off the roller and build a DIY fixed frame using the fabric. I understand it is very hard to get pulled and stapled on to the frame smoothly since it is so heavy.



That's exactly what I did, except I hold the fabric to a DIY steel frame with magnets. That made it easy to keep pulling until I got a smooth surface.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *entertainman* /forum/post/18795383
> 
> 
> For those of you who have an HP, is the reduced resolution from movies noticeable?



Where did you get this piece of misinformation?


Da-Lite describes the HP screen construction here . The article states that the particle size used for the glass beads in the HP is typically 9 microns. It goes on to show that on an 80" x 45" screen, *several thousand* of the particles will fit into a single pixel of a 1080p image.


As I focus my RS10, I can clearly see the pixel structure when I stand close to my 100" screen (and use my reading glasses). I can see no "fuzziness" attributable to the screen. As Joe said above, it's beautiful.


----------



## badgerpilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *entertainman* /forum/post/18795383
> 
> 
> For those of you who have an HP, is the reduced resolution from movies noticeable?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> P.S. I have an Epson 8500UB if you care and loving it!



What reduced resolution??? I have the Epson 8100 and the picture is fantastic! Looks like a 106" Plasma


----------



## airscapes

I think he probably read the mickey mouse review of the HP done by projector central...


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *entertainman* /forum/post/18795383
> 
> 
> For those of you who have an HP, is the reduced resolution from movies noticeable?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Dave



WHAT?? Couldn't resist since everyone's dumping on poor Dave.







But, honestly... where did THAT bit of mis-information come from!?


----------



## entertainman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/18797377
> 
> 
> WHAT?? Couldn't resist since everyone's dumping on poor Dave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, honestly... where did THAT bit of mis-information come from!?



This actually came from the sample that Da-Lite provided me. On it, it said that it was able to provide a brighter image with (using my words as I conjure this from memory) limited impact on resolution. Funny enough, Da-Lite's website says there is no impact on resolution with this material. I will confirm and even take a picture of the wording on the sample that was given to me later tonight.


P.S. I do remember seeing this discussed on the Projector Central Website.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *entertainman* /forum/post/18797403
> 
> 
> This actually came from the sample that Da-Lite provided me. On it, it said that it was able to provide a brighter image with (using my words as I conjure this from memory) limited impact on resolution. Funny enough, Da-Lite's website says there is no impact on resolution with this material. I will confirm and even take a picture of the wording on the sample that was given to me later tonight.
> 
> 
> P.S. I do remember seeing this discussed on the Projector Central Website.



I would believe Da-Lite's website when it claims there's no impact on resolution. AND, unfortunately, I would discount a lot of what Projector Central says. A site like projectorreviews.com has better credibility.


And, thanks for not taking offense at all of us "dumping" on you.


----------



## airscapes

see attached for the sample description.


----------



## Kilgore

I've owned a 133" Hi Power Screen for 5 years and I can't believe that people still have doubts about it. I have absolutely no regrets about buying it. I LOVE it!!!


EDIT: ...and Projector Central's review is completely off base. Disregard it at all costs.


....and any thought that the screen impacts 1080p resolution is complete and utter BS!


----------



## entertainman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/18797438
> 
> 
> I would believe Da-Lite's website when it claims there's no impact on resolution. AND, unfortunately, I would discount a lot of what Projector Central says. A site like projectorreviews.com has better credibility.
> 
> 
> And, thanks for not taking offense at all of us "dumping" on you.



I appreciate you looking out for me!!!!! A couple more posts on this forum and maybe I will be a man someday.










In regards to airscapes post, I don't mean to beat a dead horse but the sample reads to me that there is a slight drop in resolution. This is straight from the manufacturer. Regardless, all of your posts about this suggest this is a non-issue so I will leave it at that.


----------



## Joseph Clark

Seeing is believing with the HP. Once you see it, you'll wonder how anyone could criticize the HP for adversely affecting an image's resolution. With my Sharp XV-Z20000, I've stood right next to the screen and observed the dark gaps between the individual DLP pixels, so I could get the sharpest focus possible. As far as I'm concerned, resolution loss is the last thing someone should worry about with the HP.


Just thinking out loud here:


The only thing I can think might happen is if the HP is so bright that it actually becomes uncomfortable to watch - sort of like staring at the sun.







Light details might appear obscured if the gain made the image that bright. At that point, of course, there would no such thing as "black level" either. At that point, I'd also question why the HP was selected in the first place. If the HP does its job exactly as it's supposed to, and the resulting image is so bright that you need sunscreen to use it, then maybe, just maybe, you didn't need the HP in the first place.










Entertainman: sorry your question was greeted with such seeming incredulity, but after hearing comment after comment in this thread about how the HP raises black level, HP owners here can be a bit over-sensitive.







Sometimes, describing the HP's effect on black level feels like you're trying to explain what a flashlight does, and the person you're talking to complains that the room isn't going to be as dark as it was before you turned it on. (Because they believe the HP foolishly raises the gain to 11, while better screens never go past 10.







)


----------



## airscapes

I would guess the reason they mention resolution loss is because the old glass bead/crushed glass screens that the HP replaced (Old High Gain screens) were not high resolution do to the large sizes of the glass. So folks associated high gain with lower resolution...


----------



## entertainman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/18798307
> 
> 
> Seeing is believing with the HP. Once you see it, you'll wonder how anyone could criticize the HP for adversely affecting an image's resolution. With my Sharp XV-Z20000, I've stood right next to the screen and observed the dark gaps between the individual DLP pixels, so I could get the sharpest focus possible. As far as I'm concerned, resolution loss is the last thing someone should worry about with the HP.
> 
> 
> Just thinking out loud here:
> 
> 
> The only thing I can think might happen is if the HP is so bright that it actually becomes uncomfortable to watch - sort of like staring at the sun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Light details might appear obscured if the gain made the image that bright. At that point, of course, there would no such thing as "black level" either. At that point, I'd also question why the HP was selected in the first place. If the HP does its job exactly as it's supposed to, and the resulting image is so bright that you need sunscreen to use it, then maybe, just maybe, you didn't need the HP in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Entertainman: sorry your question was greeted with such seeming incredulity, but after hearing comment after comment in this thread about how the HP raises black level, HP owners here can be a bit over-sensitive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes, describing the HP's effect on black level feels like you're trying to explain what a flashlight does, and the person you're talking to complains that the room isn't going to be as dark as it was before you turned it on. (Because they believe the HP foolishly raises the gain to 11, while better screens never go past 10.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )



Joseph - no worries.


Slap me silly and call me Susan but I noticed even when I switched my Epson 8500UB pj on eco mode and had it on x.v color which (from this poster's perspective) washes out the color but still leaves a green hue, the fabric itself seemingly brought the colors back in balance. Mind you, I'm trying to make a decision based on a 5 or 6" square piece of material and my current image is near 110" but it seems like it can compensate very nicely for poorly calibrated machines and I won't even talk about black levels


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/18798307
> 
> 
> (Because they believe the HP foolishly raises the gain to 11, while better screens never go past 10.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )



Oh, come on, Joe. We all know the HP only raises the black-level gain to 11, while leaving all other colors at 2.8.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/18799116
> 
> 
> Oh, come on, Joe. We all know the HP only raises the black-level gain to 11, while leaving all other colors at 2.8.



Now I know why you're the one who did the screen gain calculator and not me. Not to worry, though. There always seems to be someone willing to help when I face a math challenge. The other day, my waitress helped me out with the tip on my meal. I thought a $47 tip was a bit high on a $33 dollar check, but when she bent over and showed me the math, everything became quite clear to me.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *entertainman* /forum/post/18798685
> 
> 
> Joseph - no worries.
> 
> 
> Slap me silly and call me Susan but I noticed even when I switched my Epson 8500UB pj on eco mode and had it on x.v color which (from this poster's perspective) washes out the color but still leaves a green hue, the fabric itself seemingly brought the colors back in balance. Mind you, I'm trying to make a decision based on a 5 or 6" square piece of material and my current image is near 110" but it seems like it can compensate very nicely for poorly calibrated machines and I won't even talk about black levels



I've read a report about some minor color shifting with the HP, but to me it doesn't affect color in any significant way. When you calibrate, it should correct any shift quite easily. I like the out of the box color (with a couple of simple tweaks) on my Panasonic 4000 so much that I haven't bothered to have it professionally calibrated. It's an interim solution until I get a 3D projector anyway - hopefully within the next 8 months or so.


I fully expect the HP to be a great partner for my new 3D projector, especially because 3D projection has the potential to dim the image so dramatically. The HP should allow me to enjoy a bright 3D projection image, while lesser gain screens might not be able to provide enough brightness.


----------



## noah katz

Must be a bizarre marketing slipup.


I guess res would be less compared to an optically flat surface w/o glass beads, but it would take sources and pj's with orders og magnitude more res than we have currently for it to matter.


----------



## FLBoy

Joe: LOL. For $47, that must have been SOME "math!"


----------



## rgathright

Will the HP be to bright for this projector?


----------



## Lawguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/18799402
> 
> 
> I guess res would be less compared to an optically flat surface w/o glass beads, but it would take sources and pj's with orders og magnitude more res than we have currently for it to matter.



Exactly.


----------



## swgiust

How do HP's do with ambient light? I would like to be able to watch sports, but not in total darkness. I have read about their brightness, but what about black level?


----------



## airscapes

Read the review at the beginning of this thread


----------



## Lawguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *swgiust* /forum/post/18824156
> 
> 
> How do HP's do with ambient light? I would like to be able to watch sports, but not in total darkness. I have read about their brightness, but what about black level?



Sports really aren't dependant on black level so the HP is really good with them. The HP does nothing to preserve blacks. It is a white screen with gain so it will raise black levels overall. But, because the HP is retroreflective, it will generally reject light coming outside the viewing cone, so there is some benefit there.


----------



## bk




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/18799535
> 
> 
> Joe: LOL. For $47, that must have been SOME "math!"



I think it was DDD math.


----------



## zuluwalker

Where does Da-Lite manufacture the screen sold in Canada? Thank you to anyone who knows.


----------



## Donhou

Other than solving pincushion effect issue in CIH anamorphic lens setups, curved screens are known to have some other benefits:


"-widens viewing cone - particularly useful for those with a high gain screen


-Reduces/removes hot spotting


-More uniform color


-screen curve avoids cross reflection (all projected light is transmitted to the audience) enhancing perceived contrast especially if screen is close to the wall or walls are light colored

"


With HiPower material these other benefits of curved screen doesn`t really show, because it is a retro-reflective material, right?


Reason i`m asking is that i`m making a 2,35:1 screen out of HiPower fabric and i have decide to curve or not.

In my setup pincushion effect is pretty minor (decent TR of 2), so it is not enough reason to go curved for me.


So is there any other point going curved with HiPower?


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Donhou* /forum/post/18839336
> 
> 
> With HiPower material these other benefits of curved screen doesn`t really show, because it is a retro-reflective material, right?
> 
> 
> Reason i`m asking is that i`m making a 2,35:1 screen out of HiPower fabric and i have decide to curve or not.
> 
> In my setup pincushion effect is pretty minor (decent TR of 2), so it is not enough reason to go curved for me.
> 
> 
> So is there any other point going curved with HiPower?



Your analysis seems correct to me. Unlike angular reflective screens, the angle at which light strikes a retroreflective screen makes little difference; the strongest reflected light from any point on the screen will be returned toward the source (projector). As long as your setup controls pincushion effect to your satisfaction, it would be silly to go curved with the HP, IMO.


----------



## RodK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zuluwalker* /forum/post/18838369
> 
> 
> Where does Da-Lite manufacture the screen sold in Canada? Thank you to anyone who knows.



they are manufactured in the US. If you are thinking about importing one, get pricing from HD.CA first. They have great pricing, free shipping and I had a warranty issue with mine and they resolved it quickly with no problems or additional costs.


----------



## Donhou




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/18840127
> 
> 
> Your analysis seems correct to me. Unlike angular reflective screens, the angle at which light strikes a retroreflective screen makes little difference; the strongest reflected light from any point on the screen will be returned toward the source (projector). As long as your setup controls pincushion effect to your satisfaction, it would be silly to go curved with the HP, IMO.



Flat HP screen it is!


Thanks FLBoy for your opinion!


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Donhou* /forum/post/18844140
> 
> 
> Flat HP screen it is!
> 
> 
> Thanks FLBoy for your opinion!



You're welcome! If you have not already done so, you might want to checkout my screen gain calculator (linked below). The default screen setup values are for the 2.8 gain HP. The calculator will allow you to see how well the HP will preform for each of your seating positions.


My only concern about your setup is that if you place the pj too far behind your viewers, you can lose gain uniformity for your off-center viewers. Ideally with the HP, for a one-row theater you want the pj to be only a few inches behind the row. For multiple rows this ideal position obviously must be compromised. (Any gain non-uniformity will not become noticeable to a viewer until the variation across the screen reaches or exceeds about 2:1.)


----------



## noah katz

"screen curve avoids cross reflection (all projected light is transmitted to the audience)"


I don't get this - any screen has some diffusivity and curving a screen will allow it to self-illuminate.


----------



## BlackSoul

I have a JVC RS-10 and would like to use it in my bedroom with a fixed screen. I can place the projector on a shelf at the back wall with a throw distance of about 16'. The room is 17x23 and the screen size I haven't decided but will be 100-106" diag. 16:9.


I'm deciding and leaning towards the HP for my screen choice. The room has white ceiling and white wallpaper with one wall (the one the projector will mounted at) with black wallpaper. I know it isn't ideal, I didn't plan on installing a projector here and I can't change it now.


It will be mostly for my use only, there will be sometimes that my family will join for a movie. What is the best screen for this, am I right thinking it will be the HP ?


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BlackSoul* /forum/post/18864981
> 
> 
> It will be mostly for my use only, there will be sometimes that my family will join for a movie. What is the best screen for this, am I right thinking it will be the HP ?



I think the HP will be a fine choice for your situation. I have a similar setup in my family room with white walls and ceiling. Of course, if you want to watch during the day, you will need light-blocking window treatments for all windows. For best results, keep your viewing positions within the width of the screen.


----------



## BlackSoul




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/18865516
> 
> 
> I think the HP will be a fine choice for your situation. I have a similar setup in my family room with white walls and ceiling. Of course, if you want to watch during the day, you will need light-blocking window treatments for all windows. For best results, keep your viewing positions within the width of the screen.



Great. I have light control in the room so no worries.


What if someone was to sit outside of the width of the screen. Would the gain drop dramatically and the picture would become unwatchable ? I ask because I have a couch at the edge of the room.


How good are Gray screens like the Stewart Firehawk G3 in rejecting ambient light ? Would it be better than the High Power for my application.


Thanks for your input FLBoy, I really appreciate it. I really want to make the right decision this time.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BlackSoul* /forum/post/18865863
> 
> 
> Great. I have light control in the room so no worries.
> 
> 
> What if someone was to sit outside of the width of the screen. Would the gain drop dramatically and the picture would become unwatchable ? I ask because I have a couch at the edge of the room.
> 
> 
> How good are Gray screens like the Stewart Firehawk G3 in rejecting ambient light ? Would it be better than the High Power for my application.
> 
> 
> Thanks for your input FLBoy, I really appreciate it. I really want to make the right decision this time.



Out side the screen you will have a gain of 1 and the picture is just fine to watch.


I stopped at a high end store that has several projectors set up in dedicated rooms. I auditioned a epson 9000 on a Firehawk (not sure if it was G3 or not) and I was NOT impressed. It was only an 85" screen and it was in total darkness in a theater room. I would not trade my HP for the gray screen.


I have no idea about ambient light on the firehawk but if the light source is not coming from the same direction as the projector, the hp will still be watchable with considerable room lighting. The trick is to keep it off the screen..


----------



## Joseph Clark

I had a first gen Firehawk, and there's no way I'd go back to it after experiencing the HP. As long as the wall behind the projector is black, you should be fine. My back wall is a dark navy blue (all my walls are), and even with the lights up full, the image is still watchable. No way that was the case with the Firehawk.


----------



## badgerpilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BlackSoul* /forum/post/18865863
> 
> 
> Great. I have light control in the room so no worries.
> 
> 
> What if someone was to sit outside of the width of the screen. Would the gain drop dramatically and the picture would become unwatchable ? I ask because I have a couch at the edge of the room.



You'll still have a great picture outside of the screen.


----------



## BlackSoul

Great! I'm sold guys










Just need to decide on a size, the age old question, how large should I go.


From my viewing distance of 14-15 feet, I guess 106" diagonal 16:9 should be sufficient. I had a 120" and felt it was a little bit too big.


Decisions, Decisions.


----------



## airscapes

You need to read this as well. The advice you received is in reference to the 2.8 gain fabric.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1213577


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BlackSoul* /forum/post/18868631
> 
> 
> Great! I'm sold guys
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just need to decide on a size, the age old question, how large should I go.
> 
> 
> From my viewing distance of 14-15 feet, I guess 106" diagonal 16:9 should be sufficient. I had a 120" and felt it was a little bit too big.
> 
> 
> Decisions, Decisions.



IMHO, 120" WIDE is not too big from that distance. Don't limit yourself. You'll kick yourself later. People often wish they'd gone bigger after a little use. Hardly anyone wishes they'd gone smaller.


I view 10' wide 2.35 material from 10' back and 10' wide 16:9 material from 16' back. The neighbors sit up front for 16:9 material too! (They come over for BSG)


C'mon... it's not a big screen TV. It's a movie theater. It's a different mind-set.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/18868786
> 
> 
> It's a movie theater.



Um, no. It's his bedroom. Maybe he needs to leave room for a dresser!


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/18869493
> 
> 
> Um, no. It's his bedroom. Maybe he needs to leave room for a dresser!



Oh... sorry... that's what I get for "jumping in the middle".


----------



## BlackSoul

Hahaha, don't worry about it. I'm going with a 119" diagonal contour electrol. Working out a few details with Jason as we speak.


----------



## FLBoy

Heh, I was just messing with erkq. Good luck with the new screen! I think you're gonna love it.


----------



## ixion

You guys have me worried now... I just received my Panasonic AE4000 and my screen arrives tomorrow. I went with a 106" (diagonal) 16:9 Elite Cinetension2 screen.


I'm having second thoughts, maybe I should have gone with a bigger screen, my room can accommodate up to 120" diagonal 16:9. I chose 106" because I was concerned about a dim picture and I don't have complete light control. I'm also having second thoughts about 16:9 versus 2.35:1 !! Then again, I plan to watch a lot of NHL Hockey games and TV Shows, so maybe 16:9 is the right thing for me.


Decisions decisions.


----------



## JeffD33

just wanted to put my 2 cents in on this thread

seems to be full of HP fanbois, so you dont get the real picture.


I just got an ae4000 and some HP sample material (2.4)

Viewing angles are TERRIBLE! you must be within 10-15 inches of the lens vertically, and you cannnot be more than 3 feet to the side of the lens, MUCH worse than I was lead to believe.


ALSO, black levels are muuuuch worse with the HP. If you care about black levels at all, the HP is OUT OF THE QUESTION. I had several friends over, and we all agreed that the added brightness was nice, but the terrible viewing angles and the horrible black levels ruled this out as a potential screen choice


To each his own i suppose..

I would highly recommend to stay away from HP. At least with the ae4000.

Just my 2 cents. thought it might help because this thread is polluted with delusional fanbois...


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffD33* /forum/post/18872135
> 
> 
> just wanted to put my 2 cents in on this thread
> 
> seems to be full of HP fanbois, so you dont get the real picture.
> 
> 
> I just got an ae4000 and some HP sample material (2.4)
> 
> Viewing angles are TERRIBLE! you must be within 10-15 inches of the lens vertically, and you cannnot be more than 3 feet to the side of the lens, MUCH worse than I was lead to believe.
> 
> 
> ALSO, black levels are muuuuch worse with the HP. If you care about black levels at all, the HP is OUT OF THE QUESTION. I had several friends over, and we all agreed that the added brightness was nice, but the terrible viewing angles and the horrible black levels ruled this out as a potential screen choice
> 
> 
> To each his own i suppose..
> 
> I would highly recommend to stay away from HP. At least with the ae4000.
> 
> Just my 2 cents. thought it might help because this thread is polluted with delusional fanbois...



Bottom line: the HP does have pj placement and viewing cone disadvantages but clearly you have enough brightness without the HP and so the disadvantages simply aren't worth it to you. But that doesn't make those that do delusional fanbois. You really need to reel in the name-calling. This isn't the place for it. We're adults here.


----------



## airscapes

Gee, I thought this was the HP thread. I guess ALL of these pages of happy customers are just a bunch of nitwits that have no idea what we are looking at. If you read the review before you post you would see all the caveats associated with the screen. You would also know if you ever bought a screen using screen samples alone, that a full screen is not the same as a 7x7" sample. There are many 1.1 gain screens, they all do the same thing, but if you are in the market for what the HP does, it's the only game in town. Thanks for your input we don't have anything against your observations (even though they are all spelled out in the first 3 pages of the thread), but the name calling is a bit childish.


NOTE: This thread is based on 2.8 HP, you are looking at 2.4 or so it is called.. There looks to be a boat load more than .4 difference when you compare 2 screens one 2.4 the other 2.8. You would not like the 2.8 since the native black level of your projector will be magnified even more than the 2.4.

The thread about the 2 fabrics can be found here if you are interested.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1213577


----------



## BlackSoul

I wanted a 119" Designer Contour Electrol but I found out they don't make them, there's only the Contour Electrol which I'm fine with but I've been told that you have to have it wired and buy an option to add IR.


Why can't they just include a power cord and built in IR, or at least make it an option. Our walls are concrete and wiring the screen into it is not possible.


I'm thinking of settling for a Designer Contour Electrol in 106" size since that's the maximum size with built in IR and a power cord.


I also found out that there's isn't an extension bracket accessory. How do you guys place those screen so it drops in front of your tv ? I guess most just don't.


The funny thing is, I've had a cheap elite with all those options and more for a fraction of the price. But they don't offer an HP fabric, which is what has me looking at Da-Lite.


----------



## noah katz

"Viewing angles are TERRIBLE! you must be within 10-15 inches of the lens vertically, and you cannnot be more than 3 feet to the side of the lens"


This is meaningless w/o knowing the distances of the screen, viewer, and pj from each other.


Did you try this while holding the screen sample at arm's length? That would give whack results.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffD33* /forum/post/18872135
> 
> 
> just wanted to put my 2 cents in on this thread
> 
> seems to be full of HP fanbois, so you dont get the real picture.
> 
> 
> I just got an ae4000 and some HP sample material (2.4)
> 
> Viewing angles are TERRIBLE! you must be within 10-15 inches of the lens vertically, and you cannnot be more than 3 feet to the side of the lens, MUCH worse than I was lead to believe.
> 
> 
> ALSO, black levels are muuuuch worse with the HP. If you care about black levels at all, the HP is OUT OF THE QUESTION. I had several friends over, and we all agreed that the added brightness was nice, but the terrible viewing angles and the horrible black levels ruled this out as a potential screen choice
> 
> 
> To each his own i suppose..
> 
> I would highly recommend to stay away from HP. At least with the ae4000.
> 
> Just my 2 cents. thought it might help because this thread is polluted with delusional fanbois...



I know I've been guilty of making a few stupid comments on AVS, but I generally try to avoid insulting people in the process. Ignorance, arrogance and ridicule are not qualities people here respect very much.


If you want to contribute in the future, you might want to do a thread search on "black level" and "viewing angle" or "viewing cone." Had you bothered to do that, you might not have come off as sounding so ill-informed. Those topics have been discussed ad nauseum in this thread. The bad thing about such a post is that it might influence someone who comes here to get helpful information. They'll get none from your comments.


Edit: BTW, I have an HP and a Panasonic AE4000. Before that I had a Sharp XV-Z20000, also paired with the HP. I intend to keep the HP when I get my first 3D projector, because I fully expect it will be as valuable for 3D as it is for 2D (and probably even more so).


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BlackSoul* /forum/post/18872498
> 
> 
> I also found out that there's isn't an extension bracket accessory. How do you guys place those screen so it drops in front of your tv ?



You might try using two L-shaped corner brackets and S-hooks. If you can't find corner brackets big enough for the extension you need, then maybe two shelf brackets would work. You could even add a decorative shelf between the shelf brackets, and attach the screen mounting brackets to the shelf. These things are available at stores like Home Depot and Lowe's.


If your ceiling has joists in the right places, you might be able to do a ceiling mount using screw hooks and chains; or you could order the screen with extra drop, and mount it directly onto the ceiling.


Lots of ways to skin this cat!


----------



## JeffD33

ok well sorry if i insulted anyone, I was not directing this towards anyone in particular, just wanted to give anyone reading this a heads up. This thread is CLEARLY biased towards recommending a HP screen, that is all I meant. Of course everyone is entitled an opinion.


I had the screen sample taped flat on the wall, sitting 11feet back, projector on a shelf directly behind my head about 12 feet of throw. 100" image. the sweet spot is MUCH smaller than people here make it out to be. three people can be in the sweet spot in this range if they are sitting directly next to one another, literally touching while sitting on the couch.


Outside of the sweet spot the dropoff is very quick, and three feet to either side of the lens there is 0 difference between the HP screen and a 1.0 gain matte white screen. any further and the HP is actually noticeably darker.


I feel bad for people who buy this screen based on reading this thread alone. YOU must, i repeat MUST get a sample of the material to see it for yourself. You may like it, you may hate it as I do. I wouldn't mind the viewing angles too much as I would be sitting in the sweet spot all the time anyway, but seriously the black levels are terrible, and this is on a ae4000 with color1 and lamp on eco-mode. I know this isn't the darkest of projectors on the market but on a gain 1.0 screen the blacks are very deep. And of course it is possible that a full screen of HP material would look better as I wouldnt have anything to compare the black levels to, so the mind would adjust etc. and of course im using a newer projector that is fairly bright on its own at this size and throw.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffD33* /forum/post/18874950
> 
> 
> but seriously the black levels are terrible, and this is on a ae4000 with color1 and lamp on eco-mode. I know this isn't the darkest of projectors on the market but on a gain 1.0 screen the blacks are very deep. And of course it is possible that a full screen of HP material would look better as I wouldnt have anything to compare the black levels to, so the mind would adjust etc. and of course im using a newer projector that is fairly bright on its own at this size and throw.



All you are saying is this screen is too bright for your application and taste. The brights are brighter by the same margin that the blacks are brighter. A screen absolutely CANNOT change the contrast ratio. So, this screen does wonders for people who want big screens, people who have dim projectors, or people who want some degree of ambient light control. Its surface is invisible, it has very little, if any, coloration. Bottom line, it's not the right screen for your application. That shouldn't be a surprise. There is no screen that's the right choice for all situations. But it's a VERY right choice for a lot of applications. I mean... c'mon... if the HP was stellar in all situations no one would buy anything else, ever... right? Proper tool for the job at hand.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffD33* /forum/post/18874950
> 
> 
> ok well sorry if i insulted anyone, I was not directing this towards anyone in particular, just wanted to give anyone reading this a heads up. This thread is CLEARLY biased towards recommending a HP screen, that is all I meant. Of course everyone is entitled an opinion.
> 
> 
> I had the screen sample taped flat on the wall, sitting 11feet back, projector on a shelf directly behind my head about 12 feet of throw. 100" image. the sweet spot is MUCH smaller than people here make it out to be. three people can be in the sweet spot in this range if they are sitting directly next to one another, literally touching while sitting on the couch.
> 
> 
> Outside of the sweet spot the dropoff is very quick, and three feet to either side of the lens there is 0 difference between the HP screen and a 1.0 gain matte white screen. any further and the HP is actually noticeably darker.
> 
> 
> I feel bad for people who buy this screen based on reading this thread alone. YOU must, i repeat MUST get a sample of the material to see it for yourself. You may like it, you may hate it as I do. I wouldn't mind the viewing angles too much as I would be sitting in the sweet spot all the time anyway, but seriously the black levels are terrible, and this is on a ae4000 with color1 and lamp on eco-mode. I know this isn't the darkest of projectors on the market but on a gain 1.0 screen the blacks are very deep. And of course it is possible that a full screen of HP material would look better as I wouldnt have anything to compare the black levels to, so the mind would adjust etc. and of course im using a newer projector that is fairly bright on its own at this size and throw.



People can respect observations like that a lot more, because you gave details about what you did to come to your conclusions, and you're not bashing as much. You still need to do your due diligence in this thread. You say you like the brightness and complain about the fact that the image dims as you move to the side, but you also complain about the black level being too high. What this amounts to is criticizing the HP because it's doing exactly what it's supposed to do. Just recently, I used the analogy of a person complaining about a flash light because it made the room brighter than it was before you turned it on. The HP is a high gain screen, which means that if you're sitting in the sweet spot the black level will be higher than it is for a unity gain screen. Do a search on black level in this thread. It's been explained about a billion times.


Guess what? When I fired up my Panasonic AE4000 onto the HP screen in my home theater, the black level was too high. I raised the projector a couple of feet, so that I would be sitting outside the sweet spot. The black level got better, as I knew it would. In neither case was the contrast of my 4000 affected. That's just the way it works. If you don't need an HP screen, don't buy one. Your testing, though, and your bash-fest here makes it clear that you don't understand what's happening.


Do the search, read the explanations, and then come back if you still don't get it. Civil questions get civil answers. Your attempts to save readers from us "delusional fanbois" are misguided.


----------



## airscapes

I tested the Ram V10 Hemi, the gas mileage sucks compared to the Prius! But I guess I can get more logs in the Ram than the car. But I an not a logger, I am a Dentist...










We are being sucked into an argument with someone who wants to argue about all the facts that are laid out in Tryg's review. He obviously did not read it and does not need or understand the use of a high gain screen.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/18875330
> 
> 
> I tested the Ram V10 Hemi, the gas mileage sucks compared to the Prius! But I guess I can get more logs in the Ram than the car. But I an not a logger, I am a Dentist...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are being sucked into an argument with someone who wants to argue about all the facts that are laid out in Tryg's review. He obviously did not read it and does not need or understand the use of a high gain screen.



Very good point. Do what I do and get both! I have a Prius AND a 460ci F-250 4WD. One gets 10 mpg and can haul a yard of gravel, the other gets 46 mpg and can haul the dog. Like I said before... right tool for the job.


----------



## DvdJags




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BlackSoul* /forum/post/18872498
> 
> 
> I wanted a 119" Designer Contour Electrol but I found out they don't make them, there's only the Contour Electrol which I'm fine with but I've been told that you have to have it wired and buy an option to add IR.
> 
> 
> Why can't they just include a power cord and built in IR, or at least make it an option. Our walls are concrete and wiring the screen into it is not possible.
> 
> 
> I'm thinking of settling for a Designer Contour Electrol in 106" size since that's the maximum size with built in IR and a power cord.
> 
> 
> I also found out that there's isn't an extension bracket accessory. How do you guys place those screen so it drops in front of your tv ? I guess most just don't.
> 
> 
> The funny thing is, I've had a cheap elite with all those options and more for a fraction of the price. But they don't offer an HP fabric, which is what has me looking at Da-Lite.



I had the same problem with my Contour Electrol. I did not want to have to wire it to a switch. I purchased one of the RF remote controllers for electric projection screens from Monoprice. I just had to connect it to my screen and plug it in. It controls my screen with no issues.


----------



## FLBoy

I'm seeing a pattern here, guys ...


I own a Prius, too!










(You know what screen I own.)


----------



## Joseph Clark

I have a Prius, too - brilliant white, just like my HP. (Seriously)


----------



## FLBoy

Heh, so's mine. What can it mean? Duh-da, duh-da.


----------



## erkq

Mine's silver... what a bunch of old fogeys. Gone are the days of my BMW M5 and Buick Turbo 6's!


----------



## Joseph Clark

True dat. I used to have a little red Jensen Healey - an English convertible with a Lotus Esprit engine. Instead of a stick shift, my Prius has a stick of RAM. I'm at peace with the change, though.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/18876142
> 
> 
> True dat. I used to have a little red Jensen Healey - an English convertible with a Lotus Esprit engine. Instead of a stick shift, my Prius has a stick of RAM. I'm at peace with the change, though.



I've got a red AUSTIN Healy in my garage!


----------



## FLBoy

Yeah, and I used to have a canary yellow Corvette convertible.


----------



## nirvy111

The only shortcoming of the HP is the restricted viewing angle, the black level one doesn't exist. If anything the HP has better black levels/contrast than other screens because it rejects ambient light better and the boost in brightness allows you to set the projector to it's highest contrast setting without the image getting too dull.


----------



## FremontRich




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffD33* /forum/post/18874950
> 
> 
> ok well sorry if i insulted anyone, I was not directing this towards anyone in particular, just wanted to give anyone reading this a heads up. This thread is CLEARLY biased towards recommending a HP screen, that is all I meant. Of course everyone is entitled an opinion.
> 
> 
> I had the screen sample taped flat on the wall, sitting 11feet back, projector on a shelf directly behind my head about 12 feet of throw. 100" image. the sweet spot is MUCH smaller than people here make it out to be. three people can be in the sweet spot in this range if they are sitting directly next to one another, literally touching while sitting on the couch.
> 
> 
> Outside of the sweet spot the dropoff is very quick, and three feet to either side of the lens there is 0 difference between the HP screen and a 1.0 gain matte white screen. any further and the HP is actually noticeably darker.
> 
> 
> I feel bad for people who buy this screen based on reading this thread alone. YOU must, i repeat MUST get a sample of the material to see it for yourself. You may like it, you may hate it as I do. I wouldn't mind the viewing angles too much as I would be sitting in the sweet spot all the time anyway, but seriously the black levels are terrible, and this is on a ae4000 with color1 and lamp on eco-mode. I know this isn't the darkest of projectors on the market but on a gain 1.0 screen the blacks are very deep. And of course it is possible that a full screen of HP material would look better as I wouldnt have anything to compare the black levels to, so the mind would adjust etc. and of course im using a newer projector that is fairly bright on its own at this size and throw.




There's no way to accurately judge a retroreflective screen with a small size sample. The smaller the sample the smaller the sweet zone.


----------



## NickTF

Think I will be joining the high power group shortly. I've created a 96"x56" solid sheet consisting of two sheets of 1/8" tempered hard board laminated together with bracing in the back (adding more prior to final construction) which will be hung by two french cleats I created from 2x4s. It was originally going to be for a Wilson Art laminate screen. I will be stapling the high power (2.8) to the hardboard. I would assume those directions given for stapling BOC is similar to the directions which should be followed to staple the high power material to the hardboard (that is start at the length ends by stapling one staple at one length end, one at the opposite end, then one at the width end, then one at the opposite end, then return to the length ends, so on and so forth all while pulling the material tight)??? Does that sound viable? I understand the high power material is hardly stretchable at all so please indicate if a different stapling pattern should be followed. Thanks for the help guys!


My projector sits about 84" above the floor with the screen center about 72" or so above the floor with me in the typical 37" area. I'm using a reasonably bright Pany AX200U. I plan to drop the projector from the ceiling another foot or foot and a half with 1" galvenized pipe (currently the universal projector mount I use I've extended from the 10' ceiling down as far as it is via this pipe which threads right in the universal mount). The projector is only 11.5' or so from the screen so what I loose in angle/viewing coan should still be better than the current Da-Lite high contrast matte white material gain of 1.1. I think and hope it should work out very well. Fortunately the projector is right over our living room table which is not a traffic area. The FAF (fiance







) approval factor may not be great but i've got 29 litres of IB as well so it's never been great to start with lol.


Forgot to add I sit about 16' away from the screen. I have been using the screen gain calc to experiment and pending final measurements and what I can tolerate regarding projector drop the above paragraph is subject to change.


----------



## edpowers




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/18875675
> 
> 
> I'm seeing a pattern here, guys ...
> 
> 
> I own a Prius, too!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (You know what screen I own.)



Add me to the HP / Prius list. I have a black 2005 to go with my 106" Model C pulldown and a silver 2006 to go with my 119" Cinema Contour. Everybody knows that you have to keep your HP to Prius ratio at 1:1. Common sense.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NickTF* /forum/post/18877497
> 
> 
> My projector sits about 84" above the floor with the screen center about 72" or so above the floor with me in the typical 37" area.



I can't help you with your stapling questions, but ...


With your pj that high above your eyes, you won't get much gain from the HP. I suggest you use my screen gain calculator linked below and readjust your setup accordingly. You do realize the HP is retroreflective and will behave very differently from most screens, which are angular reflective, don't you? Also your proposed screen center is unusually high.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NickTF* /forum/post/18877497
> 
> 
> 
> I think and hope it should work out very well. Fortunately the projector is right over our living room table which is not a traffic area.



You could also move the projector to the table... yeah more work and wires but may look better to the FAF.. and give you better gain depending on it's height..


----------



## NickTF




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/18877614
> 
> 
> I can't help you with your stapling questions, but ...
> 
> 
> With your pj that high above your eyes, you won't get much gain from the HP. I suggest you use my screen gain calculator linked below and readjust your setup accordingly. You do realize the HP is retroreflective and will behave very differently from most screens, which are angular reflective, don't you? Also your proposed screen center is unusually high.



Your calculator gave me a gain as high as 2.3 if I move the projector down to 55" which is feasible. I used the exact parameters you had for the 2.8 screen. Interesting to note was that even if the center of the screen is higher than the projector the farther down I brought the projector the higher the gain which i'm sure is the retroflective material at work.


My screen must be that high to avoid the audio equipment I have below it on the entertainment stand in addition to the center speaker right below the screen. My ceiling is 10' high in the center and 8' high on the sides (kind of vaulted with the 10' section being flat.


----------



## NickTF




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/18877638
> 
> 
> You could also move the projector to the table... yeah more work and wires but may look better to the FAF.. and give you better gain depending on it's height..



I definitely don't want to do that nor would it work. I'd be slane for such an offense given she bought me the mount for Christmas lol.


----------



## NickTF

What is the type of screen? Specify A for angular reflective or R for retro reflective. (Do not guess at this parameter--it makes a huge difference!) R

What is the manufacturer-published on-axis centerscreen gain of your screen? 2.80

What is the published maximum viewing angle (to one side in degrees off-axis)? 15

What is the centerscreen gain at the published maximum viewing angle? (Don't guess at this either. Consult manufacturer if necessary) 1.40

What is the minimum gain of your screen at large off-axis angles, e.g., 60 degrees? (OK, you may guess here, but make it


----------



## FLBoy

Nick: Your numbers are looking good. My comment was in reference to your originally stated pj height of 84 inches above the floor. As you can see, the gain is much improved with the pj closer to your seated eye level height.


Screen height doesn't matter a lot with the HP. It's mainly a personal preference and neck comfort thing.


----------



## NickTF




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/18878076
> 
> 
> Nick: Your numbers are looking good. My comment was in reference to your originally stated pj height of 84 inches above the floor. As you can see, the gain is much improved with the pj closer to your seated eye level height.
> 
> 
> Screen height doesn't matter a lot with the HP. It's mainly a personal preference and neck comfort thing.



Ok, I just wanted to make for certain that we're on the same page.







I was originally talked out of this screen by a Da-Lite rep when ordering what I have currently and have been peode ever since. Just another case of the companies not knowing all of the details and seeing a 2000 lumens on paper projector as being too bright for a 2.8 gain blah blah blah


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NickTF* /forum/post/18878186
> 
> 
> I was originally talked out of this screen by a Da-Lite rep when ordering what I have currently and have been peode ever since. Just another case of the companies not knowing all of the details and seeing a 2000 lumens on paper projector as being too bright for a 2.8 gain blah blah blah



Very bad advice indeed. As you know, the AX200 is not super bright in the best color mode. With a 106" wide screen, you will definitely need some big gain IMO. The HP will help reject ambient light as well, if that's a concern--provided that the ambient light source is off-axis and not behind the viewers.


----------



## Murilo

What is wrong with me! Can someone please help me, im ready to give up on projection all together.


I have an electric highpower, all of a sudden today on my 16:9 their is a small spec of something dark on the screen now. Its very small, but in bright scenes or white backgrounds its noticeable to me.


It drives me crazy because i had a cheap high gain screen last year where a moth got stuck in it as it was going up. Actually check this forum happens to more people then youd think!


Anyway my 16:9 i loved! I love this highpower, but what its the spec, i tried brushing it off with a microfiber cloth and its like its part of the screen. Rubbing also seems to hurt the beads and make that spot darker.



I will try to get a picture. Its so miniscule but last night that dot was on the white of someones eye and is noticeable. I dont know where it came from, its an electric screen, nobody touches it, its just me and my wife, its like a small spec of dirt or something on the screen. Its also completely smooth in that spot like its part of the screen.


I love the highpower but im also thinking i need to cut my losses and go to a front panel setup


----------



## Murilo

Here are two pictures, second one with a white background being projected on the screen so it shows up. First picture is just a picture of the screen to show how minuscule it is, whatever that dark particle even is!


----------



## davidcrowe

Mine has a spot in the lower left corner where one of the kids touched it with a buttery popcorn finger. This is my second high power screen so I knew that it would not come off and I have not tried. Rubbing the screen will potentially harm the material making the spot more visible. When I spoke to dalite support, they suggested a 50/50 mix of water and 409 and very lightly washing the area. I would call & email dalite with your photos and concerns. They were very helpful when I called.


----------



## airscapes

I would find the most powerful magnifying glass in the house or go to Harbor Freight or other tool store and pick up a magnifying head set or even a jewelers loop. You need to see if there is something on the screen or if the screen surface is coming off (beads). I found a mysterious brown spot on my screen one afternoon and took it off with a damp microfiber rag and some windex spayed on the rag. I had to rub a bit but was very careful to keep a close watch on the surface. Now sure if this is good or not for the attachment of the beads but the spot had to go. A few days latter during a bathroom break the movie was paused on a bright scene and I figured out what make the spot. It was fly poop! There was a fly on the screen, just sitting in the bright spot.. like they do on the side of the house on the white siding over the spot where my wife feeds a stray cat. There are brown spots on the siding just like the screen which I have to clean off every so often with the hose and scrub brush! My fly poop was really small and I only saw it with the sun shining on the screen before I closed the curtain, but it could very well be some insect that has caused you dark spot, that is if the beads are are intact.

Good luck and let us know how you make out!


----------



## Murilo

Ah airscape you never cease to amaze me.


Something I left out!


In summer time we have guests over, bugs come in, its going to happen, we live back onto a coulee, lots of bugs insects in our back yard. Last year it was a moth, this year it was a fly. However learning my lesson regarding my last screen i keep watch!


Well sure enough i think thats what it is. Around the time this happened which was Tuesday, a fly came in, and i seen it on the screen, I jumped up frantically and tried to grab it and kill it. It came back and my guest noticed it so he tried to swat it away quickly it never returned. But it was on the screen for a few seconds and i was freaking out.


So i think airscape is 100 percent correct!


So should i just follow your directions for cleaning it off? I couldnt just brush it off which scares me. I rubbed a bit with a microfiber cloth but its on the screen it seems.


----------



## Murilo

Well I went ahead used microfiber and lens cleaner.


The spot mostly came off their is a tiny spot i can barely see still their.


What im more concerned about even though i barely rubbed hard, i made sure i was careful rubbing lightly not pressing hard, that area looks now slightly darker







I take it the beads in that area are damaged


----------



## Murilo

I had big plans for new seating, a projector upgrade, but now my wife is saying can we please just get a 65 inch plasma and cut our losses. Its hard to argue with her logic after the amount of money i spend on this only to see it destroyed by small insect.


Why couldnt he land on the bottem or top corner. Not in the middle. I probably wouldnt even notice it if it wasnt in the middle of the screen.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/18890403
> 
> 
> Well I went ahead used microfiber and lens cleaner.
> 
> 
> The spot mostly came off their is a tiny spot i can barely see still their.
> 
> 
> What im more concerned about even though i barely rubbed hard, i made sure i was careful rubbing lightly not pressing hard, that area looks now slightly darker
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it the beads in that area are damaged



all depends.. if it is still wet, it will look dark .. imagine a bunch of glass balls all wet.. they don't reflect very well..

If there has been enough time for the area to be dry, then the spot may have been greasy and smeared.. some more cleaning may be needed.

The surface of the screen is fairly resilient, I have scrubbed a sample fairly hard without damage. When I finished cleaning the spot on my screen I blew it off with some caned air and the dark color where wet went away.


Since you say you got most of the spot off, then I don't think there has been any surface damage, just let it dry or help it with some caned air or a hair dry with NO heat (cold setting).

Good luck and don't give up.

This is what the screen looks like up close if you have not seen this photo before


----------



## Joseph Clark

Don't freak out.










Since most of it came off when you rubbed it, it's probably just a stain. If the screen surface were damaged, it wouldn't improve when you cleaned it. No amount of rubbing is going to fix an HP if the surface has started to flake off. It would just get worse and worse.


You do have to be careful when you rub, of course, but the HP is a lot tougher than you think. It took some serious, deliberate abuse on my part to damage the sample I got from DaLite (2.8 gain - the older style HP). I wanted to push it as far as I could, to see what I could do if the screen itself got dirty.


I use a microfiber cloth and eyeglass cleaner made for AR lenses. DaLite recommends Naptha IIRC (but check their Web site before you apply something that harsh - and, again, this was the older HP 2.8 surface).


I've only used AR type eyeglass cleaner on mine. I spray some on the stain (had to squash a mosquito the other night







). Then, I rub in a circle until the stain is gone. At this point, there's a wet blob on the screen. That dark (or light) blob will stay there for a long time if you let it dry on its own. I freaked out when I first tried it. I thought I'd ruined my screen. If you continue that gentle rubbing with the cloth, though, the blob will dry quickly and it will become uniform once again.


If your spot is a tough stain, you may need to use something stronger, but you should be able to use the same overall technique. Contact DaLite and find out the strongest cleaner you can use.


It's a good idea to clean your screen after it goes up. I sweated a lot when I installed mine. I also think it came from the factory a bit dusty. I initially didn't clean it. Those sweat spots got dirtier over time. It's amazing how dirty the screen was when I smashed that first bug on it. I cleaned the bug off and then realized the whole screen was dirty. I ended up cleaning the whole surface. Surprise, surprise - it was like putting a new lamp in my projector.


About once a month, I dust my HP screen with a very soft feather duster (be careful of barbs that sometimes stick out from cheap dusters - you don't want to scratch it). Just as dust makes a piece of furniture look bad, it does the same thing to the screen.


----------



## Joseph Clark

BTW, don't give up and buy that flat panel. After a good projection experience, even a 65" plasma will never be as satisfying.


----------



## FLBoy

Here's what Da-Lite states on their website about cleaning their screens.



> Quote:
> Da-Tex®, Dual Vision, Pearlescent, Cinema Vision, High
> 
> Power®, Da-Mat®, High Contrast Da-Mat®, Audio Vision,
> 
> High Contrast Audio Vision, High Contrast Cinema Vision
> 
> and High Contrast Cinema Perf surfaces can be
> 
> cleaned as follows:
> 
> Using a white clean cloth (100% cotton preferred)
> 
> that is dampened with clear water, gently wipe the
> 
> area in one direction. Do not use a circular motion.
> 
> Using a dry 100% cotton cloth, wipe dry after each
> 
> cleaning session. To clean a stubborn stain or a
> 
> sticky surface, use denatured alcohol (methanol or
> 
> methyl alcohol) following the same procedure as for
> 
> water.


 Here's the link. Scroll down to see the top right side of page 4.


----------



## BlackSoul




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/18873812
> 
> 
> You might try using two L-shaped corner brackets and S-hooks. If you can't find corner brackets big enough for the extension you need, then maybe two shelf brackets would work. You could even add a decorative shelf between the shelf brackets, and attach the screen mounting brackets to the shelf. These things are available at stores like Home Depot and Lowe's.
> 
> 
> If your ceiling has joists in the right places, you might be able to do a ceiling mount using screw hooks and chains; or you could order the screen with extra drop, and mount it directly onto the ceiling.
> 
> 
> Lots of ways to skin this cat!



You are correct, lots of ways







But this is not the main problem for me.


I'm from Qatar which is in the middle east, I'm having this baby shipped so I gotta do this right the first time.


Assuming I want the Contour Electrol in 119" 16:9 size. I see I can order the 220v motor option which should work as we use (240v) power which after some research I believe is the same and it should work with no issues.


The main thing is the IR control unit is external, a huge turn off. We have brick walls so the wiring to the screen would be external. I wish it was internal. Also it doesn't come with a power cord, I don't have the technical knowledge to make or connect one. I'm not sure how to power it otherwise if I can't wire it to the wall.


There isn't any option for me to get the 119" in any model with options that would work for me ? Is my only option the 106" Designer Contour Electrol ?


I would appreciate your help guys ..


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BlackSoul* /forum/post/18893872
> 
> 
> There isn't any option for me to get the 119" in any model with options that would work for me ? Is my only option the 106" Designer Contour Electrol ?



You know, with all the complications of getting power to this thing, I think you might want to consider a 119" Model C with CSR. Is it really that much trouble to walk over to the screen and operate it manually? Yes, electric is cool, but do you _really_ need it? In addition to eliminating the installation issues and the unsightly exposed cord and IR controller, a manual screen will save you several hundred dollars. Just my two cents.


----------



## RodK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/18895080
> 
> 
> You know, with all the complications of getting power to this thing, I think you might want to consider a 119" Model C with CSR. Is it really that much trouble to walk over to the screen and operate it manually? Yes, electric is cool, but do you _really_ need it? In addition to eliminating the installation issues and the unsightly exposed cord and IR controller, a manual screen will save you several hundred dollars. Just my two cents.



That is what I did, but I got a 110" model C without csr ( I have a long dowel with a hook in it to reach). Too much hassle to get power where I needed it. I am the only one who touches the screen so electric was no big deal for me other than losing the "cool" factor. Screen still looks amazing.


----------



## BlackSoul

I also wanted the cool factor, but it's not possible for me.


I like your idea FLBoy. Is operating the Model C w/ CSR easy ? How tricky it is to lower it and retract it ?


Shall I order it with the 2.8 Fabric (can I still do that) ?


Thanks for all the help everybody.


----------



## Murilo

Well sadly while the spot is nearly gone the area i had to clean it is slightly darker now. I dont know what im going to do. The highpower is definately not cleaning freindly from my experience.


I only rubbed as soft as i could to finally get it off. While the mark is not even visible the area i rubbed it is now a bit darker.


Im just very disappointed i guess. Electric highpower pretty much ruined at this point.


----------



## Murilo

Whats also crazy if you were to look at the screen, the screen looks basically perfect. But when you turn the projector on that area seems to be darker, its like theirs a faint dark blotch in that corner. I cant live with that










if you take a look at the second picture posted above, the fly crap or dark spot in the middle i was able to rub off, but you can see a faint dark circle around that spot. That it seems is a damaged area from trying to clean it.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/18898496
> 
> 
> Well sadly while the spot is nearly gone the area i had to clean it is slightly darker now. I dont know what im going to do. The highpower is definately not cleaning freindly from my experience.
> 
> 
> I only rubbed as soft as i could to finally get it off. While the mark is not even visible the area i rubbed it is now a bit darker.
> 
> 
> Im just very disappointed i guess. Electric highpower pretty much ruined at this point.



Don't give up. Since you feel it is ruined you can not do any harm in trying to correct it. Get a clean micro fiber cloth and wet it with warm water and wipe the area turning the rage often. Apply some pressure, you are not scrubbing a pot of baked on muck but you can use the type of force you would to clean a window pane. Get a can of air (used to clean computers) and blow dry the area (or a hair dryer if it has a cold setting).

If the spot is still dark, next I would try the denatured alcohol as stated above. Apply it to a clean dry rag and wipe the area gently turning the rag.

Blow dry and inspect. At this point I would let it sit a day or so even after blowing dry to make sure all the moisture is gone.

As a last resort, I would spray the area with windex (don't soak it to much.. maybe just spray the rag at first) and wipe with a dry rag the rinse with a damp rag, dry as before.. windex cures everything!

Go slow and careful and I think you will be fine.

Hopefully you are supporting the back of the screen as you rub so as not to stretch the surface of the fabric.

I forget ..is this the 2.4 or 2.8 fabric.. think you have the 2.8 correct?

Also, check the back of the screen near the spot.. when the screen rolls up the front comes in contact with the back of the screen.. could still have something on there that will transfer..


----------



## Murilo

I tried windex this time, only used glass cleaner before hope it works.


I followed your directions. Should i leave it down to let it dry or put it up?


I think your right it may take a day or two to dry.


Saturday when i tried the glass cleaner the next day it still did not look any better but today it did look better it seemed more faint. But alas i could still see it when sportscenter aired hockey highlights it was quite visible dark area on the ice.


----------



## airscapes

leave it down to dry.

Oh BTW, if it looks different after time then it is not damaged.. still just not clean..or still wet


----------



## Joseph Clark

I found that if I don't actively dry the dark spot after cleaning, it takes a very long time to disappear. I know from FLBoy's post that DaLite doesn't recommend doing circular motions for their screens, but it has never hurt my 2.8 HP with a microfiber cloth. Perhaps the other screens (including the 2.4) are more susceptible to damage with that motion. If I continue to rub the microfiber cloth on the dark spot, it does go away quickly.


You also have to make sure that you use a very clean cloth on the screen. If there's any soapy residue in it, it will leave a visible stain.


----------



## noah katz

You might try applying a small piece of cloth wetted with cleaner and let it soak awhile before rubbing.


That worked for me when I rolled up a moth with the screen a couple of times.


And if it seems clean but still dark, clean the entire screen so it doesn't stand out.


----------



## BlackSoul

Now I know you guys said that if a viewer is outside the width of the screen then he'd still get 1.0 gain, right ? I'm confused because using the screen gain calculator I can get less than 1.0 gain if the angle is 40

or something (can't remember the exact angle, typing this on my phone).


----------



## airscapes

someone did actual measurements of an hp sample and got .8 off axis.. If there is a lot of viewing outside the cone, it may not be the best choice... If most of the time is is 2 or 3 folks.. don't worry about the guest!


----------



## FLBoy

I received a gain-versus-viewing-angle graph for the 2.8 HP a couple of years ago from Da-Lite. It shows the gain dropping to 1.0 at 18 degrees off axis. At 30 degrees and higher it stays at 0.75. This is about 30% of the brightness for positions in the sweet spot, which typically can reach a gain of 2.0-2.3. (Positions that could theoretically approach a gain of 2.8 would have either head shadowing or projector blocking the view.)


Subjectively, the picture does appear somewhat dimmer at 30 degrees, but the human eye compensates for much of the brightness difference if the picture in the sweet spot is reasonably bright to begin with. Advantageously, the cross-screen brightness uniformity usually remains excellent for the HP even for off-axis viewers.


One thing to remember is that a front projection screen is a passive device. It cannot reflect more light in all directions than it receives. What gain screens do is redirect light toward an on-axis position. This ALWAYS comes at the expense of less light for off-axis viewing positions. These effects become more pronounced as the gain increases.


If you want every possible viewing position to see the same brightness, you will need to get a matte white 1.0 gain screen. This will either limit your screen size, or require an unusually bright projector for a large screen. No free lunch here.


----------



## badgerpilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/18903701
> 
> 
> I received a gain-versus-viewing-angle graph for the 2.8 HP a couple of years ago from Da-Lite. It shows the gain dropping to 1.0 at 18 degrees off axis. At 30 degrees and higher it stays at 0.75. This is about 30% of the brightness for positions in the sweet spot, which typically can reach a gain of 2.0-2.3. (Positions that could theoretically approach a gain of 2.8 would have either head shadowing or projector blocking the view.)
> 
> 
> Subjectively, the picture does appear somewhat dimmer at 30 degrees, but the human eye compensates for much of the brightness difference if the picture in the sweet spot is reasonably bright to begin with. Advantageously, the cross-screen brightness uniformity usually remains excellent for the HP even for off-axis viewers.
> 
> 
> One thing to remember is that a front projection screen is a passive device. It cannot reflect more light in all directions than it receives. What gain screens do is redirect light toward an on-axis position. This ALWAYS comes at the expense of less light for off-axis viewing positions. These effects become more pronounced as the gain increases.
> 
> 
> If you want every possible viewing position to see the same brightness, you will need to get a matte white 1.0 gain screen. This will either limit your screen size, or require an unusually bright projector for a large screen. No free lunch here.



Excellent post


----------



## FLBoy

Thanks, bp. Hey, small world--I lived in Colleyville before moving here!


----------



## badgerpilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/18906513
> 
> 
> Thanks, bp. Hey, small world--I lived in Colleyville before moving here!



I'm right by the corner of Central and Mid-Cities - almost in Colleyville


----------



## rgathright

Will these screens ever come down in price? I am mainly looking at the fixed Cinema Contour model.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgathright* /forum/post/18917053
> 
> 
> Will these screens ever come down in price? I am mainly looking at the fixed Cinema Contour model.



"Ever come down in price?"? One of the reason these screens are so popular is they have such great performance AND they are relatively inexpensive to boot.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgathright* /forum/post/18917053
> 
> 
> Will these screens ever come down in price? I am mainly looking at the fixed Cinema Contour model.



Probably not in list price, but the street price is heavily discounted. Also, the Cinema Contour is the most elegant of the Da-Lite models. The Da-Snap and the Perm-Wall are far less expensive (and less elegant) versions of the Da-Lite fixed frame screen models, but with the exact same screen material.


I would suggest that if budget is limited, you pick the least elegant version you can tolerate, and then get a quote from Jason at the AV science store. Their prices are very fair.


----------



## NickTF




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/18917274
> 
> 
> Probably not in list price, but the street price is heavily discounted. Also, the Cinema Contour is the most elegant of the Da-Lite models. The Da-Snap and the Perm-Wall are far less expensive (and less elegant) versions of the Da-Lite fixed frame screen models, but with the exact same screen material.
> 
> 
> I would suggest that if budget is limited, you pick the least elegant version you can tolerate, and then get a quote from Jason at the AV science store. Their prices are very fair.



Or purchase a Model B if the sizes they offer suit your needs, cut the material off, and build your own frame!


----------



## RobertR




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NickTF* /forum/post/18921254
> 
> 
> Or purchase a Model B if the sizes they offer suit your needs, cut the material off, and build your own frame!



Exactly what I did. Saved me a lot of money.


----------



## Killroy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NickTF* /forum/post/18921254
> 
> 
> Or purchase a Model B if the sizes they offer suit your needs, cut the material off, and build your own frame!



Ditto. Less than 3 bills for the 106" Model-B and about 1 bill for the aluminum frame material from Home Depot. My next frame will be a wooden canvas frame since it flexes less but it may be a bit more.


----------



## nirvy111




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/18898961
> 
> 
> I tried windex this time, only used glass cleaner before hope it works.
> 
> 
> I followed your directions. Should i leave it down to let it dry or put it up?
> 
> 
> I think your right it may take a day or two to dry.
> 
> 
> Saturday when i tried the glass cleaner the next day it still did not look any better but today it did look better it seemed more faint. But alas i could still see it when sportscenter aired hockey highlights it was quite visible dark area on the ice.



I cleaned my screen top to bottom with a micro fibre cloth used for cleaning glass and a bucket of warm water, it came a pretty good. If your using a heavily damp cloth it can take a little while for the screen to fully dry but I'm only talking a couple of hours at most. It doesn't take days that's for sure unless your theatre room is really cold or something even then I doubt it.


----------



## Murilo

Well the good news is its pretty faint now after cleaning. Its ever so slightly darker yet where i rubbed but i have not noticed it. I guess I will have to see it on hockey again, with the white ice and camera panning it was most noticeable but so far its hard to tell even when im looking.


Fingers crossed.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/18922324
> 
> 
> Well the good news is its pretty faint now after cleaning. Its ever so slightly darker yet where i rubbed but i have not noticed it. I guess I will have to see it on hockey again, with the white ice and camera panning it was most noticeable but so far its hard to tell even when im looking.
> 
> 
> Fingers crossed.










Glad you had success! stop looking for it and enjoy the picture!


----------



## Murilo

Exactly i keep looking for it now, i will probably forget about it in a few months.


----------



## NickTF

About 2 days from ordering the 106" model b and cutting the material off to mount to the frame/back board (96x56 2 layers of brown hardboard laminated together) I created originally for Wilson Art DW. Anyone have any suggestions on what to use to cut the material and any stapling advice? I understand that the border is just painted on top of the screen material and given the nature of this material I would think just regular ole scissors won't do the job. I have multiple things I can use and will purchase what I need if I don't have it to do this right. My model b will have 12 or 18 inches of black out drop down so I have plenty area to cut and not screw anything up.


I also understand this material to be very rigid/non tensionable. Any comments on stapling vs. the instructions i've read regarding stapling BOC?


Thanks for any advice.


----------



## GoCaboNow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NickTF* /forum/post/18932059
> 
> 
> About 2 days from ordering the 106" model b and cutting the material off to mount to the frame/back board (96x56 2 layers of brown hardboard laminated together) I created originally for Wilson Art DW. Anyone have any suggestions on what to use to cut the material and any stapling advice? I understand that the border is just painted on top of the screen material and given the nature of this material I would think just regular ole scissors won't do the job. I have multiple things I can use and will purchase what I need if I don't have it to do this right. My model b will have 12 or 18 inches of black out drop down so I have plenty area to cut and not screw anything up.
> 
> 
> I also understand this material to be very rigid/non tensionable. Any comments on stapling vs. the instructions i've read regarding stapling BOC?
> 
> 
> Thanks for any advice.



This screen is not hard to cut. Sharper is always better.







I don't have any first hand experience with stapling but be very careful when you are handling the screen material. You don't want to twist or crease the material as that can cause the glass beads to break away inside the screen material. This leaves a little black line or spots wherever it occurs. Good luck.


I am installing an IB sub as well. Four 18's. I have the first two in and just waiting for the last two to arrive. Just two is phenominal!


----------



## NickTF




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GoCaboNow* /forum/post/18965688
> 
> 
> This screen is not hard to cut. Sharper is always better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have any first hand experience with stapling but be very careful when you are handling the screen material. You don't want to twist or crease the material as that can cause the glass beads to break away inside the screen material. This leaves a little black line or spots wherever it occurs. Good luck.
> 
> 
> I am installing an IB sub as well. Four 18's. I have the first two in and just waiting for the last two to arrive. Just two is phenominal!



Thanks. I've read to be very careful as well given the nature of this material. I have 12" of the black border portion to work with at the top which is nice to know. Looking at my current Da-Lite Model C High Contrast Matte White Screen (which is for sale with Da-Lite's hanging bracketts by the way) it looks like the bottom bar will simply unscrew and can be removed that way without cutting.


Have a Surebonder 9600 air stapler on the way which should make life a bit easier.


I had two tc 2000 15" woofers and two tc 18" passive radiators in two enclosures (one woofer one radiator per box) and while that system was awesome it didn't come close to how incredible, realistic, scary, quick, and intricate this current four 18" sytem is. I'm a believer and the thing is I have half the money in this IB than I had in the previous box(s) setup. Need to patch a tiny hole where my projector wiring comes down along the projector pole. Watched Terminator Salvation the other day with the volume cranked and had insulation coming out of the ceiling lol.


----------



## GoCaboNow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NickTF* /forum/post/18966045
> 
> 
> Thanks. I've read to be very careful as well given the nature of this material. I have 12" of the black border portion to work with at the top which is nice to know. Looking at my current Da-Lite Model C High Contrast Matte White Screen (which is for sale with Da-Lite's hanging bracketts by the way) it looks like the bottom bar will simply unscrew and can be removed that way without cutting.
> 
> 
> Have a Surebonder 9600 air stapler on the way which should make life a bit easier.
> 
> 
> I had two tc 2000 15" woofers and two tc 18" passive radiators in two enclosures (one woofer one radiator per box) and while that system was awesome it didn't come close to how incredible, realistic, scary, quick, and intricate this current four 18" sytem is. I'm a believer and the thing is I have half the money in this IB than I had in the previous box(s) setup. Need to patch a tiny hole where my projector wiring comes down along the projector pole. Watched Terminator Salvation the other day with the volume cranked and had insulation coming out of the ceiling lol.



Know what you mean. I love my HP screen and PJ. But I LOVE my IB sub.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GoCaboNow* /forum/post/18967947
> 
> 
> Know what you mean. I love my HP screen and PJ. But I LOVE my IB sub.



I have 8 AE IB15's in the wall. Crimony... it really isn't necessary. My closest neighbors are 600 feet away and they can hear it when it's not even at full volume.


----------



## sb1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NickTF* /forum/post/18932059
> 
> 
> About 2 days from ordering the 106" model b and cutting the material off to mount to the frame/back board (96x56 2 layers of brown hardboard laminated together) I created originally for Wilson Art DW. Anyone have any suggestions on what to use to cut the material and any stapling advice? I understand that the border is just painted on top of the screen material and given the nature of this material I would think just regular ole scissors won't do the job. I have multiple things I can use and will purchase what I need if I don't have it to do this right. My model b will have 12 or 18 inches of black out drop down so I have plenty area to cut and not screw anything up.
> 
> 
> I also understand this material to be very rigid/non tensionable. Any comments on stapling vs. the instructions i've read regarding stapling BOC?
> 
> 
> Thanks for any advice.



Not sure if you've already done this or not, but I can tell you that stapling the HP material is one of those things that I either naturally suck at, or it's an actual certifiable *****. I've done it twice so far and invented profanity both times. I cut my material out of a Model B pulldown as well for a 2.35:1 screen, and everything but the cursed stapling is easy. I became a pro at stapling BOC, though.


----------



## NickTF




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sb1* /forum/post/18968336
> 
> 
> Not sure if you've already done this or not, but I can tell you that stapling the HP material is one of those things that I either naturally suck at, or it's an actual certifiable *****. I've done it twice so far and invented profanity both times. I cut my material out of a Model B pulldown as well for a 2.35:1 screen, and everything but the cursed stapling is easy. I became a pro at stapling BOC, though.



I have an air stapler on the way. I'm open to any more detail you want to share with why this material sucks to staple so I can do my best to avoid any issues. Thanks.


I just dropped my projector down and it turned out very nicely. When I have the screen up on the frame I made (should be mounting august 7) I will take some pictures.


----------



## sb1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NickTF* /forum/post/18968606
> 
> 
> I have an air stapler on the way. I'm open to any more detail you want to share with why this material sucks to staple so I can do my best to avoid any issues. Thanks.
> 
> 
> I just dropped my projector down and it turned out very nicely. When I have the screen up on the frame I made (should be mounting august 7) I will take some pictures.



The issue is the HP material's lack of flexibility. There simply is none. The BOC cloth had a small measure of stretch to it that allowed it to be stretched taut and stapled. I made the frame, laid the HP material over it like normal, then stapled it starting with one staple at each point of the compass (one in the middle of each piece of wood). Probably the wrong way, but that's what I did. From there I just worked my way around. The good thing is that even if you do have wrinkles or sag in it, it won't show when a movie is playing unless it's really bad and/or you get a pan across the screen in the wrinkled area.


One very helpful thing is to make sure the frame and material is square (of course). Especially the cut in the material. If the HP material is cut square it's _way_ helpful in getting it stapled without sag anywhere (I learned that on the first attempt).


The next time I do it I may try using glued Velcro instead of staples.


----------



## RobertR




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sb1* /forum/post/18968666
> 
> 
> 
> The next time I do it I may try using glued Velcro instead of staples.



Since I built a steel frame, I used magnets.


----------



## NickTF




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sb1* /forum/post/18968666
> 
> 
> The issue is the HP material's lack of flexibility. There simply is none. The BOC cloth had a small measure of stretch to it that allowed it to be stretched taut and stapled. I made the frame, laid the HP material over it like normal, then stapled it starting with one staple at each point of the compass (one in the middle of each piece of wood). Probably the wrong way, but that's what I did. From there I just worked my way around. The good thing is that even if you do have wrinkles or sag in it, it won't show when a movie is playing unless it's really bad and/or you get a pan across the screen in the wrinkled area.
> 
> 
> One very helpful thing is to make sure the frame and material is square (of course). Especially the cut in the material. If the HP material is cut square it's _way_ helpful in getting it stapled without sag anywhere (I learned that on the first attempt).
> 
> 
> The next time I do it I may try using glued Velcro instead of staples.



Hmmm, my screen is still over a week before I cut it and fasten the material to my framing. I may look into velcro. Could glue and staple the velctro to the frame and just glue the velcro to the screen material.


----------



## sb1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RobertR* /forum/post/18968738
> 
> 
> Since I built a steel frame, I used magnets.



Me attempting a metal frame build would have been akin to Russian roulette.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NickTF* /forum/post/18970108
> 
> 
> I may look into velcro. Could glue and staple the velctro to the frame and just glue the velcro to the screen material.



That's exactly what I was going to try next: Glue/staple to the frame, glue to the material. Unless you try it and report back that it was a colossal failure on a cosmic scale.


----------



## NickTF




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sb1* /forum/post/18970985
> 
> 
> Me attempting a metal frame build would have been akin to Russian roulette.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what I was going to try next: Glue/staple to the frame, glue to the material. Unless you try it and report back that it was a colossal failure on a cosmic scale.



I did some reading on velcro for various uses including fastening a screen directly to a wall. I think i'm going to try my hand at just stapling and doing the best I can.


----------



## sb1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NickTF* /forum/post/18971265
> 
> 
> I did some reading on velcro for various uses including fastening a screen directly to a wall. I think i'm going to try my hand at just stapling and doing the best I can.



Just go slow with it and constantly check your tension in various places as you go. Also, be super careful handling the HP material. While it's heavy weight and not easily torn, you can accidentally get a crease in it, which will damage it and leave a _highly_ visible dark mark on it when an image hits it.


----------



## noah katz

If it's that hard to get flat, why not treat it like flooring material and bond it to a flat piece of plywood.


----------



## sb1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/18972497
> 
> 
> If it's that hard to get flat, why not treat it like flooring material and bond it to a flat piece of plywood.



For my case, I was nervous about being able to actually do that right. Without wrinkles or anything. At least with staples I can redo an area that has a fold in it or doesn't line up right. I'd have to research how you'd bond it to plywood, but it sounds easy to screw up if you make even a small mistake.


----------



## NickTF




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/18972497
> 
> 
> If it's that hard to get flat, why not treat it like flooring material and bond it to a flat piece of plywood.



I don't want to do it in my case as I don't like the idea of touching the glass beaded surface.


----------



## noah katz

I was thinking that slow-setting adhesive would give time to get it flat, which you'd do just by pulling on the perimeter.


----------



## Warbie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sb1* /forum/post/18968666
> 
> 
> it won't show when a movie is playing unless it's really bad and/or you get a pan across the screen in the wrinkled area.



I'm haing just this problem with my manual pulldown. It's developed big waves in the fabric and on pans the image wobbles like in a heat haze. Its' very, very annoying on what is otherwise the perfect screen for me


----------



## sb1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Warbie* /forum/post/18977739
> 
> 
> I'm haing just this problem with my manual pulldown. It's developed big waves in the fabric and on pans the image wobbles like in a heat haze. Its' very, very annoying on what is otherwise the perfect screen for me



Yeah, it can be quite apparent at times if you have them. Took me a while to get mine out by re-stapling to my fixed frame. Never had a pulldown screen before.


----------



## Warbie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sb1* /forum/post/18977949
> 
> 
> Yeah, it can be quite apparent at times if you have them. Took me a while to get mine out by re-stapling to my fixed frame. Never had a pulldown screen before.



Is your frame a diy jobbie with material purchased seperately?


----------



## sb1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Warbie* /forum/post/18978109
> 
> 
> Is your frame a diy jobbie with material purchased seperately?



Yep. Wood and black velveteen. I cut the HP material out of a manual pulldown screen.


----------



## Marboosh

Hi guys,


I'm new here and have a question about the HP.


I have a JVC RS-10 and a 119" Model C, what is the best height to mount my PJ, I'm placing it on a shelf so I can position it at any height. I know I'll get the most gain placing just above the viewers head but I've heard of people complaining because of light spill and theres a thread now about visible texture although with a different screen but I wanna make it right.


Thanks


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Marboosh* /forum/post/18978455
> 
> 
> Hi guys,
> 
> 
> I'm new here and have a question about the HP.
> 
> 
> I have a JVC RS-10 and a 119" Model C, what is the best height to mount my PJ, I'm placing it on a shelf so I can position it at any height. I know I'll get the most gain placing just above the viewers head but I've heard of people complaining because of light spill and theres a thread now about visible texture although with a different screen but I wanna make it right.
> 
> 
> Thanks



Just above the views head.. +- a head or 2..

Install your screen and since you are using a shelf, set up something temp you can safely put the projector on and adjust the height.. trying different positions to see what you like. A nice board and the old set of encyclpedias no one uses could probably do the job on a table top...

Make sure you are on eco/low lamp mode and try it out!

Just DO NOT move the projector while it is on. DO NOT pick it up fast after is was just power off (lamp is so hot the glass can be soft and sag or so I have been told). And by all means DO NOT bump it when it is warm.. treat it like Nitroglycerin!!

You will find a spot that is best for you room conditions.


----------



## FLBoy

Marboosh: I have a JVC RS10 and a 100" HP. I must have missed the memo about "light spill," as I have no idea what you're talking about. I also see no texture. This is the most transparent screen I could ever want. I have the PJ at eye level and shoot between my two main viewing positions for maximum gain.


Oh, wait. Perhaps you're speaking about visible light outside the image when projecting a 16:9 image on a 'scope screen. That's a PJ problem, and the RS10 has it--on any screen. It's solved by masking.


----------



## Warbie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sb1* /forum/post/18978136
> 
> 
> Yep. Wood and black velveteen. I cut the HP material out of a manual pulldown screen.




Interesting. I may have to do with the same thing as I can no longer put up with the waves on my manual screen. If it's ok I'll be sending you a few pms asking for advice when I can muster the enthusiasm to start!


----------



## GardenVariety

Just got a model C 92" and running an Epson 8500ub. First off, the screen definitely raises the black level. If you have an "ultra contrast" projector it shouldn't be too much of an issue. The MLL is probably twice as high as my JVC RS10 was on a Carada BW. So, that's the one negative. On the positive side the picture absolutely screams. I have my PJ on THX mode and Eco bulb and it's at least twice as bright as my JVC was on normal bulb mode. The colors are much more vibrant and the viewing angle isn't that bad. My PJ is on a shelf 1ft behind me and 8" above my head so I'm realising most of the gain the screen has to offer. Overall I am very satisfied as my only two options in my price range were an Elite Cinetension and the high power to pull down over my Kuro.


----------



## Marboosh

FLBoy : Thanks for your response. I recall reading about the light spill ( I'm not positive if this was the tern he used ) on Art's review of the RS10.

I had an LCD projector before this along with a matte white screen. While the picture blew me away since it was my first, I always thought that it was kind of dim.

After some research I sold my pj and screen and was going to buy the new LG CF181D or a BenQ W6000 until I saw the deal for the refurb. RS10's, I always wanted a JVC but couldn't justify the cost, I managed to snag the last one. Jason was really helpful and a pleasure to deal with.

After reading about how you and other owners like your RS10/HP combo I placed another order with Jason for the 119" Model C w/CSR 16:9 and black case.

I can't wait to get everything set up and seeing if I made the right choices or not.


Sorry for the long post but I really can't thank you guys enough, especially FLBoy.


Have a nice weekend.


- Marboosh


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Marboosh* /forum/post/18982932
> 
> 
> I can't wait to get everything set up and seeing if I made the right choices or not.
> 
> 
> - Marboosh



Boy I would like to see the #$%T Eating grin on your face when you fire that up with the projector just over eye level


----------



## FLBoy

Thank you, Marboosh. One suggestion--be sure to carefully set your black level with a good calibration disk after you get everything set up. If you don't already have a calibration disk, I recommend the Spears & Munsil High Definition Benchmark Blu-ray Edition. When my RS10 first arrived, the picture looked "gothic" and dark and I did not know what was wrong. I then ran the calibration disk and learned that the black level was set waaay too low, which was crushing my blacks. After readjustment of the brightness control, the picture was perfect!


----------



## sb1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Warbie* /forum/post/18980448
> 
> 
> Interesting. I may have to do with the same thing as I can no longer put up with the waves on my manual screen. If it's ok I'll be sending you a few pms asking for advice when I can muster the enthusiasm to start!



No problem. Not sure how much advice I can give as I'm not really the handy man type, but I've built a few DIY screens at least.


----------



## Nima

Hello,


thanks to this thread I ordered a HP 2,8 122" wide 2.39 screen that should arrive here in about two weeks. I have ordered a PermWall because that was the easiest to ship to Europe. Any pointers as to caveats with a Permwall that big? Is it easy to assemble?


Thanks,

Nima


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nima* /forum/post/18984986
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> 
> thanks to this thread I ordered a HP 2,8 122" wide 2.39 screen that should arrive here in about two weeks. I have ordered a PermWall because that was the easiest to ship to Europe. Any pointers as to caveats with a Permwall that big? Is it easy to assemble?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Nima



Yes, be sure to mount it solidly to the wall, keeping it level, square, and aligned with precision. You will need an electric drill to drill through the aluminum frame every 18 to 24 inches (46 to 61 cm). You also will need to obtain fasteners suitable for your type of wall construction to fasten the frame solidly to the wall. (The frame is NOT sufficiently strong to be self-supporting.)

Here is the tutorial from Da-Lite.


----------



## Nima

Thanks FLboy,


any advice on putting on the fabric? Does it snap on easily to the frame? Should I go top to bottom or diagonal?


Regards,

Nima


----------



## NickTF

Just took receipt of my 106" model b 16:9. Can't wait to get this home, get the Fisker Scissors, and start the process of mounting this material on the frame/backboard I created!!!


----------



## airscapes

Nick, I would hang it and open it and test it before I cut it.. just to be on the safe side.. you will have a hard time getting warranty if the fabric has issues once cut..


----------



## NickTF




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/18997937
> 
> 
> Nick, I would hang it and open it and test it before I cut it.. just to be on the safe side.. you will have a hard time getting warranty if the fabric has issues once cut..



Yeah, I plan to roll it out first and give it a good once over. I've been back and forth with the Da-Lite reps about my plans so they are aware of what I want to do. Ofcourse they want to sell me the fabric itself but for what they want they have a better chance of selling sobriety to a crack head


----------



## NickTF

Welp sure enough I got the wrong mutha f'............. 2.4 gain material. I'm very very upset given I requested the 2.8 100 times. Just recieved a call from the gentlemen I placed the purchase through and he's on Da-Lite to get this straight given he too requested the correct 2.8 material 100 times. Very frustrating but accidents happen. At least I haven't dismounted the current screen yet.


----------



## airscapes

Ouch! Know how your feel all to well!


----------



## NickTF




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/18999162
> 
> 
> Ouch! Know how your feel all to well!



Well I can say on a positive note that I appreciate very much all of the info you put up making it easy for me to know for certain.


Just unrolling it with the screen case on the ground it felt alot more flimsy then what all of your all's descriptions state it should have.


edit: Also noticed the strong smell of vinyl indicated to be associated with the new material.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nima* /forum/post/18994350
> 
> 
> Thanks FLboy,
> 
> 
> any advice on putting on the fabric? Does it snap on easily to the frame? Should I go top to bottom or diagonal?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Nima



It is pretty difficult to snap onto the frame unless you're quite strong. Some say that doing the corners makes it go easier. Hope you've been working out--especially your fingertips!







(I had to use vice grips, but I'm an old f**t.)


----------



## edpowers




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/19000112
> 
> 
> It is pretty difficult to snap onto the frame unless you're quite strong. Some say that doing the corners makes it go easier. Hope you've been working out--especially your fingertips!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (I had to use vice grips, but I'm an old f**t.)



So true! I never thought I'd ever work up a sweat snapping fabric to a frame. I also had to use vice grips. In the end, its well worth the effort to have an extremely tight screen.


----------



## sb1

^ I'd like to stop being so cheap one day and buy a screen frame. All of mine to this point have been DiY solutions.


----------



## Joseph Clark

Ah, memories. I think I lost five pounds snapping my HP to its frame. And I never would have been able to do it if I'd followed the instructions the way they suggest. It's next to impossible.


----------



## Daman S

I installed my high power last night and they gave a tool that helps snap on the fabric to the snaps.. that was very very helpful for what would have been a very tough exercise otherwise!


A question i posted in another thread as well.. there is a bottom bracket for the screen but no holes in the frame to attach it to, should i go ahead and drill the holes or am i missing out on something?


----------



## NickTF

Well got a call and Da-Lite is going to send me the correct screen ASAP which is good news. All in all just a slight pain in the butt.


----------



## Daman S




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NickTF* /forum/post/19003609
> 
> 
> Well got a call and Da-Lite is going to send me the correct screen ASAP which is good news. All in all just a slight pain in the butt.



A question Nick, how can you tell if its a 2.4 screen vs 2.8.. please pardon my ignorance on the topic.


----------



## NickTF




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daman S* /forum/post/19003781
> 
> 
> A question Nick, how can you tell if its a 2.4 screen vs 2.8.. please pardon my ignorance on the topic.



This is a great question I only learned the answer to yesterday in my searching because of the suspiscion I had.


Go to the search function. Do a search for the user "airscapes". Select the option to display "threads the user created". It will pull up the thread where airscapes discusses the differences between new vs. old hp material. There are pictures of both materials side by side as well as a picture of the box packaging. If the box shows up with a red sticker over top of the green sticker you're likely in business (you have the 2.8 old material). If the material smells like vinyl and is flimsy and has an obvious texture similar to the black border it's most likely 2.4 material. The picture in airscapes' thread is the best to use for verifying it.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daman S* /forum/post/19003356
> 
> 
> A question i posted in another thread as well. There is a bottom bracket for the screen but no holes in the frame to attach it to. Should i go ahead and drill the holes or am i missing out on something?



As I recall, my frame came pre-drilled. If yours is not, Drill Baby Drill!


----------



## Daman S




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/19004688
> 
> 
> As I recall, my frame came pre-drilled. If yours is not, Drill Baby Drill!










Thanks a lot, ill get to it then!


Btw, i fired up the pj last night just to see how the image looks on the new screen(room still in transition). holy cow!!! The images popped off the screen and it felt like i was watching a 125" plasma instead of a FP setup.


Really really impressed so far by what i've seen. Thanks a bunch to everyone here who researched on this material, big thumbs up


----------



## Nima

Hi Guys,


mine was sent to Europe and should arrive next week. I barely can wait.











@Joseph how did you attach the screen in the end? From corner to corner?



Thanks,

Nima


----------



## Daman S

Well i finally got the room setup today and fireup star trek and what do i notice.. three very noticeable material imperfections in the screen







I have sent an email to the vendor i got it from(B&H) but am wondering if i should directly contact Dalite in this case? Anyone had a similar issue so far with them? Really bummed here..


----------



## Nima

Damn, that is a bummer. What do these imperfections look like? Is the fabric damaged?


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daman S* /forum/post/19010654
> 
> 
> Well i finally got the room setup today and fireup star trek and what do i notice.. three very noticeable material imperfections in the screen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have sent an email to the vendor i got it from(B&H) but am wondering if i should directly contact Dalite in this case? Anyone had a similar issue so far with them? Really bummed here..



Which fabric is it, the 2.8 or the new 2.4? Also, as was asked, what is it you are seeing? What model screen and what size is it? What model projector and where is the projector mounted in relation to the screen? Is it on Standard/high output or low/eco?

I feel your pain but it will get taken care of, just have to be patient and stay cool! With the issue I had (wrong fabric) I contacted both the vendor and Dalite, this was before we new they changed the fabric. In the end, the vendor should get the replacement ordered, and it will be shipped directly to you from Dalite as the original was. Or at least that is how it worked with AVS

This was was the thread related to my issues.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...577&highlight=


----------



## Daman S




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nima* /forum/post/19010844
> 
> 
> Damn, that is a bummer. What do these imperfections look like? Is the fabric damaged?



It really is a bummer especially after i spent 1 month preparing the new room and was ready to finally watch some movies.. I have contacted B&H and they are creating a return authorization for me so hopefully this issue will be taken care of, but waiting for another 2-3 weeks would be painful. I guess ill have to mount my old 92" 16:9 again in the meantime.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/19010982
> 
> 
> Which fabric is it, the 2.8 or the new 2.4? Also, as was asked, what is it you are seeing? What model screen and what size is it? What model projector and where is the projector mounted in relation to the screen? Is it on Standard/high output or low/eco?
> 
> I feel your pain but it will get taken care of, just have to be patient and stay cool! With the issue I had (wrong fabric) I contacted both the vendor and Dalite, this was before we new they changed the fabric. In the end, the vendor should get the replacement ordered, and it will be shipped directly to you from Dalite as the original was. Or at least that is how it worked with AVS
> 
> This was was the thread related to my issues.
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...577&highlight=



I'm still not sure of which fabric this is Doug, i looked at your thread and read that the 2.4 material is only for pull down screens, so im assuming its the 2.8 since mine is FF.


The screen is a Fixed Frame 49X115 Inch Cinema Contour http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search...tialSearch=yes 


The projector is Sony VPL-VW40 mounted right in the middle of the screen both in height and width(shelf mounted on the back wall). I have the Iris of the PJ stopped down though its running in normal mode, i just set everything up last night so haven't had a chance to fiddle around with the settings yet or calibrate it with the new screen.


The image itself looks fantastic and these smudges are very minor but they do show up in bright scenes and its very annoying especially considering its a new screen. Hopefully this will get done soon.. thanks for lending a ear to my grumbling







knew of no other place i could vent my frustration.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nima* /forum/post/19006808
> 
> 
> Hi Guys,
> 
> 
> mine was sent to Europe and should arrive next week. I barely can wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @Joseph how did you attach the screen in the end? From corner to corner?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Nima



There was no way I could get the snaps in place while the screen was flat on the floor. I had to lean the frame against the wall, and I guess I was just lucky I didn't damage the surface as I worked my way around with the snaps. It's a job best done with a friend (or two), who can help keep the fabric from folding until you get enough snaps in place. I can't remember the exact sequence I used for the snaps - just that I was a sweaty, tired mess when it was all over.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daman S* /forum/post/19011442
> 
> 
> It really is a bummer especially after i spent 1 month preparing the new room and was ready to finally watch some movies.. I have contacted B&H and they are creating a return authorization for me so hopefully this issue will be taken care of, but waiting for another 2-3 weeks would be painful. I guess ill have to mount my old 92" 16:9 again in the meantime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still not sure of which fabric this is Doug, i looked at your thread and read that the 2.4 material is only for pull down screens, so im assuming its the 2.8 since mine is FF.
> 
> 
> The screen is a Fixed Frame 49X115 Inch Cinema Contour http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search...tialSearch=yes
> 
> 
> The projector is Sony VPL-VW40 mounted right in the middle of the screen both in height and width(shelf mounted on the back wall). I have the Iris of the PJ stopped down though its running in normal mode, i just set everything up last night so haven't had a chance to fiddle around with the settings yet or calibrate it with the new screen.
> 
> 
> The image itself looks fantastic and these smudges are very minor but they do show up in bright scenes and its very annoying especially considering its a new screen. Hopefully this will get done soon.. thanks for lending a ear to my grumbling
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> knew of no other place i could vent my frustration.



Can you get a photo of the marks? Could they just be dirty finger prints? Just wondering if you could wash them off.. maybe your supplier would rather you try and clean it before returning it??


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daman S* /forum/post/19011442
> 
> 
> It really is a bummer especially after i spent 1 month preparing the new room and was ready to finally watch some movies.. I have contacted B&H and they are creating a return authorization for me so hopefully this issue will be taken care of, but waiting for another 2-3 weeks would be painful. I guess ill have to mount my old 92" 16:9 again in the meantime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still not sure of which fabric this is Doug, i looked at your thread and read that the 2.4 material is only for pull down screens, so im assuming its the 2.8 since mine is FF.
> 
> 
> The screen is a Fixed Frame 49X115 Inch Cinema Contour http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search...tialSearch=yes
> 
> 
> The projector is Sony VPL-VW40 mounted right in the middle of the screen both in height and width(shelf mounted on the back wall). I have the Iris of the PJ stopped down though its running in normal mode, i just set everything up last night so haven't had a chance to fiddle around with the settings yet or calibrate it with the new screen.
> 
> 
> The image itself looks fantastic and these smudges are very minor but they do show up in bright scenes and its very annoying especially considering its a new screen. Hopefully this will get done soon.. thanks for lending a ear to my grumbling
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> knew of no other place i could vent my frustration.



Yes, it sounds like the screen is dirty. I sweated all over mine and those smudges took some time to get off. I used AR eyeglass cleaner and a soft, clean, lens-safe/lint free cloth to clean it (mine is the 2.8 gain fabric). Here's FLBoy's post from the DaLite site on how to clean the fabric. Definitely try that before you send it back.


----------



## Daman S




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/19011497
> 
> 
> Can you get a photo of the marks? Could they just be dirty finger prints? Just wondering if you could wash them off.. maybe your supplier would rather you try and clean it before returning it??





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/19011542
> 
> 
> Yes, it sounds like the screen is dirty. I sweated all over mine and those smudges took some time to get off. I used AR eyeglass cleaner and a soft, clean, lens-safe/lint free cloth to clean it (mine is the 2.8 gain fabric). Here's FLBoy's post from the DaLite site on how to clean the fabric. Definitely try that before you send it back.



I did try to clean them today morning with water and a cloth, no good.. seems like a texture mishap.. kind of like how a roller leaves a smudge on the wall when painting. They aren't dirty smudges, more like white spots of the texture itself. I can give it a shot again with some alcohol but i have my doubts since water didn't seem to help at all.


I'll try to get some pictures tonight when i get home and post them. Thanks again!


----------



## Joseph Clark

 Take a look at this post. Again, DaLite says not to rub in a circle, so you can ignore that part, but it's worth a try. When I let the fabric dry on its own, without really going after it with the cloth, it took forever for the white spot to fade. (At first I used a wash cloth that had some soapy residue on it. That made it worse.)


----------



## airscapes

Hum.. texture mishap.. that sounds like 2.4. 2.8 was very smooth 2.4 has a rough feel and looks as if it is painted on (under a microscope) 2.8 I could not tell how the beads were attached, but it was not painted on like 2.4. My photos don't show that to well but that is how it looked in person.

Good luck and I am sorry you didn't get a good one from the get go!


----------



## Daman S




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/19011595
> 
> Take a look at this post. Again, DaLite says not to rub in a circle, so you can ignore that part, but it's worth a try. When I let the fabric dry on its own, without really going after it with the cloth, it took forever for the white spot to fade. (At first I used a wash cloth that had some soapy residue on it. That made it worse.)



Thanks Joseph, yes that technique is mentioned in the manual as well, i went over it with a wet cloth and then with a dry one. Maybe ill give it a shot again this evening to see afterall. Should i try rubbing alcohol(don't want to end up damaging it though).


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/19011663
> 
> 
> Hum.. texture mishap.. that sounds like 2.4. 2.8 was very smooth 2.4 has a rough feel and looks as if it is painted on (under a microscope) 2.8 I could not tell how the beads were attached, but it was not painted on like 2.4. My photos don't show that to well but that is how it looked in person.
> 
> Good luck and I am sorry you didn't get a good one from the get go!



Hmm.. i guess it might be 2.4 then, though im very happy with the brightness part of it. B&H close early today but they have gotten in touch with Dalite, hopefully i'll get to hear something back on this early next week. Thanks for all the helpful suggestions!


----------



## jostenmeat

I think I created a dark spot on my screen last night, roughly about 0.5"x1.0". I was cleaning my screen with an electrostatic duster, and then noticed this small red/brown spot in the upper left (have no idea where it came from, I will assume some insect, dunno really), and so I went at it with a damp microfiber. I thought I had read that his material is rather tough, but oops. We put on a 2.35 movie, and this spot is in the black bar and so it was undetectable, but it looked pretty dark during the preview. Ruh roh. I do have an enormous screen at 159", so it's relatively very small, but we'll see if I can live with it.


If anyone has any ideas/tips to help "reduce the darkness", I'm all ears. Thanks.


I'll update once I get to fire it up again. It's possible that moisture made it look dark, but, I thought I gave it just enough time to be dry, and I even waved at it with the microfiber to help speed the drying. Damn.


Hm. Maybe I should rip the material out, and go for a scope screen? LOL. I don't really want to, and anamorphic glass is so expensive, at least for the good units. I am using an RS1.


----------



## airscapes

Dry the spot with a hair dryer on COLD or a can of compress air. It can take a day or more depending on conditions for it to completely dry. When damp or wet it will be dark. If you have access to a jewelers loop take a close look at the surface to see if there is any damage.


----------



## jostenmeat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/19017564
> 
> 
> Dry the spot with a hair dryer on COLD or a can of compress air. It can take a day or more depending on conditions for it to completely dry. When damp or wet it will be dark. If you have access to a jewelers loop take a close look at the surface to see if there is any damage.



Thanks very much airscapes! You've given me hope.







I have compressed air, I'll give that a go. Hmm, maybe compressed air would be an effective way of cleaning the screen off? Dunno.


Somewhat of an OT question: I have read that with *other* screen materials, as a non tensioned pulldown, when it develops waves they are permanent and even fixing it to a frame won't do any good with these waves. True? Would this also hold true for an HP screen? (I am well aware that the waves are harder to see, but I'd still like to know.) I suppose* that perhaps it may not solve it, but perhaps significantly improve it? Cheers.


----------



## NickTF

Well the new screen with the correct 2.8 material will be here tomorrow! Look forward to getting it on the DIY frame, up on the wall, doing some watching, being wowwed, and posting some pics


----------



## sb1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NickTF* /forum/post/19023231
> 
> 
> Well the new screen with the correct 2.8 material will be here tomorrow! Look forward to getting it on the DIY frame, up on the wall, doing some watching, being wowwed, and posting some pics



Good to hear. Especially the posting pics part. If there's one thing that practically all AVS'rs have in common, it's a shared love of screenshots.


----------



## NickTF




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sb1* /forum/post/19023262
> 
> 
> Good to hear. Especially the posting pics part. If there's one thing that practically all AVS'rs have in common, it's a shared love of screenshots.



Ha that's right! I can't gaurantee the screen shots will be that great given i've never been able to master the art of reproducing what I see on the screen with a camera. I am more interesting in sharing what it looks like to have a ceiling mount solution which sits in front of the viewer low enough to work with the high power material. I see the mything of "it won't work with a ceiling mount" too much on here through various searches on this material. A picture's worth 1000 words.


----------



## jostenmeat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/19017564
> 
> 
> Dry the spot with a hair dryer on COLD or a can of compress air. It can take a day or more depending on conditions for it to completely dry. When damp or wet it will be dark. If you have access to a jewelers loop take a close look at the surface to see if there is any damage.



I watched some 1.78 last night, and the spot is significantly smaller now, but still very dark. My guess is that it might be the size of a couple of pixels, I didn't investigate, maybe next time. Fortunately, like my guests I never notice it, unless I am focusing on that exact spot and the scene has a brighter upper left corner. We will see if there is any more "drying" to happen, but I fear it is permanently damaged.


I will think again before trying to remove any other spot!


Thanks again for your previous response, airscapes.


----------



## NickTF

Well I was able to get the 2.8 material on my frame last night and i'm totally happy with how it turned out!!! The key to stapling without wrinkles lies in having a few friends to help look and hold the screen material why you yourself also hold/tension the material prior to stapling. Also, I had the frame as close to vertical as I could get it to mimic how it would sit to avoid any introduction of wrinkles due to flex.


As far as the picture WOW WOW WOW!!! All the reviews talking about how bright this material are don't do it justice!!! I now have my projector on eco-mode and it's still far brighter than it was in normal mode vivid cinema (normally watch in cinema two which is less bright) with the previous 1.1 gain high contrast matte white material.


The screen is hung with french cleats I created from 2x4s with a 45 degree angle via a mitre box. The bottom of the screen has a 2x4 block fastened on each end also to keep screen from rotating down so to speak. Both the cleats and blocks have rubber mouse pad material stapled to them to prevent rattling agains the wall invoked by my large IB subwoofer.


Pics are with a crappy cell phone cam. I will get screen shots with a much nicer cam soon enough.


Plans: Will be building a border to hide the staples in the black border area which aren't visible during normal watching.


Artifact at top center is from lights which aren't on during viewing. You don't see it with an image on the screen regardless.










An idea of how low the projector is. Next pick will be from viewing position.










A pic from viewing position. The angle appears more severe than it is for reasons I can't explain. I assure you it doesn't bother me or my viewers one bit!










Again I will follow up with screen shots of projected images. Very very happy I decided to go with this material instead of a wilson art screen!!!



p.s. Don't let the viewing angle scare you. It works very well from all of the normal seats in my house!


----------



## airscapes

Looks great! If you are bothered by light reflected off the silver projector, some Triple black velvet, xacto knife and 3M 77 spray adhesive works wonders..

Cut the velvet out to fit areas of the projector where you have reflection, spray back of cut velvet, let dry a minute and stick it in place. I eve did the inlet vents of mine.. cut out all the slots flush with the plastic. Mine is on a table so the table get a velvet cover and the projector top get a loose piece of velvet, sides are glued on, and the projector vanishes when the lights go out.. just an idea if you get board!


----------



## NickTF




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/19032778
> 
> 
> Looks great! If you are bothered by light reflected off the silver projector, some Triple black velvet, xacto knife and 3M 77 spray adhesive works wonders..
> 
> Cut the velvet out to fit areas of the projector where you have reflection, spray back of cut velvet, let dry a minute and stick it in place. I eve did the inlet vents of mine.. cut out all the slots flush with the plastic. Mine is on a table so the table get a velvet cover and the projector top get a loose piece of velvet, sides are glued on, and the projector vanishes when the lights go out.. just an idea if you get board!



Thanks for the suggestion. Thanks again also for creating that other thread making it very easy to tell the difference between 2.8 and 2.4 that was a life saver!


Da-Lite was very good about it not giving the guy I ordered from any hastle whatsoever. They got the new screen to me 1 week after taking delivery of the incorrect 2.4 gain screen.


p.s. I have a model b all apart and can take pics if anyone is interested of how they come apart lol.


----------



## sb1

Nice work, Nick. Screen looks great. That's about the same as my viewing angle. A little high for my tastes, but I have a tv underneath it for everyday viewing. No one has complained so far about it.


Is that a Panny 900 projector? I can't really tell from the pics.


----------



## NickTF




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sb1* /forum/post/19033036
> 
> 
> Nice work, Nick. Screen looks great. That's about the same as my viewing angle. A little high for my tastes, but I have a tv underneath it for everyday viewing. No one has complained so far about it.
> 
> 
> Is that a Panny 900 projector? I can't really tell from the pics.



Ax200. given it's 11.5' plus or minus 4 inches from the screen it's as bright as any reasonable setup could possibly be!


$40 for the air stapler shipped is the best $40 I spent for this project. Couldn't imagine trying to use a manual staple gun with people holding the screen upright; would be a nightmare.


----------



## sb1

With the 200, I bet that's one bright picture using an HP screen.


----------



## jostenmeat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NickTF* /forum/post/19032789
> 
> 
> p.s. I have a model b all apart and can take pics if anyone is interested of how they come apart lol.



Congrats! I would love to see a few pics if you can bothered at some point. I believe mine is a model C, but I'm still very curious.


I don't know if you need more brightness, but there was a thread (mostly for JVC owners, but other 3LCD owners did likewise), where simply cleaning the prism/diffuser that the bulb fires into made a very large increase in brightness. I don't have measuring tools, but the subjective difference was akin to putting in a brand new bulb, but only at the cost of a microfiber and rubbing alcohol.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1223098&page=5


----------



## NickTF




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jostenmeat* /forum/post/19035269
> 
> 
> Congrats! I would love to see a few pics if you can bothered at some point. I believe mine is a model C, but I'm still very curious.
> 
> 
> I don't know if you need more brightness, but there was a thread (mostly for JVC owners, but other 3LCD owners did likewise), where simply cleaning the prism/diffuser that the bulb fires into made a very large increase in brightness. I don't have measuring tools, but the subjective difference was akin to putting in a brand new bulb, but only at the cost of a microfiber and rubbing alcohol.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1223098&page=5



Cool man I will check that out. I have a bit of blue spotting in the right 3rd of the screen which showed up after the installation of the 3rd bulb i've had in this projector (each replaced around 1950 hours). Probably need to look into fixing that as well but it is very subtle.


----------



## Daman S

Just wanted to update on the issue i had with the screen, dalite shipped out the new screen material to me on a 2 day shipping and it arrived last night. The screen is flawless now(I put in some very bright scenes to check) and i couldn't be happier with the customer service of both B&H and Dalite


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daman S* /forum/post/19038166
> 
> 
> and i couldn't be happier with the customer service of both B&H and Dalite



Sure you could.. it could have been perfect the first time.. I just don't get it.. maybe since the majority of the stuff sold is for board rooms and other commercial installs where no one cares if it perfect they just let the small stuff go and hope it does not come back.. go figure..


----------



## sb1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/19038351
> 
> 
> Sure you could.. it could have been perfect the first time.. I just don't get it.. maybe since the majority of the stuff sold is for board rooms and other commercial installs where no one cares if it perfect they just let the small stuff go and hope it does not come back.. go figure..



Huh? You've never made a mistake? I say if they're resolving a problem for the previous poster this quickly then he has every right to be pleased with the service he's getting. Defects in manufacturing happen. Just a way of life. The companies who are on the ball and get it taken care of asap deserve some measure of praise for doing so. If every screen they shipped out had a problem, then maybe I'd think differently, but they don't.


----------



## Daman S




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sb1* /forum/post/19038537
> 
> 
> Huh? You've never made a mistake? I say if they're resolving a problem for the previous poster this quickly then he has every right to be pleased with the service he's getting. Defects in manufacturing happen. Just a way of life. The companies who are on the ball and get it taken care of asap deserve some measure of praise for doing so. If every screen they shipped out had a problem, then maybe I'd think differently, but they don't.



+1

I agree if everything had been perfect the first time it would certainly have been great, but the way they handled things is appreciable. I talked to them Friday late afternoon and Monday morning Dalite shipped the new screen to me with 2 day shipping.


Considering the first time around it took 2 weeks for the order to arrive, this was very fast. Plus the fact that i did not have to return the existing screen before i can get the new one helps. They sent a return mailer sticker along with fedex home pickup service.


----------



## jostenmeat

Does anyone have experience with this stuff? I am curious how it may help the small black spot of damage that was incurred with microfiber that I was posting about here, recently. I suppose if it doesn't have any retroreflectivity, or at least some gain, it would be pointless. Ok, it seems that someone says it has 1.3 gain, hmrz. I understand it needs be rolled or sprayed, but I wonder if I could try a touch up paint brush. I am expecting that people will say it's not worth my time, but I'm curious.


I could get rid of the black spot by converting my screen to 2.35:1, but I don't want to know how much an ISCO III or Panamorph, with sled, ends up costing. Thanks for reading.


I will try to post this query in the DIY subforum too.


----------



## airscapes

I would be tempted to try this stuff. Maybe try on paper first before putting it on the screen....
http://www.liquidreflector.com/order2.html 

That was the only place I could find reflective paint in a small amount at a low cost after a few minutes for searching.. Would have to be very lucky for it to work I would think.

Or .. maybe it would be better since the 2.8 is not paint at all to get the bulk beads
http://www.liquidreflector.com/Refle...lassbeads.html ..smallest ones 0.037- 0.088 mm. then apply a tiny amount of white glue to the black spot and dump on the beads..

either way it would not cost much..


----------



## jostenmeat

Thanks airscapes (again)! I'll have to look into this more. I received a PM from a lurker about this stuff here:

http://www.reflectivepaint.co.uk/ref...paint-info.htm 


Now, as for cost and availability in the US, I don't know, but this seems like it would be just the ticket?!


----------



## calibos

I just downloaded FLBoys great calc and this is what I got. Gain measurements are in black for the PJ on a shelf about 8 inches over my head (seated) and in red with it 22 inches over my head (Seated)


I couldn't seem to get the plus or minus distance left or right of the centre of the screen to work so I left that at 0. I am assuming the Screen Left and Screen Right values are at the borders of the screen and are good enough to give me approximate values for my seating. For the seating along the left wall I just changed the values for distance to screen.


If I did it right I am pretty happy with the gain I will get out of this screen!!


Next question. My values with the PJ mounted 22 inches over my head (in Red) seem correct except my centre seat value is .2 less than my screen left or screen right values? Whats up with that?











If I go for the mounting closer to my head the ProJ Central calc gives me the following Foot Lamberts based on a 2.5 gain. 22 FL for zoomed 2.35 and 24 FL for 16:9. Does those figures sound good enough for some ambient light usage?


Next question. I am thinking about getting the PermWall fixed frame but I have some particular custom requirements. ie. an inverted T shaped screen to maximise both 2.35:1 and 16:9 sizes (in effect CIA) while maintaining PJ aspect zooming and masking automation.











I know that I will be paying for what in effect will be a 16:9 screen the same width as my 2.35:1 width, ie. 115. So I'll be paying for a 116x65(133). But when Da-Lite say they do custom orders do they just mean non standard rectangular screen sizes or does anyone think they can do custom permwall frame shapes like my inverted T??


----------



## pelochas

Can i get the high power 2.8 screen in a manual rollup ceiling model? And what am i looking to spend for a 100+ inch screen? Is the tripod model cheaper than a ceiling model?


Im for sure i need it to be retractable.


----------



## Fabricator

UPDATE


(i have not read this thread is months)



my 119" 2.8 manual has had waves from nearly day one. they are not big waves. but when viewed from the side, white screen, they are easily seen.

during a movie, the waves are absolutely UNSEEN.


i now, due to trying to sell my place, have the projector mounted above the screen. brightness is NOT an issue !



this screen, along with my Viewsonic Pro8100. is some of the best money i have ever spent.


----------



## hrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pelochas* /forum/post/19102423
> 
> 
> Can i get the high power 2.8 screen in a manual rollup ceiling model? And what am i looking to spend for a 100+ inch screen? Is the tripod model cheaper than a ceiling model?
> 
> 
> Im for sure i need it to be retractable.



Yes, you can. You would spend under a thousand. MSRPs are listed on the Da-Lite website for all their screens. Most screens get a generous discount off of MSRP. Call AV Science, the forum sponsors, for an exact quote.

http://www.da-lite.com/products/prod...?cID=9&pID=213 

http://www.da-lite.com/products/index.php?cID=19


----------



## Lucabratsi

Hi Guys,


I have a large 78X139 Matt electrol, and need to upgrade, as the screen is 8 years old and showing streaks from rolling up and down so much. My HT room has light control problems, and a HP should help. I need guidance on the gain, 2.4 or 2.8 ? (if the 2.8 is avalible) Also, why did Dalite change the HP to 2.4? Does anyone have the 2.8 vs 2.4 gain vs angle data?

Thanks a bunch,

Lucabratsi


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lucabratsi* /forum/post/19136387
> 
> 
> Hi Guys,
> 
> 
> I have a large 78X139 Matt electrol, and need to upgrade, as the screen is 8 years old and showing streaks from rolling up and down so much. My HT room has light control problems, and a HP should help. I need guidance on the gain, 2.4 or 2.8 ? (if the 2.8 is avalible) Also, why did Dalite change the HP to 2.4? Does anyone have the 2.8 vs 2.4 gain vs angle data?
> 
> Thanks a bunch,
> 
> Lucabratsi



I was the first member to figure out they changed the formula and didn't tell anyone.. the data on the 2 screen fabrics can be found here.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1213577 

Why they did it, I would guess to save money.. new 2.4 looks sprayed on from what I could see with a machinist microscope.


----------



## Lucabratsi

Thanks Airscapes,


I went and ordered the 78 X139 in the 2.4 fabric, as I was told the 2.8 will have a seam at the top.

I will post impresions when I set it up in a week or so.


Cheers,

Lucabratsi


----------



## Jrunr

I have a room that has a bit of ambient light that enters from the sides of the room. Would this 2.8 be a good bet for me? I am hoping for an electric screen at 120" diag 16X9 and I will be sitting about 14ft away. It seem as if all of the retailers I talk to are trying to get me to go the stewart Firehawk G3 route. I am hoping this will work better. Any suggestions?


----------



## rgathright

I am working on getting all of the info/details/parts to build my frame. I plan on getting the Model C 133" for this, but have a few questions. I am been searching for details on which frame I want to build.


1) If I was to put some middle framing in would they show behind the screen?

2) Is there enough black border to fold around the frame for stapling without reducing the size?

3) What type and length of staples did ya'll use?

4) How did you attach the frame/screen to the wall?

5) Is one particular frame detail better than the others?


*Edit: This probably could have been in the DIY screen forum, but they do not consider it a DIY screen if I use a High Power screen.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgathright* /forum/post/19197480
> 
> 
> I am working on getting all of the info/details/parts to build my frame. I plan on getting the Model C 133" for this, but have a few questions. I am been searching for details on which frame I want to build.
> 
> 
> 1) If I was to put some middle framing in would they show behind the screen?
> 
> 2) Is there enough black border to fold around the frame for stapling without reducing the size?
> 
> 3) What type and length of staples did ya'll use?
> 
> 4) How did you attach the frame/screen to the wall?
> 
> 5) Is one particular frame detail better than the others?
> 
> 
> *Edit: This probably could have been in the DIY screen forum, but they do not consider it a DIY screen if I use a High Power screen.



1. I made my screen with SMX AT material and put middle framing in. I painted it black to match the black area behind the screen and you can't see it even with the perforated material. So I would think it would be safe with HP material.


4. I hung it with small black rope, hooks and pulleys. I have a bat-cave so you can't see the mechanics and the image just hangs in space.


----------



## sb1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgathright* /forum/post/19197480
> 
> 
> I am working on getting all of the info/details/parts to build my frame. I plan on getting the Model C 133" for this, but have a few questions. I am been searching for details on which frame I want to build.
> 
> 
> 1) If I was to put some middle framing in would they show behind the screen?
> 
> 2) Is there enough black border to fold around the frame for stapling without reducing the size?
> 
> 3) What type and length of staples did ya'll use?
> 
> 4) How did you attach the frame/screen to the wall?
> 
> 5) Is one particular frame detail better than the others?
> 
> 
> *Edit: This probably could have been in the DIY screen forum, but they do not consider it a DIY screen if I use a High Power screen.



1) Can't say. I've never done that.


2) Not sure what you mean. I stapled the material directly to the back of the wooden frame. No folding involved. There's enough border area to do this, but not if you're going to try to fold it around the frame.


3) I believe I used 1/2" staples (made by Stanley). Not sure of the part number, but they appeared to be a very popular size at Lowes. I just used a cheap manual staple gun (also made by Stanley).


4) I just hung it with standard picture hangers on either end and in the middle. The kind that look like sharp teeth and hang on a nail in the wall.


5) Not quite sure what you're asking. Just anything that you need to be aware of? If that's the case, be super careful when stapling. There is no give to the HP material, so you can't stretch it to remove wrinkles. I have some wrinkles in mine, and this weekend I'm taking it down and I'm going to try velcro this time to see if it works better. I've always used staples in the past.


----------



## rgathright

On several of the websites that I have found it mentions to fold the screen fabric around the 1x3 and staple it to the back. Below is one that I have printed. This shows the fabric. It shows middle framing, but other websites says not to do this because the framing can be seen.

http://www.eldamar.net/house/ht/screenHowTo.html


----------



## airscapes

You may want to look in the DIY forum for BOC screen designs. A frame to hold blackout cloth would hold real screen fabric just as well. Its ok to change the Recipe to suite you needs as you cook!


----------



## sb1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgathright* /forum/post/19198498
> 
> 
> On several of the websites that I have found it mentions to fold the screen fabric around the 1x3 and staple it to the back. Below is one that I have printed. This shows the fabric. It shows middle framing, but other websites says not to do this because the framing can be seen.
> 
> http://www.eldamar.net/house/ht/screenHowTo.html



In my opinion, that's the hard way to do it.


I just took four 1 x 3's (cut to my aspect ratio of 2.35:1), wrapped them in black velveteen for the border, and stapled the material to the back of the wooden frame.


----------



## Lucabratsi

Hello,


I now have the 78X139 cosmo elec. HP 2.4 up and running. Projector is a BenQ W6000. Projector is 26' back and viewing from 18'. Wow, now I have a 12' plasma. No hotspots that I can see. Compared to Matt on my last screen, this is in a different league. Colors, contrast, and detail is superb. May be one of the best under $4K combo out there. There is still plenty of detail in the white areas, and they are not washed out. Very Happy, thanks much to this thread. I set up a small compressor and a spray nozzle, to blast the screen to keep the bug-a-boos off the screen before rolling it up. Works great. My last screen was covered with bug mashies.


Cheers,


Lucabratsi


----------



## rgathright

I was planning on getting a 133" Model C next month to go with my low lumens Mits HC6000. I currently have a Carada BW 92" screen. But this projector is starting to give me some trouble, so I want to make sure that this screen will not be to bright for a possible new (higher lumens) projector. My room is semi-controlled with drapes and the projector throw distance is around 16'. Right now I am looking at either the HC4000 (I will need to check to see if we see RBE). Other options are the new Epson 31000 or something is Panasonic comes out with something.


So my main question is will the screen be to bright for higher (1300 and up) projectors? I would hate to get this screen which makes my HC6000 look great, but when I upgrade it would not be so great. The calculations for the current HC6000 shows our sitting locations to be about 2.0 gain.


----------



## airscapes

Assuming the replacement projectors can be mounted in the same spot as your current projector and have the needed lens shift or whatever you are using..

Take the 2 gain number over to projector central screen calculator, plug in your new projector, screen size and gain of 2 and see what the FL is. You can always use the projector on low lamp and if you should get it ISF calibrated it will loose a lot of brightness once the gray scale and gama are set correctly. 133" is a big screen if that is the diag size.. I don't think any of the projectors you listed would be to bright..

FLboy should be by shortly, he is more experienced than I am so I would pay close attention to his response.


If you like your


----------



## edpowers




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgathright* /forum/post/19272389
> 
> 
> I was planning on getting a 133" Model C next month to go with my low lumens Mits HC6000. I currently have a Carada BW 92" screen. But this projector is starting to give me some trouble, so I want to make sure that this screen will not be to bright for a possible new (higher lumens) projector. My room is semi-controlled with drapes and the projector throw distance is around 16'. Right now I am looking at either the HC4000 (I will need to check to see if we see RBE). Other options are the new Epson 31000 or something is Panasonic comes out with something.
> 
> 
> So my main question is will the screen be to bright for higher (1300 and up) projectors? I would hate to get this screen which makes my HC6000 look great, but when I upgrade it would not be so great. The calculations for the current HC6000 shows our sitting locations to be about 2.0 gain.



If you find your new projector to be too bright for your viewing tastes, add a ND filter. After you put some mileage on your lamp and you feel like its too dim, remove the ND filter and its like you just got a new lamp. I've done this in the past and its like getting two lamps for the price of one.


That being said, at 133", there are very few projectors (in best calibrated mode) that I personally would find too bright, even with a 2.0 gain.


----------



## keithkeith

I just got a sample from Da Lite of their 2.4 HP screen material. Now i will say the colors are amazing. Exactly what i was looking for from this screen. I have noticed however that the blacks are more washed out with the HP screen. When watching Dark Knight the other night, Batman's suit was more gray that a black. I know that the contrast ratio has alot to do with the picture and blacks. Is this normal with the HP screens ? Wanted to know if anyone else has this problem with HP screens. I wanted to get the 2.8 but they sent me the 2.4. Im sure the 2.8 would be even more amazing with colors just can not see watching movies with blacks to be good with this screen. I have my projector mounted high as the top 1/3 of the screen on a shelf. Any help would be great as i am about to look at other options


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *keithkeith* /forum/post/19272864
> 
> 
> I just got a sample from Da Lite of their 2.4 HP screen material. Now i will say the colors are amazing. Exactly what i was looking for from this screen. I have noticed however that the blacks are more washed out with the HP screen. When watching Dark Knight the other night, Batman's suit was more gray that a black. I know that the contrast ratio has alot to do with the picture and blacks. Is this normal with the HP screens ? Wanted to know if anyone else has this problem with HP screens. I wanted to get the 2.8 but they sent me the 2.4. Im sure the 2.8 would be even more amazing with colors just can not see watching movies with blacks to be good with this screen. I have my projector mounted high as the top 1/3 of the screen on a shelf. Any help would be great as i am about to look at other options



Go to page one of this thread and read the review. Whenever there is positive gain, the gain will increase all levels of light including the light the projector leaks at 0IRE or black. Samples do not tell the complete story and a proper ISF calibration with the HP screen can help a lot. Since having my projector calibrated the black levels are better than they have ever been. Still elevated compared to matte white but so is everything else. If you are black obsessed it may not be the screen for you.


----------



## keithkeith




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/19272917
> 
> 
> Go to page one of this thread and read the review. Whenever there is positive gain, the gain will increase all levels of light including the light the projector leaks at 0IRE or black. Samples do not tell the complete story and a proper ISF calibration with the HP screen can help a lot. Since having my projector calibrated the black levels are better than they have ever been. Still elevated compared to matte white but so is everything else. If you are black obsessed it may not be the screen for you.




I agree with ya that i am sure the small sample will not show me what a full screen of HP material could look like. Do not get me wrong, the colors and everything on that sample, in one word would be Wow ! Just noticed the black scenes the sample still looked lit up and did not seem very black. Granted this may be as you say just since it is a sample. Also not having it ISF calibrated. I used settings from another member for one of my saved settings. Still it was not set for the HP screen. So i am sure that has much to do with it as you say.


I was sold on the HP screen when i saw the sample watching football. If there is a way i could get blacks to show black with my projector ( Epson 8100) , yes i know the contrast ratio on this projector is not that of a JVC but blacks should still show black. Not grey.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *keithkeith* /forum/post/19273204
> 
> 
> yes i know the contrast ratio on this projector is not that of a JVC but blacks should still show black. Not grey.



First, make sure your HDMI levels are set correctly, the "normal/enhanced" or "video/PC" settings... there are various terms used.


But realize that you'll never get black with a digital projector. Even JVC's blacks are gray. It's just where you are on the continuum between light and black.


----------



## edpowers




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *keithkeith* /forum/post/19273204
> 
> 
> I was sold on the HP screen when i saw the sample watching football. If there is a way i could get blacks to show black with my projector ( Epson 8100) , yes i know the contrast ratio on this projector is not that of a JVC but blacks should still show black. Not grey.



Blacks will ALWAYS be more elevated with a higher gain screen. Its just basic science. The high gain material is redirecting more light into your viewing cone. Your projector is still throwing light on the screen when you have a "black" image ... even if its a tiny amount of light. You are magnifying that light with a high gain screen. Its FAR more noticeable when you put a high gain sample next to a low gain background. Our brain picks up on the relative differences between the two. With a white screen and current digital projectors (with traditional bulbs), "blacks" are NEVER truly black.


----------



## keithkeith




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edpowers* /forum/post/19273701
> 
> 
> Blacks will ALWAYS be more elevated with a higher gain screen. Its just basic science. The high gain material is redirecting more light into your viewing cone. Your projector is still throwing light on the screen when you have a "black" image ... even if its a tiny amount of light. You are magnifying that light with a high gain screen. Its FAR more noticeable when you put a high gain sample next to a low gain background. Our brain picks up on the relative differences between the two. With a white screen and current digital projectors (with traditional bulbs), "blacks" are NEVER truly black.




Basically we will all see black blacks with a LED powered projector im guessing. Ah well that is down the road. I am still new with the projection setup. I came from a 67" LED powered Samsung Dlp tv. Great picture but needed bigger. Stepped up to the Epson 8100 with a 106" Screen from Visual Apex ( which i think is a 1.0 Gain ). Love the picture just wanted more snap from the picture at times especially when i watch football. Just looked like i lost detail when watching movies but then that could be me. I have light colored walls and carpets so i already know i am working against myself.


The HP screen gave me that just wanted to know if everyone still sees a great picture even in dark scenes with the HP screen ( screenshots if anyone has any )


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *keithkeith* /forum/post/19274563
> 
> 
> Basically we will all see black blacks with a LED powered projector im guessing. Ah well that is down the road. I am still new with the projection setup. I came from a 67" LED powered Samsung Dlp tv. Great picture but needed bigger. Stepped up to the Epson 8100 with a 106" Screen from Visual Apex ( which i think is a 1.0 Gain ). Love the picture just wanted more snap from the picture at times especially when i watch football. Just looked like i lost detail when watching movies but then that could be me. I have light colored walls and carpets so i already know i am working against myself.
> 
> 
> The HP screen gave me that just wanted to know if everyone still sees a great picture even in dark scenes with the HP screen ( screenshots if anyone has any )



The hp will help with the light rejection for reflection but it is not perfect. If your blacks are not black in a mixed scene then it could be from the walls.. I only notice the raised blacks in an all dark scene and now the projector has been properly calibrated it is really MUCH better than it was priol. My projector is also an older unit with a on







ff contrast of 4000:1 so not state of the art.


----------



## edpowers




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *keithkeith* /forum/post/19274563
> 
> 
> Basically we will all see black blacks with a LED powered projector im guessing. Ah well that is down the road. I am still new with the projection setup. I came from a 67" LED powered Samsung Dlp tv. Great picture but needed bigger. Stepped up to the Epson 8100 with a 106" Screen from Visual Apex ( which i think is a 1.0 Gain ). Love the picture just wanted more snap from the picture at times especially when i watch football. Just looked like i lost detail when watching movies but then that could be me. I have light colored walls and carpets so i already know i am working against myself.
> 
> 
> The HP screen gave me that just wanted to know if everyone still sees a great picture even in dark scenes with the HP screen ( screenshots if anyone has any )



I have a JVC RS10 with a 119" High Power. I have my RS10 iris at its most closed position (darkest/highest contrast). I can definitely notice dark gray fades to black, but I still would consider it an excellent picture overall. The benefits of the high power vastly outweigh the drawbacks for me. Just the off-axis ambient light rejection alone is reason enough for me to stick with a high power. Those light colored walls and carpet will wash out your bright scenes with a neutral gain screen. That's one of the big reasons you are seeing so much more pop when watching football with the high power.


Screenshots are particularly worthless when it comes to this topic because your camera settings will determine what kind of black level shows up in the picture.


----------



## badgerpilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *keithkeith* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Basically we will all see black blacks with a LED powered projector im guessing. Ah well that is down the road. I am still new with the projection setup. I came from a 67" LED powered Samsung Dlp tv. Great picture but needed bigger. Stepped up to the Epson 8100 with a 106" Screen from Visual Apex ( which i think is a 1.0 Gain ). Love the picture just wanted more snap from the picture at times especially when i watch football. Just looked like i lost detail when watching movies but then that could be me. I have light colored walls and carpets so i already know i am working against myself.
> 
> 
> The HP screen gave me that just wanted to know if everyone still sees a great picture even in dark scenes with the HP screen ( screenshots if anyone has any )



Keith, remember that the blacks also get better in general on the 8100 after 50 hours. I don't know if you are there or not, but overall, I think that you will like the overall picture with the HP screen.


----------



## sb1

Opinions welcome....


Thinking of ordering another (larger) HP screen and pairing it with the new Epson 8350. I'm currently using a 106" HP but want to go 133". Anyone think this will be a problem? Thanks.


----------



## DvdJags




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sb1* /forum/post/19285304
> 
> 
> Opinions welcome....
> 
> 
> Thinking of ordering another (larger) HP screen and pairing it with the new Epson 8350. I'm currently using a 106" HP but want to go 133". Anyone think this will be a problem? Thanks.



I think you will be OK. I went from a 106" matt white screen to a 159" HP screen. The image projected is more than bright enough. My projector is a Viewsonic Pro8100 run in economy mode.


----------



## ragman78

My 119" HP Model C has a slight wave that goes across the bottom of the screen, it is not visible except when the camera pans up or down. Left to right motion it is not visible, in fact, with 90% of camera movement it is not visible. Anyone have ideas on how to get rid of this?


----------



## Murilo

I have the same issue.


Would love some suggestions.


Can you also get the 2.8 pull downs yet, i got mine about 7 months ago, but i want another one as a back up. There not to expensive and its good peice of mind knowing i have a spare incase any bugs land on this one or anything gets on it. Or the kids somehow wreck it.


----------



## Fabricator

mine has many mild waves all through it. i can see them when my dining room light is on.

this light is to the left of the screen. when a movie is on, "I" cannot see them, and "I" will not go looking for them.


its is a GREAT screen material !!! i am "trying" to sell my condo, to buy a house with a larger room. then i can get a larger screen, and LARGER subs. HP will be my choice.


----------



## Joseph Clark

For anyone considering the new 3D projectors (if you aren't, you ought to), the HP should be stellar for 3D viewing. I just pre-ordered the new JVC 3D RS40 from AVS. The extra brightness will be even more important because of the loss of light in 3D mode. Unless I am very far off in my expectations (I doubt it), I'll have a better 3D experience at home than I've ever had in a commercial theater.


----------



## mulox

@DvdJags, either your 159" HP is a typo or you bought it long ago when they had a size like that. I contacted both Dalite direct and several dealers and everyone concurs that 133" is the largest size HP 2.8 sold (seamless).


On a sidenote, I have had my Mitsu HC-5500 for 2 years now, logged 500+ hours to date using my gray DIY screen. Been very disappointed with blacks and darker movies in general, and I am just about ready to finally purchase a 133" HP 2.8. Throw distance is 14' and PJ is ceiling mounted. I am going fixed with the perm-wall, but forgot about my kids. Need a way to protect my investment without doing pulldown or electric. Any tips/ideas appreciated.


----------



## hotshu

From Dalite' spec sheet on their website, the 159" diagonal HP is 78" x 139", with a seam across the screen at 72".


Has anyone got this 12' wide screen that can comment on whether the seam is noticeable while watching movies? I believe Tryg' is 12' wide.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mulox* /forum/post/19300521
> 
> 
> @DvdJags, either your 159" HP is a typo or you bought it long ago when they had a size like that. I contacted both Dalite direct and several dealers and everyone concurs that 133" is the largest size HP 2.8 sold (seamless).
> 
> 
> On a sidenote, I have had my Mitsu HC-5500 for 2 years now, logged 500+ hours to date using my gray DIY screen. Been very disappointed with blacks and darker movies in general, and I am just about ready to finally purchase a 133" HP 2.8. Throw distance is 14' and PJ is ceiling mounted. I am going fixed with the perm-wall, but forgot about my kids. Need a way to protect my investment without doing pulldown or electric. Any tips/ideas appreciated.



I assume you have read this thread and know that you will need an extension pole for the projector mount. If the projector lens is much more that 20" inches above your eye level you will not get the benefits of the high gain. FLboy has a spread sheet gain calculator that you can plug in your distance numbers and it will tell you the approximate gain. I would assume you know this since it is all in this thread but just wanted to make sure.


Only think I can say about kids, is keep them out of the room with the screen and train them to respect others and things that do not belong to them.. something no one sees to do any more, just look at the side of my car!


----------



## mulox

@hotshu - ah ok, that makes sense since I don't want any seams. 133" is largest seamless.


@airscapes, thanks for the info! I am somewhat new to this thread, so I have not had a chance to read all of it yet. I think the last time I read any of it was over a year ago actually, so may need to start over. I already have my PJ on a pole now, and being that I am in a basement with fairly low drop ceiling, I should be ok. A little more info on my setup:


- Room measurements: 226" x 181" (18.8' x 15.1') and a height of 87" (7' 3")

- PJ is mounted on a "pole", which is a homemade wooden structure

- Distance from bottom of PJ lens to ceiling = 6.5"

- Distance from top of screen to ceiling = 8"

- Current vertical shift is set all the way down

- Only 1 row of seating, mostly within the HP viewing cone

- Seats are 13' from screen, head height when seated is approx 39" from floor


When I plug all of my data into PJ Central, it says I need to move my PJ back about a foot, to 15' 3" throw distance. While I have room to do this, it will be quite a PIA because of the homemade wooden mount I built and the cuts I made in the drop ceiling. So my question is, what is the disadvantage if I don't move it back... I am struggling to see what I lose here.


I suppose if the PJ height needs adjusted somehow for optimized pic quality, then I will go ahead and move it back, otherwise I need better justification to move it.


----------



## DvdJags




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mulox* /forum/post/19300521
> 
> 
> @DvdJags, either your 159" HP is a typo or you bought it long ago when they had a size like that. I contacted both Dalite direct and several dealers and everyone concurs that 133" is the largest size HP 2.8 sold (seamless).
> 
> 
> On a sidenote, I have had my Mitsu HC-5500 for 2 years now, logged 500+ hours to date using my gray DIY screen. Been very disappointed with blacks and darker movies in general, and I am just about ready to finally purchase a 133" HP 2.8. Throw distance is 14' and PJ is ceiling mounted. I am going fixed with the perm-wall, but forgot about my kids. Need a way to protect my investment without doing pulldown or electric. Any tips/ideas appreciated.



The screen was purchased some years ago by another forum member. No it is not seamless but the seam is not in the area were the picture is viewed. The seam is located just above where the top black bolder meets the white part of the screen.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mulox* /forum/post/19301630
> 
> 
> @hotshu - ah ok, that makes sense since I don't want any seams. 133" is largest seamless.
> 
> 
> @airscapes, thanks for the info! I am somewhat new to this thread, so I have not had a chance to read all of it yet. I think the last time I read any of it was over a year ago actually, so may need to start over. I already have my PJ on a pole now, and being that I am in a basement with fairly low drop ceiling, I should be ok. A little more info on my setup:
> 
> 
> - Room measurements: 226" x 181" (18.8' x 15.1') and a height of 87" (7' 3")
> 
> - PJ is mounted on a "pole", which is a homemade wooden structure
> 
> - Distance from bottom of PJ lens to ceiling = 6.5"
> 
> - Distance from top of screen to ceiling = 8"
> 
> - Current vertical shift is set all the way down
> 
> - Only 1 row of seating, mostly within the HP viewing cone
> 
> - Seats are 13' from screen, head height when seated is approx 39" from floor
> 
> 
> When I plug all of my data into PJ Central, it says I need to move my PJ back about a foot, to 15' 3" throw distance. While I have room to do this, it will be quite a PIA because of the homemade wooden mount I built and the cuts I made in the drop ceiling. So my question is, what is the disadvantage if I don't move it back... I am struggling to see what I lose here.
> 
> 
> I suppose if the PJ height needs adjusted somehow for optimized pic quality, then I will go ahead and move it back, otherwise I need better justification to move it.



The calculator on projector central shows a range (blue bar) with the center of zoom being preferred. Looks like 14' is minimum distance for a 133 16:9 screen.

As to the screen gain, it is not about how far from the screen but how far you eyes are form the centerline of the lens. If your projector is more than 24 inches above your eyes you won't get any of the gain benefit of the screen. You would be better off moving your mount back a little and lowering it so it is between your seats just behind you and just above your heads.

You may want to buy a mount that can be adjusted with extensions so you can fine tune that height.

Here is a link to FLboy's screen gain calculator. It will help you determine the gain you can achieve at different projector heights.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=966057


----------



## tigerfan33

I have a 106" HP model b. The weight is around 25 lbs. Does Da Lite custom make bigger model b or will I need to go model c? Thinking about 119". The weight worries me (55 lbs I think). I have the model b up with sheetrock anchor screws but not sure how it would do with 55 lbs.


----------



## mulox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/19301859
> 
> 
> The calculator on projector central shows a range (blue bar) with the center of zoom being preferred. Looks like 14' is minimum distance for a 133 16:9 screen.
> 
> As to the screen gain, it is not about how far from the screen but how far you eyes are form the centerline of the lens. If your projector is more than 24 inches above your eyes you won't get any of the gain benefit of the screen. You would be better off moving your mount back a little and lowering it so it is between your seats just behind you and just above your heads.
> 
> You may want to buy a mount that can be adjusted with extensions so you can fine tune that height.
> 
> Here is a link to FLboy's screen gain calculator. It will help you determine the gain you can achieve at different projector heights.
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=966057



I don't see what you are talking about on projector central . When I change the diag screen to 133, it moves throw distance to 15' 3" for 1.12 zoom. On another note, I am pretty much all the way zoomed out at this point (2.0?). What is the real disadvantage to using this much zoom?


Looks like my PJ is currently 41" above our heads, which is quite a bit outside the ideal range. Thanks for the gain calc, big help! Looks like I am going to be taking it all down and investing in an adjustable pole. Without changing a thing (14' throw) the gain drops to 1.5!


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mulox* /forum/post/19306899
> 
> 
> I don't see what you are talking about on projector central . When I change the diag screen to 133, it moves throw distance to 15' 3" for 1.12 zoom. On another note, I am pretty much all the way zoomed out at this point (2.0?). What is the real disadvantage to using this much zoom?
> 
> 
> Looks like my PJ is currently 41" above our heads, which is quite a bit outside the ideal range. Thanks for the gain calc, big help! Looks like I am going to be taking it all down and investing in an adjustable pole. Without changing a thing (14' throw) the gain drops to 1.5!


 http://www.projectorcentral.com/Mits...ulator-pro.htm 

if you enter 133" in the diag box it move the pointer to 15.3 but if you look the blue area above and below the 15.3 maker is the range. So min 14' max 16.11. But since you need to adjust the height it would be prudent to move it.


----------



## mulox

@airscapes ok, I see now. But I still don't get why I would want to move it back at all, as long as I am within the acceptable range in blue. Why not just drop it down 20" in height at the current 14' throw distance? It seems to me this would yield a much higher net gain than at the 15' 3" mark at the same height. Only difference between the 2 would be the zoom setting, which goes back to my question... what do you really lose by using zoom?


----------



## airscapes

Well, if the calculator is off, you may not be able to fill the screen perfectly being out at the end of the zoom.


The wider you zoom they say the brighter the image and of course the closer you are to the screen the brighter the image. So if you fit the screen where you are and the projector won't be to close to your head.. which way does the hot air blow?.. then just lower it to keep it simple

However it is also said that like a camera you may have less distortion and a sharper picture at the center part of the zoom. So for flexibility the calculator chooses the center of the zoom as ideal. If you have to replace the mount, I just figured it would be better to move to the center of the zoom and father behind your heads. Hang the new screen and if you fill it properly, just lower the projector.


----------



## mulox

Looking at that gain calculator, the highest gain I can expect at my current throw distance is 2.7 at a PJ height of 35", which puts it literally right next to my head, ha! If I go 59" (20" above my eyeline) the gain drops to 2.1, quite a difference (although I don't know if I would really notice). I will have to play with different heights to see which one looks best. Unfortunately if I am going to drop the height, I won't be able to move it back, as there is a pathway behind the theater seats and you would hit your head on the PJ walking by. If anyone knows of a good telescoping mount to recommend, please let me know asap... would really like one that adjusts quite easily, because if I do decide to move it back, I could always retract it up after each movie.


----------



## zombie10k




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mulox* /forum/post/19300521
> 
> 
> @DvdJags, either your 159" HP is a typo or you bought it long ago when they had a size like that. I contacted both Dalite direct and several dealers and everyone concurs that 133" is the largest size HP 2.8 sold (seamless).
> 
> 
> On a sidenote, I have had my Mitsu HC-5500 for 2 years now, logged 500+ hours to date using my gray DIY screen. Been very disappointed with blacks and darker movies in general, and I am just about ready to finally purchase a 133" HP 2.8. Throw distance is 14' and PJ is ceiling mounted. I am going fixed with the perm-wall, but forgot about my kids. Need a way to protect my investment without doing pulldown or electric. Any tips/ideas appreciated.



I spent a year thinking the same thing, *but this is actually not true*, even AVS was told 133" was the largest in fixed frame for the 2.8 HP. I contacted the VP of the company a few weeks ago to get clarification on this and purchased a custom sized Cinema Contour. 70" tall, 124.5" wide, 142" diagonal. You can go as high as 72 inches or 147" diagonal.


The dalite VP now knows that their employees and dealers have been misinformed all this time. there is absolutely no seam in my 142" HP 2.8 fixed frame screen. it's about 2 weeks old, I just hung it last weekend so excuse the speaker wires and makeshift center channel stand.


You will have to pay for the next sized fixed frame size, they cut it down and fit it with whatever size (up to 72" tall). This replaces my 92" Model C and it's nice to see the HP material without waves, even though it didn't affect my actual viewing. I just ordered 15 feet of the pro-trim velvet to create a set of 'DIY' 2:35:1 masks. My goal was to have the width of a 2:35:1 133" diagonal screen and this works out perfect for 16:9 and 2:35:1 viewing.


Mulox - on your side note, I also have the HC5500. It will look much better on the HP than the screen you are using, but it can't perform miracles. The HC5500 has about 1500:1 native contrast without the dynamic iris and I've about had it with watching dark movies. I am upgrading to the new JVC RS40 coming out, but a used RS2 would be a major upgrade to our HC5500.


For anyone interested in an HP larger than 133" fixed frame, contact Jason at AVS as he now has the contact info at Dalite to order the larger, custom sized, non-seamed screens.


----------



## mulox

Thanks Zombie, I got the same info, so let me clarify. I have been told the 133" limitation is on the perm-wall frame. You can go higher using the more expensive Cinema Contour frame (more than twice the price). I have not quite been sold on paying that much more for a Contour. Now if I was going to do 2:35:1 and upgrade my PJ, I might consider making the investment, but my budget is very limited. Gonna have to continue to suffer with the 5500 for now unfortunately.


----------



## zombie10k




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mulox* /forum/post/19310737
> 
> 
> Thanks Zombie, I got the same info, so let me clarify. I have been told the 133" limitation is on the perm-wall frame. You can go higher using the more expensive Cinema Contour frame (more than twice the price). I have not quite been sold on paying that much more for a Contour. Now if I was going to do 2:35:1 and upgrade my PJ, I might consider making the investment, but my budget is very limited. Gonna have to continue to suffer with the 5500 for now unfortunately.



I can pm you the contact at Dalite, you might want to verify to be certain. The cinema contour started it's life as a 78x139 which is also available in the per-wall as well (with the other non HP materials). The debate before recently was how big the 2.8 material could be in a fixed frame without a seam.


The VP told me this custom sized Cinema Contour was the first they can recall over 133" since everyone (including Dalite employees) were quoting the catalogs which show the HP only going to 133" in a fixed frame (any of the fixed frame models).


Looking at the raw screen material (wth the snaps), I don't see a reason why this couldn't work for the perm-wall frame. It can't hurt to go to the top and check, I've been told for over a year that 133" was it, no matter which of the fixed frames.


----------



## keithkeith




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zombie10k* /forum/post/17794317
> 
> 
> I have the HC5500 (similar to your HC6000) and a 92" 16x9 Model C pulldown. I thought the same thing when I looked at the sample compared to my beige wall. The projector needs to be calibrated to the much high gain screen material.
> 
> 
> It's difficult to try and calibrate it on a small 12"x12"sample, it will be much easier once you actually get the screen. I am getting ready to purchase a much larger custom sized fixed frame screen from dalite (142" diag) and can't imagine using any other material.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After calibration to the HP material -





Well i have to say i was on the fence about the HP material. I received a sample from Da Lite and it looked like the colors were great but not the blacks. These pictures show how calibration can do a world of a good for a picture.


Is this 2.4 or 2.8 HP ? What kind of projector do you have for it ? Did you use the Spears & Munsil blu ray disk to calibrate ?



Nice screenshots again !


----------



## zombie10k




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *keithkeith* /forum/post/19316268
> 
> 
> Well i have to say i was on the fence about the HP material. I received a sample from Da Lite and it looked like the colors were great but not the blacks. These pictures show how calibration can do a world of a good for a picture.
> 
> 
> Is this 2.4 or 2.8 HP ? What kind of projector do you have for it ? Did you use the Spears & Munsil blu ray disk to calibrate ?
> 
> 
> 
> Nice screenshots again !




Looking at a 12x12 section of the 2.8 material is deceiving to the eye because all levels are raised with this material, including the blacks. When you see it throughout the whole screen, the increase in black levels doesn't stand out nearly as much, because it's taken in the context of the entire image being brighter.


Calibration was a bad term to use since you don't actually calibrate for a particular screen material. If you find the projector is too bright when the bulb is new, you can always use an ND2 or ND4 filter to block out some of the light then remove it as the bulbs starts to age.


Those are screenshots of my older 92" 2.8 dalite, I just replaced it with a 142" fixed frame. Calibration of colors is my eyes, no real science there, but it does look good (to me).


also remember screenshots can't really capture what the eye sees, they are fun to look at though. There are times where the photos looks better (mainly in regard to contast & black levels) than the actually projector appears in person.


----------



## mulox

Zombie, I contacted the Da-lite rep you gave me today, and she confirmed that I can get the HP 2.8 in a 138" screen, but it will cost me about 16% more than the 133" screen in perm-wall. That is quite a significant jump in cost just to get 5 more inches, so I am having a hard time justifying it now. Here is the link for the item she told me to order. Dalite larger screen .


It says Damat, which is the 2.4 gain screen, but you have to specify 2.8 to get it swapped. Also note it says 159" diagonal, you have to specify what diag size you want under that so they can cut it down.


----------



## sb1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zombie10k* /forum/post/19319551
> 
> 
> 
> also remember screenshots can't really capture what the eye sees, they are fun to look at though. There are times where the photos looks better (mainly in regard to contast & black levels) than the actually projector appears in person.



If you don't mind sharing, how do you grab those screenshots? They are so much sharper than anything I can do with my camera.


----------



## zombie10k




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mulox* /forum/post/19321459
> 
> 
> Zombie, I contacted the Da-lite rep you gave me today, and she confirmed that I can get the HP 2.8 in a 138" screen, but it will cost me about 16% more than the 133" screen in perm-wall. That is quite a significant jump in cost just to get 5 more inches, so I am having a hard time justifying it now. Here is the link for the item she told me to order. Dalite larger screen .
> 
> 
> It says Damat, which is the 2.4 gain screen, but you have to specify 2.8 to get it swapped. Also note it says 159" diagonal, you have to specify what diag size you want under that so they can cut it down.



not too surprised, I didn't see a reason looking at my 142" material for the Cinema Contour, why it couldn't be used on another dalite frame. I don't know why they wouldn't let people know you can get these in sizes larger than 133". I do believe the 2.4 can be had in sizes up to 159" but read mixed reviews and know I really like the 2.8.


I was hellbent on 142" specifically, it's the largest possible size I could fit on the wall, but more importantly, maintain the same width as the 2:35:1 133" screen I was originally looking at. I am making masks and ordered the pro-trim velvet from dalite so it matches the contour frame.


let us know how you make out, i'm sure you'll like the 2.8HP as most folks seem to enjoy this screen material.


----------



## zombie10k




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sb1* /forum/post/19321707
> 
> 
> If you don't mind sharing, how do you grab those screenshots? They are so much sharper than anything I can do with my camera.



Hi, those are from 2 different cameras, a nikon D40 and a Nikon D90 SLR. Mounted on a tripod with a remote shutter so I don't disturb the camera during a freeze frame.


----------



## sb1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zombie10k* /forum/post/19322167
> 
> 
> Hi, those are from 2 different cameras, a nikon D40 and a Nikon D90 SLR. Mounted on a tripod with a remote shutter so I don't disturb the camera during a freeze frame.



Thanks. Probably my camera, then, as yours are most decidedly more upscale than my little Canon is. Perhaps I can read the manual and see which settings to make on it for such a shot, rather than setting it to "auto"...


----------



## zombie10k




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sb1* /forum/post/19322203
> 
> 
> Thanks. Probably my camera, then, as yours are most decidedly more upscale than my little Canon is. Perhaps I can read the manual and see which settings to make on it for such a shot, rather than setting it to "auto"...



if you're camera supports any kind of manual exposure, this would be the way to go. Something like a 1/10 or 1/15 exposure would help, in addition, if you can set the auto-timer so you aren't touching the camera at the time of the photo will help quite a bit as well.


----------



## Fat Dave




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zombie10k* /forum/post/19310440
> 
> 
> ...You can go as high as 72 inches or 147" diagonal.



For Mulox, and just for further clarification in case anyone is confused, that diagonal above is for 16:9 screens. Cinemascope screens can of course be wider, as long as you don't exceed the 72" height as mentioned, including in Perm-Wall mount.


I have a 65"x155" viewable (168" diagonal) cinemascope Perm-Wall in the 2.8 HP fabric, and it's seamless. I got this maybe four months ago, so I'm fairly confident these sizes are still available.


----------



## mulox

Good clarification Dave, thanks. BTW, I went with the 133" 2.8 (16:9) perm-wall. I just could not justify paying 16% more for just 5-6 more inches. Just checked tracking and my screen is on the Fedex truck out for delivery now... woo hoo!!!


----------



## zombie10k




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mulox* /forum/post/19344404
> 
> 
> Good clarification Dave, thanks. BTW, I went with the 133" 2.8 (16:9) perm-wall. I just could not justify paying 16% more for just 5-6 more inches. Just checked tracking and my screen is on the Fedex truck out for delivery now... woo hoo!!!



molux - if you can, post a few photos when your done hanging the screen, I'd like to see what the per-wall looks like compard to the cinema contour.


I just ordered 15 feet of the velvet pro-trim dalite uses, it's the nicest velvet i've seen compared to the fabric stores in the area. I am looking to make a setup of scope masks. The best part is, the pro-trim had a very sticky adhesive backing, so no messing with staples or glue.


the bummer is that the contour uses aluminum for the frame, so a magnet system for attaching the masks isn't going to work. off to the DIY forum for ideas.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zombie10k* /forum/post/19344926
> 
> 
> 
> the bummer is that the contour uses aluminum for the frame, so a magnet system for attaching the masks isn't going to work. off to the DIY forum for ideas.



No idea how the frame looks or is set up, but if you can access the frame from the front without damage to the velvet, epoxy some thin steel bar stock or sheet metal to the aluminum so magnets will work. If you can not access the front, how about the back? If the frame is open channel, epoxy the steel there. If it is square tube you could drill some 1/2 holes at strategic locations and drop a high energy magnet in with a dab of epoxy on that. It would mean you would need the determine the proper pole of the magnet attached mask so they don't repel and would need to be precise in placement. Otherwise the steel sheet metal would need to be on the back of your mask. Magnets will work just fine if you get the real strong ones made of Neodymium and modify your screen frame as needed.


----------



## sb1

I had to use a temporary blackout cloth while I waited on a replacement for my HP screen that fell and got damaged. I must admit that I actually enjoyed the black levels of the BOC and found the image almost preferable, as did the family. After hanging the new HP, they said they liked the BOC better.










I recalibrated for each screen, but I'm torn now on my feelings on the HP.


----------



## Pure-Evil




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sb1* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I had to use a temporary blackout cloth while I waited on a replacement for my HP screen that fell and got damaged. I must admit that I actually enjoyed the black levels of the BOC and found the image almost preferable, as did the family. After hanging the new HP, they said they liked the BOC better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I recalibrated for each screen, but I'm torn now on my feelings on the HP.



Sounds like you should be going with a grey screen then.,. Not hp


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sb1* /forum/post/19345635
> 
> 
> I had to use a temporary blackout cloth while I waited on a replacement for my HP screen that fell and got damaged. I must admit that I actually enjoyed the black levels of the BOC and found the image almost preferable, as did the family. After hanging the new HP, they said they liked the BOC better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I recalibrated for each screen, but I'm torn now on my feelings on the HP.



"Too bright" is a nice problem to have. Some use ND filters and then remove them as their bulbs age. Keep in mind that screens don't change contrast ratios. They just brighten everything up or dim it all down proportionately.


----------



## sb1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/19345789
> 
> 
> "Too bright" is a nice problem to have. Some use ND filters and then remove them as their bulbs age. Keep in mind that screens don't change contrast ratios. They just brighten everything up or dim it all down proportionately.



Herein lies the problem, perhaps. I've been using a 5 year old projector with the original bulb. Now I have a new projector. As I've told others who are considering the HP, mostly dark scenes suffer elevated blacks, but bright scenes look great. It's just so much different than the image I've been used to.


I'm not getting rid of my HP, though. Just curious as to why I'm suddenly not pleased with it after seeing something as simple and undesirable as a temporary blackout cloth.


----------



## rgathright




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mulox* /forum/post/19344404
> 
> 
> Good clarification Dave, thanks. BTW, I went with the 133" 2.8 (16:9) perm-wall. I just could not justify paying 16% more for just 5-6 more inches. Just checked tracking and my screen is on the Fedex truck out for delivery now... woo hoo!!!



Please take some photos for us. I am debating between the Perm-Wall and a Model C and building a wood frame. But I need to satisfy the WAF plus have a budget to keep to. I currently have a Carada Prescision Screen/Frame and my wife loves it.


----------



## rgathright

I posted this on another thread, but was not getting any responses. So moved it here.


I have been going back and forth with your calculator to get the highest gain I can of the Da-Lite HP screen and need some help. There are some items that cannot change at all. My inputs are listed below (* cannot be changed)


Screen width will be 113"*

Center of screen will be 68" (bottom of screen is 36" AFF)*

Viewing distance is 17' (204")*

Distance to left or right of projector - 36"*

Center of lens from floor - 68"

Viewing eyes height is 37"*


When I have all of this before inputing the distance from left to right it shows a gain of 2.02. But after this is it reduces both left and right to 1.52 gain. With this low of a gain the HP may not be the screen for my setup. But if I lower the PJ 60" AFF it increases the gain to 1.65 and at 55" it is up to 1.71. But this is still a long way from the gain of 2.02 before the left and right distances are imputed.

n

The key question is why does the seating left and right change the gain so much. Obviously everyone cannot sit directly under the PJ. Is this correct? The other key question is I thought the projector being in the center of the screen was one of the key ingredients for higher gain.


If everything is correct then the only option I have is to have the PJ lower than the center of the screen. I will be ceiling mounting the projector and already have an extension pole for this - so I can lower it some. The PJ will be over a table that is between the two chairs.

__________________


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sb1* /forum/post/19345878
> 
> 
> Herein lies the problem, perhaps. I've been using a 5 year old projector with the original bulb. Now I have a new projector. As I've told others who are considering the HP, mostly dark scenes suffer elevated blacks, but bright scenes look great. It's just so much different than the image I've been used to.
> 
> 
> I'm not getting rid of my HP, though. Just curious as to why I'm suddenly not pleased with it after seeing something as simple and undesirable as a temporary blackout cloth.



You may want to consider an ISF calibration. If that is not possible, at least get a calibration dvd so you can set the sharpness/contrast an brightness properly. Also if you are not using eco mode, give it a try. If you projector has an iris that can be closed, close it. If the projector has image enhancement functions, turn them off, if there is a Cinema mode use it, if you can choose color temperature choose warm.. if there is a gama setting, choose cinema..

After ISF calibration my Old HC3000 with a minimal 4000:1 contrast ratio has much better blacks than it did before...

Good luck!


----------



## zombie10k




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/19345165
> 
> 
> No idea how the frame looks or is set up, but if you can access the frame from the front without damage to the velvet, epoxy some thin steel bar stock or sheet metal to the aluminum so magnets will work. If you can not access the front, how about the back? If the frame is open channel, epoxy the steel there. If it is square tube you could drill some 1/2 holes at strategic locations and drop a high energy magnet in with a dab of epoxy on that. It would mean you would need the determine the proper pole of the magnet attached mask so they don't repel and would need to be precise in placement. Otherwise the steel sheet metal would need to be on the back of your mask. Magnets will work just fine if you get the real strong ones made of Neodymium and modify your screen frame as needed.



doug thanks for the ideas. btw, I am from phila as well (well just a bit north).


I should have looked closer before hanging this monster on the wall, it's huge and heavy. The frame is beveled so a wedge fit isn't going to work. The frame is also quite thick and the snaps for the material are pretty close to the edge. I thought about some of ideas you suggested when putting it together, nothing easy or obvious came to mind.


Another issue, i've seen folks make the DIY masks with rigid insulation foam and 10 foot drywall 'U' channels. The problem is, my screen is 130.5 inches wide from edge to edge.. so what to make the masks from is another challenge.


edit: this is exactly what i'm looking to do:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post17615579


----------



## sb1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/19346948
> 
> 
> You may want to consider an ISF calibration. If that is not possible, at least get a calibration dvd so you can set the sharpness/contrast an brightness properly. Also if you are not using eco mode, give it a try. If you projector has an iris that can be closed, close it. If the projector has image enhancement functions, turn them off, if there is a Cinema mode use it, if you can choose color temperature choose warm.. if there is a gama setting, choose cinema..
> 
> After ISF calibration my Old HC3000 with a minimal 4000:1 contrast ratio has much better blacks than it did before...
> 
> Good luck!



No offense, but this ain't my first ro-dayo cowboy.










The projector has been Speared and Munsiled (not paying for ISF calibration of an Epson 8700), and I've had an HP screen for 4 years. I'm thinking I may just be a fan of deeper blacks in dark scenes than the HP can afford. The previous projector didn't have the blacks to offer, while this one does. As has been posted by yourself and me in other threads, the HP may not be for every setup. There's not doubt it rules the roost in mid to bright scenes, though.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sb1* /forum/post/19347097
> 
> 
> No offense, but this ain't my first ro-dayo cowboy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The projector has been Speared and Munsiled (not paying for ISF calibration of an Epson 8700), and I've had an HP screen for 4 years. I'm thinking I may just be a fan of deeper blacks in dark scenes than the HP can afford. The previous projector didn't have the blacks to offer, while this one does. As has been posted by yourself and me in other threads, the HP may not be for every setup. There's not doubt it rules the roost in mid to bright scenes, though.



If you don't like the blacks, filter the projector. Problem solved. The HP doesn't change the native contrast of your projector. Bring down the overall light level and the black level will drop, just as it would if you had a screen with less gain. The HP doesn't raise the black level and leave the rest of the image unaffected. The brightness of the entire image is raised by the same amount.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sb1* /forum/post/19347097
> 
> 
> No offense, but this ain't my first ro-dayo cowboy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The projector has been Speared and Munsiled (not paying for ISF calibration of an Epson 8700), and I've had an HP screen for 4 years. I'm thinking I may just be a fan of deeper blacks in dark scenes than the HP can afford. The previous projector didn't have the blacks to offer, while this one does. As has been posted by yourself and me in other threads, the HP may not be for every setup. There's not doubt it rules the roost in mid to bright scenes, though.



No offense take!


But in the defense of a good ISF calibration, I must say, $400 for a full calibration of a 5 year old HC3000 with 900 hours on the lamp may seem like a waste, but from where sit every night it was as good an investment as the screen, if not better. I am a cheap bastard and wasting money is not something I do lightly.


Guess if all is set correctly the filter would be the next thing to do.


Just wondering.. did you switch from DLP to LCD or was your old projector LCD as well?

Good luck!


----------



## sb1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/19347187
> 
> 
> If you don't like the blacks, filter the projector. Problem solved. The HP doesn't change the native contrast of your projector. Bring down the overall light level and the black level will drop, just as it would if you had a screen with less gain. The HP doesn't raise the black level and leave the rest of the image unaffected. The brightness of the entire image is raised by the same amount.



I understand how it works, which ironically is why I'm confused. There's no way the blacks in my 5 year old Panasonic 900 are comparable to a brand new Epson 8700 (the blacks are great on the BOC). What I think may be happening is the room is now being lit up way more than it was. I noticed last night that my white ceiling is considerably brighter than it was during a movie with the old projector, and consequently, the rest of the room is too. I wonder if, regardless of the HP being retro-reflective, there's just much more light scatter in the room now, which is washing the blacks out. Perhaps my particular setup isn't optimal for the HP anymore. Even after calibration and low lamp mode, it's really lighting the room up much more than the old projector did.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sb1* /forum/post/19348520
> 
> 
> I understand how it works, which ironically is why I'm confused. There's no way the blacks in my 5 year old Panasonic 900 are comparable to a brand new Epson 8700 (the blacks are great on the BOC). What I think may be happening is the room is now being lit up way more than it was. I noticed last night that my white ceiling is considerably brighter than it was during a movie with the old projector, and consequently, the rest of the room is too. I wonder if, regardless of the HP being retro-reflective, there's just much more light scatter in the room now, which is washing the blacks out. Perhaps my particular setup isn't optimal for the HP anymore. Even after calibration and low lamp mode, it's really lighting the room up much more than the old projector did.



How do blacks look when the scene has little to no bright areas? That way you can evaluate your black level with much lees pollution from your room lighting up.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sb1* /forum/post/19348520
> 
> 
> I understand how it works, which ironically is why I'm confused. There's no way the blacks in my 5 year old Panasonic 900 are comparable to a brand new Epson 8700 (the blacks are great on the BOC). What I think may be happening is the room is now being lit up way more than it was. I noticed last night that my white ceiling is considerably brighter than it was during a movie with the old projector, and consequently, the rest of the room is too. I wonder if, regardless of the HP being retro-reflective, there's just much more light scatter in the room now, which is washing the blacks out. Perhaps my particular setup isn't optimal for the HP anymore. Even after calibration and low lamp mode, it's really lighting the room up much more than the old projector did.



Sounds like your projector is simply a lot brighter - a good problem to have, and similar to one I had last year when I got a new projector.


I'm anxiously awaiting my new JVC RS40, which I have on pre-order from AVS. I expect I'll need all the HP's gain for 3D mode, and for 2D I can adjust the iris on the projector to bring down the overall brightness to acceptable levels. A filter for your projector still sounds like a good solution. When the lamp ages, take the filter off and you get like new brightness. The HP has so many other good qualities, it's hard to imagine wanting to trade it, unless there's some new technology that blows me away.


----------



## rgathright

Due to not being able to get the HP to work with my setup I will be going the Carada BW route.


----------



## rgathright

I am back trying to make the HP work for my aging/dimming PJ. So I thought about the 2.4 gain HP. Has anyone confirmed the answers to the following questions that are on Flboy calculator? I sent an e-mail to Da-lite asking these questions also.



What is the manufacturer-published on-axis centerscreen gain of your screen?


What is the published maximum viewing angle (to one side in degrees off-axis)?


What is the centerscreen gain at the published maximum viewing angle? (Don't guess at this either. Consult manufacturer if necessary)


What is the minimum gain of your screen at large off-axis angles, e.g., 60 degrees? (OK, you may guess here, but make it


----------



## rgathright

Attached is the adjusted screen gain calculations. Before I input the seating offset locations (36" to each side) it has a gain of 2.00. After the seating locations it works out to be 1.51. Comparing this to a Carada BW it is better-especially if the Carada BW has an actual gain of 1.1 instead of 1.4. But I still have a question.


It shows that if I lower the PJ the gain rises. Lowering the PJ to 66" AFF increases the gain to 2.16 and 60" AFF to 2.32 (both of these are before the seating offsets). Isn't it better to have the PJ centered with the screen?

 

133 Inch HP Calculation - PDF.pdf 59.3173828125k . file


----------



## sb1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgathright* /forum/post/19381904
> 
> 
> Attached is the adjusted screen gain calculations. Before I input the seating offset locations (36" to each side) it has a gain of 2.00. After the seating locations it works out to be 1.51. Comparing this to a Carada BW it is better-especially if the Carada BW has an actual gain of 1.1 instead of 1.4. But I still have a question.
> 
> 
> It shows that if I lower the PJ the gain rises. Lowering the PJ to 66" AFF increases the gain to 2.16 and 60" AFF to 2.32 (both of these are before the seating offsets). Isn't it better to have the PJ centered with the screen?



The closer the lens is to eye level the brighter the image will be (if that's what you're asking).


----------



## Fat Dave




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sb1* /forum/post/19382438
> 
> 
> The closer the lens is to eye level the brighter the image will be (if that's what you're asking).



+1.


The projector doesn't need to be centered with the screen so much as close to the (optimal) viewing position to minimize the angles.


For an extreme example, if your "prime" viewing location was for some reason roughly lined up with the bottom left corner of your screen, you would get much better gain and uniformity if the projector were near that location as opposed to perfectly centered on the screen.


RR screens send most of the light back from whence it came.


/olde english


----------



## rgathright

But if the PJ is having to use lens shift vertically upwards to view the screen won't it affect the gain? If not then I am good to go with the HP.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgathright* /forum/post/19382715
> 
> 
> But if the PJ is having to use lens shift vertically upwards to view the screen won't it affect the gain? If not then I am good to go with the HP.



The screen returns the light from where it came. The closer your eyes are to that location the higher the gain.


----------



## rgathright

After getting the info for the 2.4 gain it works better for me. I will be ordering my HP screen from AVS next week.


----------



## FLBoy

Yesterday I added the setup parameters for the 2.4 HP to post #2 of the gain calculator thread for anyone who needs them.


----------



## jkrepner

I know I'm committing a cardinal sin posting the same question on 2 threads but I'm ordering a high power screen on Friday and need to finally figure out what the general consensus is on the newer 2.4 vs. 2.8.


Is the 2.4 merely a cost saving function on Da-lite's part or is it really better?


I'm setting up with the new Epson 8350, 15.5' wide by 20(ish) long basement with medium gray walls, dark carpet, white 8 ft ceilings. The projector is about 12 ft and the screen would be the 106" HP in either 2.4 or 2.8. My local shop can get either.


I'd have some occasions when people might be sitting 6-7 feet away from the center of the lens, about 14ft or more away from the screen. I can get the projector about 2 ft above eye line.


What would you do? 2.4, 2.8?


Thanks in advance,

Jeff


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jkrepner* /forum/post/19404802
> 
> 
> I'd have some occasions when people might be sitting 6-7 feet away from the center of the lens, about 14ft or more away from the screen. I can get the projector about 2 ft above eye line.
> 
> 
> What would you do? 2.4, 2.8?



With such wide seating, I'd go 2.4.


----------



## thrang

Are both thge 2.8 and 2.4 still available, for a motorized screen? I'm looking at changing my set up and selling my Cinema Contour 133" 16x9 to get an equivalent motorized version


How is waviness with the roll version of the HP material?


Thanks


----------



## tigerfan33




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> With such wide seating, I'd go 2.4.



Yep. My sitting is the same. In the cone and out. Found that the 2.8 dropped in brightness way to much out of the cone while the 2.4 looked just as bright or brighter than my matte 1.0.......with the lights on.


----------



## jkrepner

thrang, for the manual pull down my local shop said the model numbers are the same but the 2.8 gets a "C" after it. I'm not sure if that helps you or not since I'm getting a manual pull down but I'd venture to guess they have both.


I was looking at the cheaper model B, but I guess the C has a better roller assembly. I wanted manual to save costs while I reconsidered my screen options (basement is just now finished so I figured I'd go cheap to get my feet wet then upgrade once I established my viewing habits, etc) but I'm starting to get pretty excited about this HP stuff that perhaps this will be a permanent thing so perhaps smart money is on motorized or a C.


Tigerfan & Flyboy. Thank you for the info. I suspect the 2.4 will be plenty--I'm not a lumens junkie but like some pop in my picture. Do you feel both versions of HP are similar in terms of sharpness? I did a stint with the old glass beaded material many moons ago and it was a pretty noisy image compared to the matte white fixed frame that eventually replaced it.


Awesome! Thanks everyone.


----------



## zombie10k




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thrang* /forum/post/19405214
> 
> 
> Are both thge 2.8 and 2.4 still available, for a motorized screen? I'm looking at changing my set up and selling my Cinema Contour 133" 16x9 to get an equivalent motorized version
> 
> 
> How is waviness with the roll version of the HP material?
> 
> 
> Thanks



I just bought a 142" custom sized Cinema Contour with the 2.8 a few weeks ago, it's still available. I previously had a model C and it was noticeably wavy, but you couldn't see it during normal viewing. It was something that bothered me though (visitors would always ask 'is that how it's supposed to be?) and it did get worse over time.


The Cinema contour is tight as a drum and has a professional appears.


here is the screen if your interested in seeing it. My main reason for the fixed frame is a masking system. I ordered the Dalite velvet material (15 ft of it) and making my own masking panels which will attach to the outside of the frame for 2:35:1 viewing.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post19310440


----------



## Fabricator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zombie10k* /forum/post/19414600
> 
> 
> II previously had a model C and it was noticeably wavy, but you couldn't see it during normal viewing.
> 
> 
> and it did get worse over time.



my model C is wavy. but, as you say, it is not noticable during a movie.


the pic does not show just how wavy it really is, but gives an idea. looks to me that it is caused by the lower bar not being stiff enough and pulling on the center of the screen, causing the center to stretch. i am still happy with it and would buy it again.


----------



## paul77

I'm wondering if someone can help, I have an electric 92" screen could I simply get a model b and swap the material?


----------



## Warbie

Quick question for those who've taken delivery of a fixed HP screen - how does the HP material come, rolled up? Is it well packaged? Mine will be going on a long journey and i'm concerned the material will get creased on the way.


Cheers.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Warbie* /forum/post/19522841
> 
> 
> Quick question for those who've taken delivery of a fixed HP screen - how does the HP material come, rolled up? Is it well packaged? Mine will be going on a long journey and i'm concerned the material will get creased on the way.
> 
> 
> Cheers.



Mine came rolled up, well packaged. It was difficult to snap onto the frame. Took a lot of muscle, but it was worth it.


----------



## Warbie

Cheers for the quick reply










Did you get a perma wall?


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Warbie* /forum/post/19522890
> 
> 
> Cheers for the quick reply
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you get a perma wall?



I have a Cinema Contour.


----------



## 720p




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sb1* /forum/post/19382438
> 
> 
> The closer the lens is to eye level the brighter the image will be (if that's what you're asking).



This is what everyone is saying but for some strange reason it's not how it works in my setup I don't know why.

If I'm sitting in the middle and move 3ft to the left or right the brightness drops off considerably. If I move 6ft to the left or right from my middle position the brightness is halved let's say.

Now the stange thing is this. If I lay on the ground or stand high up where I'm 6ft above or below where my head usually is I don't see any perceivable drop in brightness. Anyone care to explain? Projector is 3ft over my head on a shelf just behind the middle sitting position projecting on a 133" screen from 13-16ft can't remember which.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *720p* /forum/post/19523187
> 
> 
> This is what everyone is saying but for some strange reason it's not how it works in my setup I don't know why.
> 
> If I'm sitting in the middle and move 3ft to the left or right the brightness drops off considerably. If I move 6ft to the left or right from my middle position the brightness is halved let's say.
> 
> Now the stange thing is this. If I lay on the ground or stand high up where I'm 6ft above or below where my head usually is I don't see any perceivable drop in brightness. Anyone care to explain? Projector is 3ft over my head on a shelf just behind the middle sitting position projecting on a 133" screen from 13-16ft can't remember which.



Sounds like you don't have an HP. Not trying to be difficult, but an HP doesn't perform that way.


----------



## 720p




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/19523248
> 
> 
> Sounds like you don't have an HP. Not trying to be difficult, but an HP doesn't perform that way.



It's definately an 2.8 HP. Left-right the viewing cone is very narrow (even moving your head 1.5ft from center) but up-down I can't see any change in brightness.


----------



## FLBoy

I'm not surprised that you get similar brightness 3' above the PJ and 3' below the PJ. I don't believe you have the same brightness with your head near the floor as you get with your eyes 3' below the PJ. No gain screen works that way--HP or angular reflective.


----------



## Joseph Clark

Quote:

Originally Posted by *720p* 
It's definately an 2.8 HP. Left-right the viewing cone is very narrow (even moving your head 1.5ft from center) but up-down I can't see any change in brightness.
Up/down/left/right doesn't make any difference with my screen. The further my eyes are from the projector's beam, the lower the gain. Maybe I'm just not understanding what you're saying.


----------



## airscapes

Quote:

Originally Posted by *720p* 
It's definately an 2.8 HP. Left-right the viewing cone is very narrow (even moving your head 1.5ft from center) but up-down I can't see any change in brightness.
an easy way to verify it is retroreflective is to use a flashlight and stand in front of the screen move the light up as it approaches your eyes you will see it get very bright.. it will remind you of a road sign at night when your headlights hit it. If this does not happen, they screwed up your order and you have some other fabric. You can also take a flash photo of the screen it should be glowing in the photo.

This is a flash photo of hp 2.4 with a 2.8 sample hanging on it.


BTW, 3ft over your head is going to be to high for much gain.. normally folks have it 12-20" above or below (ie on a table)


----------



## Joseph Clark

Quote:

Originally Posted by *airscapes* 
an easy way to verify it is retroreflective is to use a flashlight and stand in front of the screen move the light up as it approaches your eyes you will see it get very bright.. it will remind you of a road sign at night when your headlights hit it. If this does not happen, they screwed up your order and you have some other fabric. You can also take a flash photo of the screen it should be glowing in the photo.

This is a flash photo of hp 2.4 with a 2.8 sample hanging on it.








Your center channel speaker looks like a cat.


----------



## airscapes

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* 
Your center channel speaker looks like a cat.
Paid big bucks for that.. can't even tell it's a speaker!


----------



## RobertR

Quote:

Originally Posted by *airscapes* 
an easy way to verify it is retroreflective is to use a flashlight and stand in front of the screen move the light up as it approaches your eyes you will see it get very bright.. it will remind you of a road sign at night when your headlights hit it. If this does not happen, they screwed up your order and you have some other fabric. You can also take a flash photo of the screen it should be glowing in the photo.

This is a flash photo of hp 2.4 with a 2.8 sample hanging on it.


BTW, 3ft over your head is going to be to high for much gain.. normally folks have it 12-20" above or below (ie on a table)








It's exactly that kind of picture that told me the 2.8 gain was the way to go, and I haven't regretted it for a second.


----------



## RickAVManiac




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *joseph clark* /forum/post/19523931
> 
> 
> your center channel speaker looks like a cat.



lol







)


----------



## curt248

I was going to say the same thing about having the screen 3 feet above your h head.


The closer to eye level the better. Use a shelf if you have to. I got an adjustable ceiling mount from monoprice for ~$15. On my standard 8ft ceiling, it doesn't come down as far as I'd like, but it's about 18 inches from my head. It was definitely brighter when it was around a foot above my head. It had just a bit more pop. You can test it by just standing up a bit and seeing the difference between that and sitting.


----------



## Kottan

Hello,


I am finally planning on purchasing a HP screen as a first step towards my own dedicated home theater - the room is there, but it is still empty! I want a viewing area of 65 x 116 and a fixed screen. In case I am not mistaken, the da snap is considerably more expensive than the perm wall - is the da snap worth this premium? It seems to be easier to install, is it still the better value once installed? Sorry if this has already been answered several times in the past....

My second question: I live in Austria, Europe, and I want the old 2.8 fabric (is it still available?). Consensus in this forum is that Jason Turk offers great customer service - does AVS also sell this product overseas? Anybody in this forum from Europe who has already ordered a HP via Jason? Anything else I should take into consideration when ordering a HP screen?


Many thanks in advance for any input!


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kottan* /forum/post/19535414
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> 
> I am finally planning on purchasing a HP screen as a first step towards my own dedicated home theater - the room is there, but it is still empty! I want a viewing area of 65 x 116 and a fixed screen. In case I am not mistaken, the da snap is considerably more expensive than the perm wall - is the da snap worth this premium? It seems to be easier to install, is it still the better value once installed? Sorry if this has already been answered several times in the past....
> 
> My second question: I live in Austria, Europe, and I want the old 2.8 fabric (is it still available?). Consensus in this forum is that Jason Turk offers great customer service - does AVS also sell this product overseas? Anybody in this forum from Europe who has already ordered a HP via Jason? Anything else I should take into consideration when ordering a HP screen?
> 
> 
> Many thanks in advance for any input!



Hey good to hear you are getting ready to take the plunge! You didn't say what projector or where it will be mounted. If you have not done so, and you have not had a front projection setup in the past, you should get the projector first. Then you can play with the image size on the wall to see what you like the best. Better to know you are choosing what you really like than to be stuck with something less that optimal.


Also we assume you know the caveats to the HP and will have the projector in the appropriate location to take advantage of the HP fabric.


As to your direct questions, I can not answer either


----------



## Kottan




> Quote:
> Also we assume you know the caveats to the HP and will have the projector in the appropriate location to take advantage of the HP fabric.



Yes, I´ve done the maths and have calculated iso-gain lines on the screen with the configuration I have in mind - everything is ready on paper! I have not taken my decision as to the projector yet - the new JVCs look promising....fact is: I am, on the one hand, afraid of no longer getting the old HP fabric if I wait too long...on the other hand, I think I have to begin somewhere...


----------



## rgathright

My new 133" HP screen comes in on Tuesday, so I am preparing everything for the install. Are the two bottom brackets exposed and will these need to be in a stud? If so I may have to put some blocking in the wall.


----------



## zombie10k

Quote:

Originally Posted by *rgathright* 
My new 133" HP screen comes in on Tuesday, so I am preparing everything for the install. Are the two bottom brackets exposed and will these need to be in a stud? If so I may have to put some blocking in the wall.
Which model did you get? on my Cinema Contour, the 2 bottom brackets are exposed, but not by much. There are 2 aluminum strips at the top with 5 holes each, I spaced them evenly to support the top of the screen. The bottom brackets are pre-drilled on the frame so they are correctly centered.


My screen is 142" and I used these in the drywall to support all the hardware. Very strong install (10 of these across the top). The holes in the brackets are perfect sized for the 1/4" Hilti bolts.

http://www.homedepot.com/h_d1/N-5yc1...atalogId=10053 


I did use a laser level to ensure the top brackets were level.


----------



## rgathright

Mine is a Cinema Contour also.


----------



## zombie10k




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgathright* /forum/post/19552975
> 
> 
> Mine is a Cinema Contour also.



hopefully you'll enjoy it as much I do. projectors will come and go, but I'll be keeping this screen for quite a while. Can't wait until my RS40 arrives, i'm currently going back and forth between the Mitsubishi HC5500 and the Acer 5360 for 3D.


assuming you also ordered it with the velvet pro-trim which looks great on the 3" thick frame. I order an additional 15 feet of the velvet material from Dalite and I will be making a set of scope masks for 2:35:1 movie watching. The best part about their velvet is that it's got a very strong adhesive backing from the factory, no gluing, stapling, etc.


----------



## rgathright

From what I have read and I hope it is correct the Pro-Trim comes standard on the Cinema Contour screens.


----------



## zombie10k

as an fyi, the spacing of the top and bottom brackets doesn't really lend itself to traditional stud spacing in a wall nor is it really necessary.


if you have good drywall, the Hilti anchors are great way to install the screen. It's heavy (mine was ~50 lbs), but 10 anchors across the top and a pair on the bottom, this 142" screen isn't going anywhere.


----------



## rgathright

I guess I need to go to Lowes tomorrow then.


----------



## slickrock




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zombie10k* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Which model did you get? on my Cinema Contour, the 2 bottom brackets are exposed, but not by much. There are 2 aluminum strips at the top with 5 holes each, I spaced them evenly to support the top of the screen. The bottom brackets are pre-drilled on the frame so they are correctly centered.
> 
> 
> My screen is 142" and I used these in the drywall to support all the hardware. Very strong install (10 of these across the top). The holes in the brackets are perfect sized for the 1/4" Hilti bolts.
> 
> http://www.homedepot.com/h_d1/N-5yc1...atalogId=10053
> 
> 
> I did use a laser level to ensure the top brackets were level.



Recently mounted my Cinema Contour 2.35 148" 2.8HP. Flexibility of hole placement in the alum strips allowed correct drilling into the wall studs. However, the bottom brackets are exposed and pre-located and, as such, happen to not aligned with the studs. What is the purpose of the bracket and why is it only need for the HP? Might there be a way to forgo using it, like using two strips at the bottom?


The screen is a hoot, BTW. Very sturdy frame since the HP fabric hardly stretches.


----------



## zombie10k




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slickrock* /forum/post/19555857
> 
> 
> Recently mounted my Cinema Contour 2.35 148" 2.8HP. Flexibility of hole placement in the alum strips allowed correct drilling into the wall studs. However, the bottom brackets are exposed and pre-located and, as such, happen to not aligned with the studs. What is the purpose of the bracket and why is it only need for the HP? Might there be a way to forgo using it, like using two strips at the bottom?



most rooms are framed with 2x4's 18" to 24" apart. how did you attach all 10 holes through the 2 brackets into studs? I had this option as well, but didn't want to skip any of the holes, so I elected to use the Hilti anchors and supply strength for the 10 holes between the 2 brackets.


not sure exactly why the 2 bottom brackets are there for the HP screen only, but I wasn't about to deviate from the instructions, they were quite certain it was needed when I spoke to their support.


----------



## zombie10k




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgathright* /forum/post/19554807
> 
> 
> I guess I need to go to Lowes tomorrow then.



when folks around my way ask advice, they generally tend to say 'thanks' as a kind gesture that someone took their time to answer a specific question. There is very little, if any info on this site discussing the mounting of a Cinema Contour.


----------



## Warbie

Quick question re. calibration - is calibrating a projector with an HP screen any different to with a more usual angular reflective screen?


Is there anything I should know about before taking the plunge and buying my first meter?


Thanks.


----------



## airscapes

Yes, from what my guy said, it is easier than angular. You need a tripod that can be positioned at or close to the level of your projector to get the max gain.

With angular I think he said you need place the meter at the exact opposite angle form where the projector is..


----------



## Warbie

Thanks for the quick reply, airscapes.


Do you think getting the max gain is more important than the gain seated viewers will experience? - the pj is about 1.5ft above head height and we don't quite get the full solar flare!


----------



## airscapes

once you buy the meter you can make your adjustment, move it and recheck ..


----------



## Commoncents

I need help wall mounting an hp pull down 133". There is one mounting hole on each end of the screen case and they are not spaced for 16" stud centers for some reason. Are there any brackets available for it? thanks.


----------



## nobuyersremorse

I am picking up a epson 8700 for my living room which has high ambient light durning the day. I have the option of a 11' throw and a 106" screen or a 16 ft throw and a 119" screen. Would either look good for football during the day or should I stick to a smaller screen? Most of my viewing will be at night.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nobuyersremorse* /forum/post/19586093
> 
> 
> I am picking up a epson 8700 for my living room which has high ambient light durning the day. I have the option of a 11' throw and a 106" screen or a 16 ft throw and a 119" screen. Would either look good for football during the day or should I stick to a smaller screen? Most of my viewing will be at night.



Realizing that daytime won't provide the best viewing environment, bigger is usually better. If I had the space, I'd go with the bigger screen. I have a friend who has a 119" HP, while the largest size I can use is 110". It feels like a really big difference to me. The HP does a good job of rejecting ambient light, especially if you can make the area behind the projector darker. If that area is really light colored, all that light will bounce right back onto the screen and wash out the picture.


----------



## floridapoolboy

I'm converting to 2.35:1 and am torn over which screen to get. My current Carada 96" ccw is fine with my PJ on eco, and when I test zoomed to approximate the 2.35 size the picture dimmed, but I could restore it by switching the bulb to normal mode. My question is, would the hi power image be so much better than what I have now? I will be shelf mounting my pj, so I can get it low enough to use most of the 2.8 gain, but I can't see one in action to tell if the extra brightness is worth the expense. If I go with an Elite Cinewhite screen it would be over $1k less than the Dalite Cinema Contour hi power, so the hi power really needs to be a much better performer. My room is dedicated, dark maroon walls, black ceiling panels for the first 6 feet near the screen. Any help would be appreciated!


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *floridapoolboy* /forum/post/19597491
> 
> 
> I'm converting to 2.35:1 and am torn over which screen to get. My current Carada 96" ccw is fine with my PJ on eco, and when I test zoomed to approximate the 2.35 size the picture dimmed, but I could restore it by switching the bulb to normal mode. My question is, would the hi power image be so much better than what I have now? I will be shelf mounting my pj, so I can get it low enough to use most of the 2.8 gain, but I can't see one in action to tell if the extra brightness is worth the expense. If I go with an Elite Cinewhite screen it would be over $1k less than the Dalite Cinema Contour hi power, so the hi power really needs to be a much better performer. My room is dedicated, dark maroon walls, black ceiling panels for the first 6 feet near the screen. Any help would be appreciated!



I can tell you that the HP will be about twice as bright as the Cinewhite and that you probably will be able to leave your PJ in eco mode for lower fan noise, but only you can evaluate whether those things will be worth the extra expense. They would be to me.


----------



## floridapoolboy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/19598209
> 
> 
> I can tell you that the HP will be about twice as bright as the Cinewhite and that you probably will be able to leave your PJ in eco mode for lower fan noise, but only you can evaluate whether those things will be worth the extra expense. They would be to me.




Thanks for the reply! That's my dilemma, is a brighter picture worth the expense. I've only used mat white screens, so that's all I know. My pj seems plenty bright, so would it actually be too bright with the HP? I guess I'm expecting a plasma like result with the HP screen, not just increased brightness. How would you describe the differences between a high power and a mat white screen for someone like me, who has never seen one in action?


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *floridapoolboy* /forum/post/19598370
> 
> 
> Thanks for the reply! That's my dilemma, is a brighter picture worth the expense. I've only used mat white screens, so that's all I know. My pj seems plenty bright, so would it actually be too bright with the HP? I guess I'm expecting a plasma like result with the HP screen, not just increased brightness. How would you describe the differences between a high power and a mat white screen for someone like me, who has never seen one in action?



If you have your projector just over/under your head so you are getting a good gain of 2 or more, I would say it is like night and day. Plasma would be how I would describe the image, but I have a DLP and a tiny screen. Even with LCD side by side is still going to be night and day if you have the projector in the proper place. But remember off axis it's going to be like a matte white...


----------



## henrich3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *floridapoolboy* /forum/post/19598370
> 
> 
> Thanks for the reply! That's my dilemma, is a brighter picture worth the expense. I've only used mat white screens, so that's all I know. My pj seems plenty bright, so would it actually be too bright with the HP? I guess I'm expecting a plasma like result with the HP screen, not just increased brightness. How would you describe the differences between a high power and a mat white screen for someone like me, who has never seen one in action?



I just replaced a 92" matte white screen with a 110" HP (2.4 gain). Whites look whiter & brighter on the HP. Colors are more vibrant. Images on the matte white look fine in isolation, but if you put a sample of HP fabric next to it the matte white looks drab in comparison. If you contact Da-Lite they can send you some samples. Request both the 2.8 and 2.4 gain samples. The 2.8 has better gain but a narrower viewing angle.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *floridapoolboy* /forum/post/19598370
> 
> 
> My pj seems plenty bright, so would it actually be too bright with the HP?



That depends on the size of the screen you get. If, for example, you want to keep your 16:9 images the same height they are now, then you will lose about 1/4 of your present brightness due to increased screen area when watching 2.35:1 material. If you use the zoom method, you will lose another 1/4 of your present brightness due to using only 75% of your PJ's imaging panel. (The latter loss is partially compensated by using a wider zoom angle.) The bottom line is that you will have only slightly over 1/2 of your present brightness if you get another matte white screen. I'd say the HP is definitely a better choice, given my stated assumption about screen size--provided your room can accommodate the screen width of 116.5" (including frame).


----------



## henrich3

I'd just like to insert a note of gratitude here. Thanks to AVSForum, Tryg, FLBoy, Joe Clark, Richard Berg, and all you fine folks who have posted your knowledge & opinions on the HP material. I'm quite pleased with my upgrade & I wouldn't have known about this without you. Hugs all around...


----------



## Toe

I posted this over in the JVC thread as well, but thought it would be good to get some opinions on this over here as well................


Here is something that surprised me..........Just got a quote for a High Power screen from the dealer I bought my Stewart from and he did not have much good to say about the HP







Stewart and Da-lite are the 2 main screen types he sells, but told me that while the HP would be brighter of course compared to my ST130, it also has blooming issues, crushes blacks, and will give off a softer image in general compared to the ST130?







This all surprised me since I would have to think as long as you have contrast/brightness set correctly on the projector that this particular screen would not do these things? How could it give off a softer image? This all has me hesitant now to even try this down the road when I am ready to take the plunge.







Anyone care to comment on this who by chance has come from a ST130?


I am looking to try out a high power early next year at some point to get some more brightness for 3d from my RS40 and was also excited about being able to open up my iris as the bulb ages for 2d and keep my brightness consistent. A bit hesitant now after talking to this dealer.........


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/19598937
> 
> 
> I posted this over in the JVC thread as well, but thought it would be good to get some opinions on this over here as well................
> 
> 
> Here is something that surprised me..........Just got a quote for a High Power screen from the dealer I bought my Stewart from and he did not have much good to say about the HP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stewart and Da-lite are the 2 main screen types he sells, but told me that while the HP would be brighter of course compared to my ST130, it also has blooming issues, crushes blacks, and will give off a softer image in general compared to the ST130?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This all surprised me since I would have to think as long as you have contrast/brightness set correctly on the projector that this particular screen would not do these things? How could it give off a softer image? This all has me hesitant now to even try this down the road when I am ready to take the plunge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone care to comment on this who by chance has come from a ST130?
> 
> 
> I am looking to try out a high power early next year at some point to get some more brightness for 3d from my RS40 and was also excited about being able to open up my iris as the bulb ages for 2d and keep my brightness consistent. A bit hesitant now after talking to this dealer.........



Doesn't bloom. Doesn't crush blacks. Doesn't create a soft image. You need a large shovel for those opinions. What a load of horsey poo. Salesman, right? Blind?


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/19598937
> 
> 
> Just got a quote for a High Power screen from the dealer I bought my Stewart from and he did not have much good to say about the HP A bit hesitant now after talking to this dealer.........



Bet I know which manufacture has the higher profit margin for that dealer!


----------



## henrich3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/19598937
> 
> 
> I posted this over in the JVC thread as well, but thought it would be good to get some opinions on this over here as well................
> 
> 
> Here is something that surprised me..........Just got a quote for a High Power screen from the dealer I bought my Stewart from and he did not have much good to say about the HP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stewart and Da-lite are the 2 main screen types he sells, but told me that while the HP would be brighter of course compared to my ST130, it also has blooming issues, crushes blacks, and will give off a softer image in general compared to the ST130?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This all surprised me since I would have to think as long as you have contrast/brightness set correctly on the projector that this particular screen would not do these things? How could it give off a softer image? This all has me hesitant now to even try this down the road when I am ready to take the plunge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone care to comment on this who by chance has come from a ST130?
> 
> 
> I am looking to try out a high power early next year at some point to get some more brightness for 3d from my RS40 and was also excited about being able to open up my iris as the bulb ages for 2d and keep my brightness consistent. A bit hesitant now after talking to this dealer.........



If the projector you're viewing has been misadjusted to have crushed blacks, crushed whites, or is out of focus, these problems will be more apparent on a brighter screen like the HP. I just upgraded my matte white to an HP 2.4. My JVC RS20 was calibrated on the matte white. It still appears properly calibrated on the new HP. No color shift. No crushed blacks or whites. Each pixel is clearly delineated when viewed with a magnifying glass. IMO your dealer doesn't know what he's talking about...


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/19599063
> 
> 
> Bet I know which manufacture has the higher profit margin for that dealer!




I know.........I thought this same thing as well. When I questioned him about his "findings" and told him what a stellar reputation the screen had from countless owners, he had no further comment. At the same time, I already bought my Stewart screen from him so it is not a case of buying one or the other from him............he basicaly is trying to talk me out of ANY sale and saving my money.


Still though, it made me a bit hesitant and thought I would get more opinions on this since trying to sell my ST130 and possibly having to fork out a bit more cash after the fact for a new HP screen would suck if any of this somehow was true which again I just dont see how it could be (but maybe I am missing something?).


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *henrich3* /forum/post/19599075
> 
> 
> If the projector you're viewing has been misadjusted to have crushed blacks, crushed whites, or is out of focus, these problems will be more apparent on a brighter screen like the HP. I just upgraded my matte white to an HP 2.4. My JVC RS20 was calibrated on the matte white. It still appears properly calibrated on the new HP. No color shift. No crushed blacks or whites. Each pixel is clearly delineated when viewed with a magnifying glass. IMO your dealer doesn't know what he's talking about...




Thanks. I just dont see how what he is saying could happen if the projector was set up right which is what you are saying.


----------



## nobuyersremorse

I would like to do a 119" in my living room for football during the day and hdtv/bluray mainly at night. I have a 11' seating distance. Anyone sitting 11' from about a 120" screen? Should I stick to a 100" or 106" I have checked the calculators but also understand that thx recomendations are acording to the back row of a theatre. I prefer to sit a little closer then the middle of the theatre. And would a 119" be bright enough during the day for football with ambient light? (epson 8700ub) Thank you for you help, it is a tough decision to make as there is nowhere to view the different screen sizes for myself.


----------



## nobuyersremorse

Also, during the day I feel a cinema contour would be precieved as more of a plasma look with the black frame but the model c's are much cheaper. How does the fixed frame and pull down compare for viewing experience?


----------



## henrich3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nobuyersremorse* /forum/post/19599278
> 
> 
> I would like to do a 119" in my living room for football during the day and hdtv/bluray mainly at night. I have a 11' seating distance. Anyone sitting 11' from about a 120" screen? Should I stick to a 100" or 106" I have checked the calculators but also understand that thx recomendations are acording to the back row of a theatre. I prefer to sit a little closer then the middle of the theatre. And would a 119" be bright enough during the day for football with ambient light? (epson 8700ub) Thank you for you help, it is a tough decision to make as there is nowhere to view the different screen sizes for myself.



I sit 11' from a 110" diag 16x9 and it seems like the right size for me. Tape off the screen sizes you're considering on the wall where you'll be mounting the screen & see which you prefer.


The 8700UB is a relatively bright projector. If you mate that to the HP 2.8 fabric you won't be hurting for brightness. The HP 2.8 material has good off-axis light rejection if you need a little light in the room for your Superbowl party.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *henrich3* /forum/post/19599075
> 
> 
> If the projector you're viewing has been misadjusted to have crushed blacks, crushed whites, or is out of focus, these problems will be more apparent on a brighter screen like the HP. I just upgraded my matte white to an HP 2.4. My JVC RS20 was calibrated on the matte white. It still appears properly calibrated on the new HP. No color shift. No crushed blacks or whites. Each pixel is clearly delineated when viewed with a magnifying glass. IMO your dealer doesn't know what he's talking about...



Either that, or he's just out-and-out lying to feather his nest with a higher profit sale. In either case, I would suggest you avoid this dealer like the plague in the future. He is misleading you, Toe.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/19599664
> 
> 
> Either that, or he's just out-and-out lying to feather his nest with a higher profit sale. In either case, I would suggest you avoid this dealer like the plague in the future. He is misleading you, Toe.



Well thats the thing..........I have allready bought a Stewart screen from him months ago, so it is not a matter of buying one screen or the other and him trying to make more profit. He is basicaly trying to talk me out of the sale completely and keeping my Stewart and saving my money, so I think he really believes this bad info. Obviously this is bad info though and that is a shame for those that come in contact with him as they might be missing out on a great HP screen










Thanks for all the responses guys...........I still have a HP in my future and cant wait. Probably not until early-mid 2011, but it will be something to look forward to


----------



## benjimatt

So im very certain I am buying the high power screen this week but I have one question. After using the calculator I realize I can get of good image with the projector 66" from the ground and my viewing distance would be 45" from the ground with the screen being 58" from the ground.


The only problem is the way my (rented) home is structured. I dont want to worry about too much fan noise so book shelf right behind the couch wont work. Right now my projector is shooting a 92" 16:9 image if I put it all the way to the rails it will probably be around 106" which is the next up on the model b sizes.


This seems like a great solution for me but I worry that if I do that the image quality will suffer and possibly the brightness. its an acer k11 with a native resolution of a little over 800x600. I am thinking 106" will be pusing it. What do you guys think?

Excuse the mess


----------



## Joseph Clark

I have something for the thread regulars. It pertains to the question that often gets asked here about the HP raising black levels. I think people often ask the question because they believe that the HP screen itself is the source of a black level "problem," and that other screens don't have it. I see it as a common misconception. Maybe I'm completely off base in this perception. Just how wrong am I?










Regardless, it's a question that's raised over and over. A FAQ for the HP might be a good idea. Maybe people like Noah and FLBoy could put something together? It might be easier than answering the same questions again and again. The HP thread is huge, and many screen newbies are probably in horror of the mere prospect of sifting through it. (Thus the repetition of posts.) I know if I came here completely ignorant of screens, it's something I'd find valuable.


----------



## henrich3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *benjimatt* /forum/post/19601004
> 
> 
> So im very certain I am buying the high power screen this week but I have one question. After using the calculator I realize I can get of good image with the projector 66" from the ground and my viewing distance would be 45" from the ground with the screen being 58" from the ground.
> 
> 
> The only problem is the way my (rented) home is structured. I dont want to worry about too much fan noise so book shelf right behind the couch wont work. Right now my projector is shooting a 92" 16:9 image if I put it all the way to the rails it will probably be around 106" which is the next up on the model b sizes.
> 
> 
> This seems like a great solution for me but I worry that if I do that the image quality will suffer and possibly the brightness. its an acer k11 with a native resolution of a little over 800x600. I am thinking 106" will be pusing it. What do you guys think?



A 106" HP will definitely improve the grandeur of your picture, but the larger, brighter image will also expose more of the PQ issues in an 800x600 projector. If you've read through this thread you know that there are two different HP fabrics - 2.8 and 2.4 gain. Da-Lite's usual sample size is a tiny 7 inch square but you may want to ask if they would send you larger samples of each material to better judge whether this would be a good upgrade for your situation.


----------



## Acta7

but does the black level also raise by 2,8X ???


----------



## airscapes

As has been stated many times in this thread, "The screen reflects the light that hits it. So if you display 0 IRE i.e. video black, the amount of light that comes out of your projector (and there is light) will be reflected with a gain of 2.8 at the max sweet spot of the screen. Now if you display a 100 IRE Max white it will also have a gain of 2.8. So if you set up a matte white screen whit a gain of 1 next to an HP with a gain of 2.8 and then display video black from one projector hitting both screens. The HP will glow brighter than the screen with a gain of 1.

In use with normal content, the brights more than make up for the raised black level for most people.


----------



## henrich3

Methinks that Acta7 was just baiting Joe...


----------



## airscapes

Quote:

Originally Posted by *henrich3* 
Methinks that Acta7 was just baiting Joe...
Add it to the FAQ


----------



## benjimatt

I went ahead and ordered a da-lite 16:9 106" high power model B screen for $237

The price seemed really fair. I am worried about the quality at 106" vs my 92" but worst case scenario I will cover the sides with my curtains. THis way my flexibility is much more.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *benjimatt* /forum/post/19609499
> 
> 
> I went ahead and ordered a da-lite 16:9 106" high power model B screen for $237
> 
> The price seemed really fair. I am worried about the quality at 106" vs my 92" but worst case scenario I will cover the sides with my curtains. THis way my flexibility is much more.



Assuming you wanted the 2.4 gain, since that is standard unless you request 2.8 on all pull downs.


----------



## GoCaboNow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/19599688
> 
> 
> Well thats the thing..........I have allready bought a Stewart screen from him months ago, so it is not a matter of buying one screen or the other and him trying to make more profit. He is basicaly trying to talk me out of the sale completely and keeping my Stewart and saving my money, so I think he really believes this bad info. Obviously this is bad info though and that is a shame for those that come in contact with him as they might be missing out on a great HP screen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for all the responses guys...........I still have a HP in my future and cant wait. Probably not until early-mid 2011, but it will be something to look forward to



I work for a PC distributor and I run into established theater installers periodically. Universally, they have very little practical knowledge and regard for the high power. Gray, unity or 1.3 if they want to get crazy. As far as they are concerned the hp is a "bastardized" mis-used screen. "Well have you ever installed or worked with one?" "No! And I never will.You cannot hang the pj from the ceiling and the viewing cone is too small. Why even do it" Something like that would summarize our conversations about the hp. To me it is old scholl meets new school. Most of their installs are pretty expensive and their clients do not want a compromise solution and they play it really conservative. Small screens - and beautiful rooms.










That said, I did have a 1.0 gain screen in my room to play with a while back. There was A LOT less punch and life to the image compared to the hp but I would say the pic also was a litle sharper at the screen. Not really enough to notice while seated. 116" wide, first row at 10.5'. But at the screen it seemed a little sharper. Hard to explain. The pixels did not seem sharper but the hp is so much brighter there is a bit of a glow that comes off the screen and, at the screen, makes it seem slightly softer. At seating distance, it is a no contest and the hp image just blows away the 1.0 but I could see old school dealer guy advising against the hp.


----------



## benjimatt




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/19609640
> 
> 
> Assuming you wanted the 2.4 gain, since that is standard unless you request 2.8 on all pull downs.



yeah i went with the 2.4 the sample I have is 2.4 and I love the way it looks. Using the gain calculator I really think this is the better screen for me.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GoCaboNow* /forum/post/19610665
> 
> 
> I work for a PC distributor and I run into established theater installers periodically. Universally, they have very little practical knowledge and regard for the high power. Gray, unity or 1.3 if they want to get crazy. As far as they are concerned the hp is a "bastardized" mis-used screen. "Well have you ever installed or worked with one?" "No! And I never will.You cannot hang the pj from the ceiling and the viewing cone is too small. Why even do it" Something like that would summarize our conversations about the hp. To me it is old scholl meets new school. Most of their installs are pretty expensive and their clients do not want a compromise solution and they play it really conservative. Small screens - and beautiful rooms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That said, I did have a 1.0 gain screen in my room to play with a while back. There was A LOT less punch and life to the image compared to the hp but I would say the pic also was a litle sharper at the screen. Not really enough to notice while seated. 116" wide, first row at 10.5'. But at the screen it seemed a little sharper. Hard to explain. The pixels did not seem sharper but the hp is so much brighter there is a bit of a glow that comes off the screen and, at the screen, makes it seem slightly softer. At seating distance, it is a no contest and the hp image just blows away the 1.0 but I could see old school dealer guy advising against the hp.




Interesting..........thanks GoCaboNow.


----------



## newfmp3

I bought my first FP setup back in 2004. I did the common thing and got samples from anyone that would send them to me. 12" samples. After reading this forum, I was quite excited to see the HP, which at the time was 2.8 gain and 15 degree viewing cone.


But once I got it, I almost laughed at it. The viewing cone was simply horrid, and with a ceiling mounted pj, once I sat down on the couch, the gain was actually worse then the 1.0 plain white screen I had at the time. I tried the sample all around the screen, sitting and standing all around the room, and just came to the conclusion that the HP was not for me, and reminded me of an old rear projection tv set back in the day where you had to sit juuuust right in order to see the screen. My room had 7'6 ceilings, and projector ceiling mounted at about 10" down.


Surpisingly, I ended up getting the Draper M2500. Which at the time had a gain of over 2 as well ( it doesn't now). It was a no brainer to anyone that seen the samples. The M2500 had a very good viewing cone, and was actually brighter sitting down, blacks were better. It was the opposite of the high power in that you did not lose gain when sitting down. Of course quality control was an issue with this screen, and getting a piece without "tracks" was not easy it seems. I did get my screen from Jason here, and it was perfect.


Then 5 years later, there was an accident, and it got torn. Without even thinking twice, I said I'll order more M2500, but decided on getting samples first just in case. Glad I did, they changed the darn thing, and now it's 1.5 gain, and has a weird sheen on it and viewing cone is all messed up. Basically, they ruined it. It's much darker then my old one. To the point where I would never consider it.


But, none of my samples I got now really impress me. I do have a High Power 2.4 sample, and with the larger viewing cone, it is not as bad as the old, and I might actually grab it just because it's kinda close to my old m2500 from my sitting position. Of course sitting down in my front row, I lose almost all the gain. Dropping the projector down 10" from the old position didn't seem to help much. Having ANY lights on crush my blacks it seems, whereas my old m2500 wasn't really bothered by it


I can't believe that after 6 years it still really only comes down to a high gain material that doesn't work well with ceiling mounted projectors if you need gain. You start to wonder if you would be better off with a cheap white or grey screen, and a much brigher projector instead


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *newfmp3* /forum/post/19613358
> 
> 
> I bought my first FP setup back in 2004. I did the common thing and got samples from anyone that would send them to me. 12" samples. After reading this forum, I was quite excited to see the HP, which at the time was 2.8 gain and 15 degree viewing cone.
> 
> 
> But once I got it, I almost laughed at it. The viewing cone was simply horrid, and with a ceiling mounted pj, once I sat down on the couch, the gain was actually worse then the 1.0 plain white screen I had at the time. I tried the sample all around the screen, sitting and standing all around the room, and just came to the conclusion that the HP was not for me, and reminded me of an old rear projection tv set back in the day where you had to sit juuuust right in order to see the screen. My room had 7'6 ceilings, and projector ceiling mounted at about 10" down.
> 
> 
> Surpisingly, I ended up getting the Draper M2500. Which at the time had a gain of over 2 as well ( it doesn't now). It was a no brainer to anyone that seen the samples. The M2500 had a very good viewing cone, and was actually brighter sitting down, blacks were better. It was the opposite of the high power in that you did not lose gain when sitting down. Of course quality control was an issue with this screen, and getting a piece without "tracks" was not easy it seems. I did get my screen from Jason here, and it was perfect.
> 
> 
> Then 5 years later, there was an accident, and it got torn. Without even thinking twice, I said I'll order more M2500, but decided on getting samples first just in case. Glad I did, they changed the darn thing, and now it's 1.5 gain, and has a weird sheen on it and viewing cone is all messed up. Basically, they ruined it. It's much darker then my old one. To the point where I would never consider it.
> 
> 
> But, none of my samples I got now really impress me. I do have a High Power 2.4 sample, and with the larger viewing cone, it is not as bad as the old, and I might actually grab it just because it's kinda close to my old m2500 from my sitting position. Of course sitting down in my front row, I lose almost all the gain. Dropping the projector down 10" from the old position didn't seem to help much. Having ANY lights on crush my blacks it seems, whereas my old m2500 wasn't really bothered by it
> 
> 
> I can't believe that after 6 years it still really only comes down to a high gain material that doesn't work well with ceiling mounted projectors if you need gain. You start to wonder if you would be better off with a cheap white or grey screen, and a much brigher projector instead



It's all about compromise! If you have enough Money, Time and Resources you can do anything! If not you make compromises to get the best you can with what you have to work with.

To me, the 2.4 is like your M2500, from personally experience with having both the 2.8 and 2.4 standing next to each other, I do not believe the viewing cone is any wider regardless of some dalite chart. The gain dropped off at the same spot when moving away. The big difference is that the gain went way higher when moving into the cone with the 2.8. This is just from observation not scientific measurements. The most damming thing in my mind was when the WIFE said, Keep the one on the right the colors are much better, it is clearer and more alive (the 2.8 stayed)


The screen I have is a portable, so if anyone is on the fence and is near Philadelphia pa I am offering to visit your home so you can see a VERY large sample of the HP. For my effort I get to check out other peoples setups to get ideas for my future HT.

Please PM if you are interested.


----------



## Almost60

Is loss of detail (in HP 2.8) evident?


----------



## RobertR




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Almost60* /forum/post/19613532
> 
> 
> Is loss of detail (in HP 2.8) evident?



Where did you get the idea the 2.8 "loses detail"??


----------



## Almost60

In the post *#2929*











EDIT: Misunderstood i go?


----------



## newfmp3

what he says kinda makes sense though. If you turn up your brightness or contrast on your TV set too high, you lose detail


that being said, I do not see this issue on my 12" samples.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *newfmp3* /forum/post/19614803
> 
> 
> If you turn up your brightness or contrast on your TV set too high, you lose detail



That's only possible because a "TV set" is an active device. If you lose detail, it's because you're pushing the picture into white or black crush, or both. Old tube sets used to "bloom" too if over driven with brightness or contrast settings, so you'd lose resolution too. A screen can't do any of that.


----------



## GoCaboNow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/19614916
> 
> 
> That's only possible because a "TV set" is an active device. If you lose detail, it's because you're pushing the picture into white or black crush, or both. Old tube sets used to "bloom" too if over driven with brightness or contrast settings, so you'd lose resolution too. *A screen can't do any of that*.



Yeah, I would really question anyone that says the screen can give you black crush.


The movie How to train your dragon has an incredibly dark opening scene. With my two year old rs10 the blacks were absolutely inky on the high power screen.


----------



## Acta7




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GoCaboNow* /forum/post/19615484
> 
> 
> With my two year old rs10 the blacks were absolutely inky on the high power screen.



But those blacks should have been even more inky on a 1.0 gain screen, right ? What stops me from buying this screen is the fear to lose my actual black level on my 1.0 gain screen ...


PS: does the 30° cone kill the ambient reflections ?


----------



## airscapes

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Acta7* 
But those blacks should have been even more inky on a 1.0 gain screen, right ? What stops me from buying this screen is the fear to lose my actual black level on my 1.0 gain screen ...
And that is OK! It is not the holy grail to replace all screens! It might seem like it by the way us owners rave about it, but we are just really happy with the way it look to us. No the blacks are not as black as a 1 gain or a .8 gray, but we all know that in advance and are looking for color and POP. You must except the fact that the black is 100% the projectors responsibility. This screen does not do anything to make light.. it is all your projectors inability to shut off the light that raises the black level. As the saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" nothing wrong with a 1 gain matte white screen if it works the way you want it to!


----------



## Almost60

Why isn't HP tensionable?


----------



## Almost60

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Acta7* 
...does the 30° cone kill the ambient reflections ?
Interesting to me...


----------



## Acta7

Quote:

Originally Posted by *airscapes* 
You must except the fact that the black is 100% the projectors responsibility. This screen does not do anything to make light.. it is all your projectors inability to shut off the light that raises the black level.
I've a Sharp XV-Z20000 and I'm very happy with my actual blacks with High Lamp / High Contrast setting. My Spider can't even measure it but it should be around 0,063 lumens if the measures of Tom Huffman are correct ( http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...91&postcount=1 ) with a calibrated white of 344 lumens.



getting a HP screen and setting the projector to Low-Lamp/High-Contrast I should get a 0,145 lumens video black and 702 lumens video white raising the black 2,3x and the whites 2x ( so losing contrast but doubling withe while still staying near a decent black level ). Or I should keep High-Lamp/High-contrast setting raising bot blacks and whites 2,8x to 0,176 lumens video black and 963 lumens video whites : but how bad will look a 0,176 lumens video black when I'm used to my 0,063 ? While I'm sure I'll be blown away with high apl scenes I just can't figure how much disappoint I'll be in very dark scenes ( i.e. Gotham city by night scenes in "The Dark Knight" ).

And no, it's not possible to find a HP sample here in Italy









Quote:

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" nothing wrong with a 1 gain matte white screen if it works the way you want it to!
Old says are always wise









But wise and passion never goes togheter you know


----------



## airscapes

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Acta7* 
I've a Sharp XV-Z20000 and I'm very happy with my actual blacks with High Lamp / High Contrast setting. My Spider can't even measure it but it should be around 0,063 lumens if the measures of Tom Huffman are correct ( http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...91&postcount=1 ) with a calibrated white of 344 lumens.



getting a HP screen and setting the projector to Low-Lamp/High-Contrast I should get a 0,145 lumens video black and 702 lumens video white raising the black 2,3x and the whites 2x ( so losing contrast but doubling withe while still staying near a decent black level ). Or I should keep High-Lamp/High-contrast setting raising bot blacks and whites 2,8x to 0,176 lumens video black and 963 lumens video whites : but how bad will look a 0,176 lumens video black when I'm used to my 0,063 ? While I'm sure I'll be blown away with high apl scenes I just can't figure how much disappoint I'll be in very dark scenes ( i.e. Gotham city by night scenes in "The Dark Knight" ).

And no, it's not possible to find a HP sample here in Italy












Old says are always wise









But wise and passion never goes togheter you know








Truth be told, you would ISF calibrate your projector once you get the new screen for optimal image. I had it done, cost more than the projector is worth, but was worth every penny! I even went as far as to get a quote on a K10 that that the guy use.. at $6995 I will just pay the pros every year or 2










Anyway, if you are that into black and not that worried about POP then just pass on the HP, you are only setting yourself up for disappointment.


----------



## Acta7

Quote:

Originally Posted by *airscapes* 
Anyway, if you are that into black and not that worried about POP then just pass on the HP, you are only setting yourself up for disappointment.
I like pop too, thats why I got a dlp instead of jvc







but not to the point to see a black become gray










PS: what can you say about the reflections on the walls ? are they the same as your previously 1.0 gain screen ? or does the 30° degree cone kill almost all of them (as I'm thinking) ?


----------



## henrich3

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Almost60* 
Why isn't HP tensionable?
I had asked Da-Lite that question before I ordered my HP 2.4. This was their response:

"We can only tension vinyl surfaces. The 2.4 gain material is fiberglass based. It won't stretch as easy as the vinyl. This is why we can't use it on a tensioned screen. Our closest higher gain tensioned surface is pearlescent, but it is a 1.5 gain compared to the 2.4 of the high power. The fiberglass surfaces like high power are more self supportive and do not need the tension like vinyl screen. We will install a weight bar in the bottom of the surface to hold it tight. Most waves in a surface are caused by the aluminum roller it is attached to. If the roller is straight the surface will hang flat. If it is curved or deflected the surface will have waves. This is true for both tensioned and non-tensioned screens. Both the tensioned and non-tensioned Contour use a 3.25" diameter aluminum roller. You can order high power on a fixed frame screen, but it can be very difficult to snap all the way on the frame since it doesn't stretch as well as the traditional vinyl surfaces."


My 110" diag HP 2.4 fabric (Contour Electrol) is quite flat. If you did have a significant wrinkle problem Da-Lite should replace your screen under warranty.


----------



## Acta7

Just found this screenshot showing the HP 2.8 (right) against a 1.95 gian (left)
http://96.227.248.64:999/dalitehp/photos/100_0385.html 


Ok I'm going out to buy my HP ...


----------



## Almost60

Quote:

Originally Posted by *henrich3* 
I had asked Da-Lite that question before I ordered my HP 2.4. This was their response:

"We can only tension vinyl surfaces. The 2.4 gain material is fiberglass based. It won't stretch as easy as the vinyl. This is why we can't use it on a tensioned screen. Our closest higher gain tensioned surface is pearlescent, but it is a 1.5 gain compared to the 2.4 of the high power. The fiberglass surfaces like high power are more self supportive and do not need the tension like vinyl screen. We will install a weight bar in the bottom of the surface to hold it tight. Most waves in a surface are caused by the aluminum roller it is attached to. If the roller is straight the surface will hang flat. If it is curved or deflected the surface will have waves. This is true for both tensioned and non-tensioned screens. Both the tensioned and non-tensioned Contour use a 3.25" diameter aluminum roller. You can order high power on a fixed frame screen, but it can be very difficult to snap all the way on the frame since it doesn't stretch as well as the traditional vinyl surfaces."


My 110" diag HP 2.4 fabric (Contour Electrol) is quite flat. If you did have a significant wrinkle problem Da-Lite should replace your screen under warranty.
Thanks...









Really interesting.


----------



## airscapes

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Acta7* 
Just found this screenshot showing the HP 2.8 (right) against a 1.95 gian (left)
http://96.227.248.64:999/dalitehp/photos/100_0385.html 


Ok I'm going out to buy my HP ...








No that screen shot is the HP 2.8 right and the HP 2.4 Left with the camera 4" above the projector. I took that shot, so make sure you read the thread it came from before you order








http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7&highlight=hp 


Screen shots do not show the true picture.. those shots were to show the difference in gain between the old 2.8 and the so called new 2.4 HP fabric.


----------



## benjimatt

MMMMMM the 2.4 should be here on Tuesday!!!!!!!!!! I cant wait


----------



## Almost60

If i buy now a HP screen , can i choose between 2.4 and 2.8? What is the best?


----------



## zombie10k

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Acta7* 
But those blacks should have been even more inky on a 1.0 gain screen, right ? What stops me from buying this screen is the fear to lose my actual black level on my 1.0 gain screen ...
you have to put it into perspective, the HP screen doesn't just raise the black levels, it increases the gain on all light that is projected against it.


When you are watching a high contrast image, the blacks look just as black as you'd expect because your eye/brain takes into account the equally brighter light colors as well. If you want the bright 'plasma on the wall' look, there aren't too many ways to do this besides an HP screen.


This is a 142" Cinema Contour 2.8 screen I setup a few weeks ago to replace my 92" HP. I wouldn't have been interested in front projectection if it wasn't for the HP material, I don't like struggling to see a dim image, regardess if it's in a bat cave (which I have). This is my old Mitsubishi HC5500 from 2008.


----------



## Mystify

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Acta7*
PS: what can you say about the reflections on the walls ? are they the same as your previously 1.0 gain screen ? or does the 30° degree cone kill almost all of them (as I'm thinking) ?
I second this question. Can anyone please comment on the reflections coming off the screen to side walls/ceilings?


This will be a major factor for me if I go with the HP and if I go 2.4 or 2.8 material.


Thanks.


----------



## Acta7

Quote:

Originally Posted by *airscapes* 
No that screen shot is the HP 2.8 right and the HP 2.4
yes you're right ... but that makes the 2.8 even more impressive









or not ?


----------



## edpowers

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Mystify* 
I second this question. Can anyone please comment on the reflections coming off the screen to side walls/ceilings?


This will be a major factor for me if I go with the HP and if I go 2.4 or 2.8 material.


Thanks.
It definitely doesn't kill all of the reflections, but there is a huge difference between a 1.0 screen and the High Power 2.8 (I can't comment on the 2.4). In my own personal experience, I still got some washout, but it was a HUGE improvement as long as you are sitting in the viewing cone. If you are sitting near the side walls, then the reflection problem is exaggerated. The key is not having bright walls within the viewing cone (ie back wall).


----------



## Acta7

@Zombi10K
























wow wonderful shots







... but don't you have one showing a low apl scene ?( like this one for example http://www.imageurlhost.com/images/t...j4a_MICO50.jpg )


----------



## R Harkness

zombie10k,


Those screen shots are astoundingly good. Easily among the best screen shots of a projected image I've ever seen.


When I had my HP screen up I was just knocked out by the explosion of fine detail and especially color detail that screen brought out. It's like I can see it in your screen shots as well. Incredible.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Acta7* /forum/post/19618443
> 
> 
> But those blacks should have been even more inky on a 1.0 gain screen, right ? What stops me from buying this screen is the fear to lose my actual black level on my 1.0 gain screen ...
> 
> 
> PS: does the 30° cone kill the ambient reflections ?



Re your PS: It helps. That's one of the HP's strengths. It also helps with rejecting relfected light, so it helps on both ends.


Re the other: Following your logic, wouldn't you be even happier with a .5 gain screen? Really... the whole black level issue is just like having a brighter projector, something everyone wants, no? As someone else pointed out, if your projector is too bright you can close its iris and get even better cr.


----------



## zombie10k




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Acta7* /forum/post/19619676
> 
> 
> @Zombi10K
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wow wonderful shots
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... but don't you have one showing a low apl scene ?( like this one for example http://www.imageurlhost.com/images/t...j4a_MICO50.jpg )



What movie is that from, I can try to match up the same frame. Keep in mind that the camera and our LCD monitors won't capture the level of detail our eyes will see, especially the black levels and contrast. Screen shots are fun to look at, but that's really about it in regard to how useful they are.


IMO, the HP screen can magnify the potential flaws of a projector. For example, my older Mitsubishi HC5500 doesn't have the greatest blacks or contrast for that matter - certainly not when comparing to a JVC DILA projector which has much higher native contrast by comparison.


In very low light scenes (lets say a movie like underworld) the average black levels of this older LCD projector stand out, yet in mixed contrast scenes or bright images, the projector looks great on the HP screen.


So what do you do to fix the craving for deep blacks? Buy a JVC RS40 or RS50, $ony VW90, etc. I've been patiently waiting for the RS40 to arrive and it should look great on the HP screen along with the benefit of more light for the 3D modes and the light sapping shutter glasses.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/19620227
> 
> 
> Re your PS: It helps. That's one of the HP's strengths. It also helps with rejecting relfected light, so it helps on both ends.
> 
> 
> Re the other: Following your logic, wouldn't you be even happier with a .5 gain screen? Really... the whole black level issue is just like having a brighter projector, something everyone wants, no?



Yes and no.


Simply making the image brighter doesn't make it better in every possible way - there are still things one can want that a dimmer image can provide.


I have a 1.3 gain screen and I can vary my image size with 4 way masking to a great degree (e.g. anywhere from, like, an 88" diagonal 16:9 image up to a 135" diagonal 16:9 image). My JVC projector has an adjustable iris with 15 different settings. So I can have wide latitude in brightness with either regular or high-lamp bulb mode - the difference in brightness between high lamp iris wide open and low lamp iris in most closed position is a very big difference. The point being, I get to play with pretty extreme brightness settings a lot on my set up.


When I have a really bright image I find myself loving the clarity and "pop" of the image in bright and many mixed brightness scenes. But when I use a much dimmer setting I LOVE the quality that really dark black levels bring to the image, especially for dark movies. Essentially the brighter image looks more solid and convincing in brighter scenes, the dimmer image often looks more solid and convincing in darker scenes. I'd love to have both, which is why I hope for ever increasing contrast in newer projectors.


But for now we juggle compromises. Brightness is certainly nice to be able to achieve for sure. But that doesn't necessarily mean brighter is strictly better and always more desirable. Until we have projectors with much higher contrast ratios, we are going to be dealing with trade offs in black level/brightness.


----------



## henrich3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Almost60* /forum/post/19619571
> 
> 
> If i buy now a HP screen , can i choose between 2.4 and 2.8? What is the best?



They're both excellent and yes you can request either fabric. The 2.8 has higher gain & better off axis light rejection. The 2.4 provides most of the gain of the 2.8 along with a wider angle of view. Richard Berg's gain comparison chart and FLBoy's gain calculator ( http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=966057 ) are both useful for determining which material would work better in your room. Da-Lite will send samples of the HP fabrics on request.


----------



## R Harkness

Hmm, I'd really like to see the newer 2.4 version in action to check out the viewing angles. Maybe I'll get a sample.


----------



## airscapes

I would not put much faith in that chart. Having had both screes in the same room the eyes told a different story. However, we have chocolate and vanilla for a reason..


----------



## Almost60

This is my situation...










I can get down the projector by 20 cm but i think that i can't install HP 2.8










What do you think?


EDIT: converting the data in inches , the result is 1,76 gain


----------



## airscapes

If you can not get into the gain of the screen and you still want an HP, then the 2.4 will probably give you a better picture since out of the cone it appears more like a matte white screen than does the 2.8 in my visual opinion. HOWEVER, if you can not achieve the optimal setup why bother?? Keep what you have and put the money in the bank for a year and see what happens.


----------



## Almost60












I can't put the projector over my head , and the sofa is placed against the wall...


What will happen in a year?


----------



## Acta7

@almost60


you need to match the center screen height with the lens of the proiector.

doing so you obtain a better gain


----------



## Almost60

It's better , but it isn't 2,8 gain...










But if the reflection will be attenuated , maybe will be an upgrade...


----------



## Acta7

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Almost60* 
It's better , but it isn't 2,8 gain...










But if the reflection will be attenuated , maybe will be an upgrade...
I'm playing with the calculator ... just find out the best possible thing is to put the projector as close as possible to viewing position instead.


Look :











so, standing to that calculator, the closest the projector to the head, the more gain benefit, independently of screen position ...


----------



## henrich3

Quote:

Originally Posted by *R Harkness* 
Hmm, I'd really like to see the newer 2.4 version in action to check out the viewing angles. Maybe I'll get a sample.
I'm very pleased with my 2.4. I believe that Berg's comparison chart is an accurate representation of what I see as I moved off axis with a 2.8 sample hung in front of my 2.4 screen. The 2.8 dims quickly whereas the 2.4 stays bright. The 2.4 still beats a matte white significantly off axis. The only negatives to the 2.4 are the reduced gain in the sweet spot and the poor off axis light rejection compared to the 2.8. Like a matte white, the 2.4 demands a dark viewing environment.


----------



## Almost60

@ Acta7


I know... But i should put the projector on the sofa alongside me...


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Almost60* /forum/post/19624597
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't put the projector over my head , and the sofa is placed against the wall...
> 
> 
> What will happen in a year?



Your money will have grown and your projector will have aged.. maybe you will want a new projector and maybe it will be more of an upgrade. Just trying to say if you are not getting something better for your money why spend it?


----------



## henrich3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Almost60* /forum/post/19624597
> 
> 
> I can't put the projector over my head , and the sofa is placed against the wall...



A ceiling mount with a long drop pole can sometimes be used to bring the pj closer to your viewing height. Wall brackets might be an option. Depending on what's on the other side of the wall behind your sofa (garage?, closet?) you might be able to build a nook in the wall behind your sofa. Since the 2.4 has a wider viewing angle you can get away with a non-optimal projector placement and still be better off than a matte white.


----------



## Almost60

Ok... Now i understand.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Acta7* /forum/post/19624707
> 
> 
> I'm playing with the calculator ... just find out the best possible thing is to put the projector as close as possible to viewing position instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so, standing to that calculator, the closest the projector to the head, the more gain benefit, independently of screen position ...



Um, well yes, that is the probably the single most posted fact about this fabric. Did you read the review written by Tryg? It starts on page one of this thread and explains the fabric and all of the pros and cons.


----------



## Almost60




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *henrich3* /forum/post/19624749
> 
> 
> ...Depending on what's on the other side of the wall behind your sofa (garage?, closet?)...



There is a closet (very full) , i can't touch it.










Maybe i should put a Big shelf where can i put my EPSON TW5000.... But i could bang my head...


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *henrich3* /forum/post/19624749
> 
> 
> A ceiling mount with a long drop pole can sometimes be used to bring the pj closer to your viewing height. Wall brackets might be an option. Depending on what's on the other side of the wall behind your sofa (garage?, closet?) you might be able to build a nook in the wall behind your sofa. Since the 2.4 has a wider viewing angle you can get away with a non-optimal projector placement and still be better off than a matte white.



NOTE: The above info assumes the projector has lens shift and is not a fixed offset. If you have a DLP with no lens sift your only real mounting location would be table assuming you have the ceiling height to get the screen up high enough to support such a location in relation to your seat height.


----------



## henrich3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/19624780
> 
> 
> NOTE: The above info assumes the projector has lens shift and is not a fixed offset. If you have a DLP with no lens sift your only real mounting location would be table assuming you have the ceiling height to get the screen up high enough to support such a location in relation to your seat height.



Good point.


----------



## henrich3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Almost60* /forum/post/19624770
> 
> 
> There is a closet (very full) , i can't touch it.



I'll stop over tomorrow to clean it out...


----------



## Almost60












I hope to find a solution...


----------



## Acta7




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/19624759
> 
> 
> Did you read the review written by Tryg? It starts on page one of this thread and explains the fabric and all of the pros and cons.



Yes but from the Tryg review I understood that that the best possible setting was centerscreen-centerlens while the calculator says THE PRIORITY is vpr close to viewing position.

Maybe I just misunderstood Tryg











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Almost60* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Maybe i should put a Big shelf where can i put my EPSON TW5000.... But i could bang my head...



ROTFL


----------



## FLBoy

Acta7: You might benefit from reading post #6 in my gain calculator thread. It explains some of the theory used in developing the gain calculator. Here's a link.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post14125164


----------



## henrich3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Acta7* /forum/post/19624922
> 
> 
> Yes but from the Tryg review I understood that that the best possible setting was centerscreen-centerlens while the calculator says THE PRIORITY is vpr close to viewing position.
> 
> Maybe I just misunderstood Tryg



The angle created from lens to center screen and center screen to your eyes is what matters. If you can keep this angle within 15 degrees the 2.8 may be a great choice for you. If you have viewers outside of that angle you may want to investigate the 2.4. Using FLBoy's calculator you can see which would work better.


----------



## Acta7

Well then :

center screen and center lens are 182 cm from floor, my eyes are 90 cm from floor, distance is 400 cm for bot siting and vpr position --> then the angle from center screen to my eyes is arctg(92/400)=13° so :

*A*) screen angle with vpr = 0°
*B*) screen angle with my eyes = 13°


but in this way I have 1,59 gain










while lowering the vpr close to eyes position I have 2,79 gain











is that because the best possible set is (A=B)


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Acta7* /forum/post/19625154
> 
> 
> Well then :
> 
> center screen and center lens are 182 cm from floor, my eyes are 90 cm from floor, distance is 400 cm for bot siting and vpr position --> then the angle from center screen to my eyes is arctg(92/400)=13° so :
> 
> 
> A) screen angle with vpr = 0°
> 
> B) screen angle with my eyes = 13°
> 
> 
> 
> but screen calculator says that is better to lower the projector close to eyes position : is that because the best set is (A=B)


----------



## Acta7




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/19625178
> 
> 
> The reason is the screen returns the light from where it came from. So the closer you get your eyes to the level of the lens the more gain your will get.



OK but always staying between the 15° cone, right ?


Looks like I'm in


----------



## benjimatt

So im confused about the "Calculated Error Angle (Degrees):"


It looks like at 106" my viewing experience will be better than at 92" But my calculated error angle is lower. Is that a good thing?? Here are my values (This is with the 2.4 gain screen)


at *92"* diagonal

*Calculated Error Angle (Degrees):*

3.19 3.01 3.19
*Estimated Screen Gain:*

2.27 2.28 2.27


at *106"* diagonal
*

Calculated Error Angle (Degrees):*

2.51 2.46 2.51
*Estimated Screen Gain:*

2.30 2.30 2.30



Hey if any of you want to check out different viewing angles I just made this video that shows it a little bit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-plCPMOQyU


----------



## henrich3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *benjimatt* /forum/post/19628579
> 
> 
> So im confused about the "Calculated Error Angle (Degrees):"
> 
> 
> It looks like at 106" my viewing experience will be better than at 92" But my calculated error angle is lower. Is that a good thing?? Here are my values (This is with the 2.4 gain screen)
> 
> 
> at *92"* diagonal
> 
> *Calculated Error Angle (Degrees):*
> 
> 3.19 3.01 3.19
> *Estimated Screen Gain:*
> 
> 2.27 2.28 2.27
> 
> 
> at *106"* diagonal
> 
> *Calculated Error Angle (Degrees):*
> 
> 2.51 2.46 2.51
> *Estimated Screen Gain:*
> 
> 2.30 2.30 2.30
> 
> 
> Hey if any of you want to check out different viewing angles I just made this video that shows it a little bit
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-plCPMOQyU



The differences between your estimated screen gains (2.27 or 2.30) are insignificant. I expect that you might see that level of difference just leaning from one side of your seat to the other...


----------



## nobuyersremorse

Anyone hear the speakers on the Acoustical Imager model? Worth the money? Would work great for my setup


----------



## henrich3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nobuyersremorse* /forum/post/19629569
> 
> 
> Anyone hear the speakers on the Acoustical Imager model?



No, but I'm skeptical that any speakers with tiny 3" midrange drivers can provide stellar sound quality. These look like the sort of speakers you'd mate to a computer for casual listening (YouTube, etc.). I'd recommend that you pass on the screen frame speakers, grab some good full-range music CD's, and head to your local Hi-Fi store to find something you'll actually enjoy listening to.


----------



## newfmp3

I'm having troubles finding a place in Canada to get thr HP. HD.ca can get it, but the price was a little high. Any others?


----------



## Killroy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *newfmp3* /forum/post/19635930
> 
> 
> I'm having troubles finding a place in Canada to get thr HP. HD.ca can get it, but the price was a little high. Any others?



Mounts and More ships to Canada and has great prices. This is where I got my B model that I used to cut out the material and build a fixed frame.


----------



## newfmp3

There has got to be a cheap model b that can fit my needs and just cut material out of. Material cost alone up here is 700/ 13% tax. That's for. 56x98 screen. My existing screen right now is a fixed frame with a 54 x 96 viewable area. I need an extra 2" to wrap material around frame. I have a nice setup, and not want to change size.


Question: when a screen is listed as say 72 x 96 and it has a black border. Does the 96 include the border? Or is the border an extra inch or so?


----------



## Acta7




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Killroy* /forum/post/19635984
> 
> 
> Mounts and More ships to Canada and has great prices. This is where I got my B model that I used to cut out the material and build a fixed frame.



Watchout: Mounts and More are selling High power ver. 2.4 (reading the specs)


----------



## Almost60

Can some of owners of HP 2.8 post a video to show how shed ambient light?


----------



## newfmp3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Acta7* /forum/post/19638992
> 
> 
> Watchout: Mounts and More are selling High power ver. 2.4 (reading the specs)



....which is exactly what I want. The last time I had the 2.8 material the viewing cone was horrendous. By the time I sat down on couch with ceiling mounted projector, the gain was worse then a matte white. Not seeing the same issue with the 2.4 sample I have.


----------



## Almost60

@newfmp3


How high above your eyes is the center of projectors' lens?


----------



## Acta7

I just ordered my fixed Cinema Contour 100" HP 2.8 from Audiogeneral.com for $ 1133 (shipping to Italy included







)


----------



## Almost60

Good...










I hope to do it soon too.


----------



## Tryg

3000 posts! Still love my High Power!


Set up properly... it IS the best image available.


----------



## rgathright

Since we have got our HP 2.4 we have been recording animated shows just to see the color. It can only get better when I upgrade to a new projector.


----------



## newfmp3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Almost60* /forum/post/19639946
> 
> 
> @newfmp3
> 
> 
> How high above your eyes is the center of projectors' lens?



have not measured, but it's about 2.5-3'


----------



## Almost60

So this is why you are not satisfied with the HP 2.8


Projector must be positioned as close as possible to height of eyes.


----------



## henrich3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/19640493
> 
> 
> 3000 posts! Still love my High Power!
> 
> 
> Set up properly... it IS the best image available.



Have you demo'ed a 2.4 yet? What are your opinions on that fabric?


----------



## newfmp3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Almost60* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> So this is why you are not satisfied with the HP 2.8
> 
> 
> Projector must be positioned as close as possible to height of eyes.



29" from my eyes. Once I get the new screen, then it's new projector and then it"s tweaking seating and things to get that lens closer. I do have a " grand master plan" but I have to ease into it for that certain other person in the house. I also need to ceiling mount. But right now is worse case scenario, It'll only get better from this point on. This is my 3rd theatre rebuild


Can someone tell me how wide the aluminum frame is on a da lite per-wall screen?


----------



## benjimatt

here is the 2.4 da-lite high power screen on a low lumen projector. amazing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIxh-sw_e30


----------



## newfmp3

I was going to order the 2.4 today. But I think I will get da-light to send a 2.8 sample to me just in case. When I seen it years back I was in a different house, different setup. I think for the sake of a week delay, I should try it.


I was really hoping to order today though. interesting, when I talked to the da-lite rep about viewing angles on the 2.4 vs 2.8, he said there was no difference.


On another note, I've been dealing with HD.CA and they have been quite helpful so far.


----------



## peterpioli




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/19640493
> 
> 
> 3000 posts! Still love my High Power!
> 
> 
> Set up properly... it IS the best image available.




Tryg,

You're correct! I compared the High Power to the Vutec SilverStar material and Screen Innovations Black Diamond. The High Power material still has the best image quality. The Vutec SilverStar is close, but the High Power looks slightly better.


----------



## Chewbacco




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/19640493
> 
> 
> 3000 posts! Still love my High Power!
> 
> 
> Set up properly... it IS the best image available.



And with 1300hrs gone on a 2000 bulb, the picture still looks great. My Marantz and High Power are a match made in heaven.


----------



## Makomachine

I've got a 120" Vutec Silverstar paired with a JVC RS1 that has made my wife and I very happy over the last three years. We are about to move and will be leaving the old setup for the new owners. While we've loved the setup it wasn't without tradeoffs - like everything in life. The biggest item I'd like to improve upon is the 'sparklies' of the Silverstar. You get to where you don't notice them after a while but the screen isn't transparent. Is the HP much better in this regard?


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Makomachine* /forum/post/19665497
> 
> 
> I've got a 120" Vutec Silverstar paired with a JVC RS1 that has made my wife and I very happy over the last three years. We are about to move and will be leaving the old setup for the new owners. While we've loved the setup it wasn't without tradeoffs - like everything in life. The biggest item I'd like to improve upon is the 'sparklies' of the Silverstar. You get to where you don't notice them after a while but the screen isn't transparent. Is the HP much better in this regard?



IMO, it's much, much better. I watched the HP and SS samples side by side on my old screen before I upgraded (that was a Stewart Firehawk). The sheen was all I could see in the SS as I moved around the room. The HP's brightness changed, of course, but not its "transparency."


----------



## Makomachine

Joseph- appreciate the input as it's something I'm chewing on in the design of our next theater room. I can optimize around ceiling or shelf mount at this point so the HP is on the consideration list where previously it wasn't. We use the theater as our main tv watching area so high gain is the only option for sufficient brightness over the life of the pj lamp. (Rs1 has had 4 lamp changes in 3 years!)


----------



## ctviggen

Quote:

Originally Posted by *newfmp3* 
....which is exactly what I want. The last time I had the 2.8 material the viewing cone was horrendous. By the time I sat down on couch with ceiling mounted projector, the gain was worse then a matte white. Not seeing the same issue with the 2.4 sample I have.
Hmmm...I sit and watch a ceiling mounted projector with the 2.8 gain material and think the picture is great and nowhere near matte white.


----------



## Chad T

Quote:

Originally Posted by *ctviggen* 
Hmmm...I sit and watch a ceiling mounted projector with the 2.8 gain material and think the picture is great and nowhere near matte white.
All depends on how straight the line is between projector lens, eye height, and screen height. If you have low ceilings (leading to a low lens height), then the High Power can work out okay.


----------



## ctviggen

So, I have my High Power (2.8) mated to a projector ceiling mounted above my head (if I could determine how to post a post a picture, I could show the situation). If I stand and get my head near the projector, then move my head down to where I sit, I can't see any difference in brightness. Now, my projector is only about 4 feet above my head, so perhaps that makes a difference. But I honestly can't see any difference in brightness between the two situations, and I have my projector in movie/low power mode.


----------



## Mystify




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ctviggen* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> So, I have my High Power (2.8) mated to a projector ceiling mounted above my head (if I could determine how to post a post a picture, I could show the situation). If I stand and get my head near the projector, then move my head down to where I sit, I can't see any difference in brightness. Now, my projector is only about 4 feet above my head, so perhaps that makes a difference. But I honestly can't see any difference in brightness between the two situations, and I have my projector in movie/low power mode.



That's interesting. I'm struggling with the idea wether to order the 2.4 or 2.8 with my ceiling mounted projector ( 3 feet above my head dead center of screen). I know this is not ideal but I have young kids and I just could picture them swinging off the projector if I put it any lower.


I've used the calculator for both materials and it looks like I get a gain of 1.6 for the old material and a gain of 1.94 for the new material in my setup.


So based on the calculator, it appears the new material gives a better gain for folks with high(er) mounted PJs. Before doing the calculations, I was planning on ordering the 2.8 but now I don't know.


----------



## rgathright




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mystify* /forum/post/19672753
> 
> 
> That's interesting. I'm struggling with the idea wether to order the 2.4 or 2.8 with my ceiling mounted projector ( 3 feet above my head dead center of screen). I know this is not ideal but I have young kids and I just could picture them swinging off the projector if I put it any lower.
> 
> 
> I've used the calculator for both materials and it looks like I get a gain of 1.6 for the old material and a gain of 1.94 for the new material in my setup.
> 
> 
> So based on the calculator, it appears the new material gives a better gain for folks with high(er) mounted PJs. Before doing the calculations, I was planning on ordering the 2.8 but now I don't know.



This is the main reason I went with the 2.4 version. My projector is also about 3' above my head. I was planning on lowering the projector just to see if there was any difference, but I am plenty happy with what I have where it is now.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ctviggen* /forum/post/19672664
> 
> 
> So, I have my High Power (2.8) mated to a projector ceiling mounted above my head (if I could determine how to post a post a picture, I could show the situation). If I stand and get my head near the projector, then move my head down to where I sit, I can't see any difference in brightness. Now, my projector is only about 4 feet above my head, so perhaps that makes a difference. But I honestly can't see any difference in brightness between the two situations, and I have my projector in movie/low power mode.



Sounds like you don't have HP fabric. There is no way you could not notice the difference between head at projector level and head 4ft away. It very obvious and no mistaking it. If you have ever driven on a highway at night and watched the big green road signs.. when you get to a certain spot they light up like daytime.. that is the way the HP works it is the same technology. You should order screen samples from Dalite. Ask for a sample pack that includes 2.8 and 2.4 along with everything else they have. Then compare to what your screen is made of. Samples are free, just ask call and ask.


----------



## newfmp3

how is this screen for DIY projects? I have a 1" aluminum square stock frame already. I just used large Binder clips to hold material onto frame. Wondering if it would be risky material to wrap around the same frame, or if it would tear or something.


----------



## airscapes

There are several posts in the DIY forum about the HP. Main things to know are: It does NOT stretch and if you bent it the micro beads will break off and you will have DARK spot so do not bend or crease the fabric. Other than that, lots of people buy Cheap model B units and cut the fabric off to make fixed screens.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *newfmp3* /forum/post/19679985
> 
> 
> how is this screen for DIY projects? I have a 1" aluminum square stock frame already. I just used large Binder clips to hold material onto frame. Wondering if it would be risky material to wrap around the same frame, or if it would tear or something.



First you'd have to somehow GET the fabric. DIY'ers usually buy a cheap pull-down screen and cut the fabric out.


----------



## Hughman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *newfmp3* /forum/post/19679985
> 
> 
> how is this screen for DIY projects? I have a 1" aluminum square stock frame already. I just used large Binder clips to hold material onto frame. Wondering if it would be risky material to wrap around the same frame, or if it would tear or something.



This relatively thick material wouldn't lend itself well for wrapping around a frame as it would be difficult for the material to lie flat near the edges and as such you'd likely introduce some wavy wrinkles and creases especially at the corners. No reason why you can't try it out though, there's generally a solution to most problems. For DIY'ers the easiest method would be to staple the screen to the wall and lay a suitably dressed frame over it (assuming you feel a frame is necessary).


----------



## Killroy

I built mine wrapped around 1" square tubing with no problems. Staple/clip from the center out in a criss-cross pattern and you will not have any waves or wrinkles.


----------



## drmcdoug

I'm about to purchase a JVC RS40 in the next little while and I'm trying to decide on a screen.


My room seems to be ideal for a high power. 14' throw and viewing distance with projector mounted 1-2' directly above the viewer. Middle of the screen will be ~1' above eye level. The room is only 8' wide so there isn't much off axis viewing.


The only worry I have is that, the largest screen I could use, due to the size of my front wall, would be 82-92". Will the image be TOO bright with a screen that small and the new JVC projector? I don't want to burn my retinas, and I'm worried a little about eye strain.


The room has dark walls/ceilings/carpet with the option to be a near bat cave, but I wouldn't mind having a screen that can hold up to some ambient light for TV/sports and guests.


What are people's thoughts in the HP in this situation? I was considering the FireHawk for a while, but Da-Lite HP would save me some major cash.


Please note, I wont be watching much (if any) 3D so that doesn't factor into the equation.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *drmcdoug* /forum/post/19682475
> 
> 
> The only worry I have is that, the largest screen I could use, due to the size of my front wall, would be 82-92". Will the image be TOO bright with a screen that small and the new JVC projector? I don't want to burn my retinas, and I'm worried a little about eye strain.



Is there a way to mount an ND filter to these new projectors? People used to do this with the previous JVC models when necessary. Then, as the bulb dims you can take the filter off and the bulb should last a long time.


----------



## drmcdoug

I'm not totally sure. I'd have to look into it. Any idea if these filters effect the picture quality in any way?


I'm assuming I can step down the iris to lower brightness but I don't know if that will be enough.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *drmcdoug* /forum/post/19682475
> 
> 
> I'm about to purchase a JVC RS40 in the next little while and I'm trying to decide on a screen.
> 
> 
> My room seems to be ideal for a high power. 14' throw and viewing distance with projector mounted 1-2' directly above the viewer. Middle of the screen will be ~1' above eye level. The room is only 8' wide so there isn't much off axis viewing.
> 
> 
> The only worry I have is that, the largest screen I could use, due to the size of my front wall, would be 82-92". Will the image be TOO bright with a screen that small and the new JVC projector? I don't want to burn my retinas, and I'm worried a little about eye strain.
> 
> 
> The room has dark walls/ceilings/carpet with the option to be a near bat cave, but I wouldn't mind having a screen that can hold up to some ambient light for TV/sports and guests.
> 
> 
> What are people's thoughts in the HP in this situation? I was considering the FireHawk for a while, but Da-Lite HP would save me some major cash.
> 
> 
> Please note, I wont be watching much (if any) 3D so that doesn't factor into the equation.



Yours might be the ideal room for 3D, with such a small screen. That's about the recommended size (about 90"). A neutral density filter might be necessary, even with the iris fully closed, for 2D. I don't know how bright the RS40 is going to be. (I also have one on order.) I also don't know anything about the filter size you'd need. One thing is for certain - your room seems perfect for taking full advantage of the HP's gain, and if you can use the iris and maybe a ND filter, you'll never have to worry about lamp brightness for the life of the bulb. And you should be able to get killer 3D brightness. I went from a Firehawk (it's about to become the property of a cousin) to the HP. I'd never go the other direction.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *drmcdoug* /forum/post/19682475
> 
> 
> I'm about to purchase a JVC RS40 in the next little while and I'm trying to decide on a screen.
> 
> 
> My room seems to be ideal for a high power. 14' throw and viewing distance with projector mounted 1-2' directly above the viewer. Middle of the screen will be ~1' above eye level. The room is only 8' wide so there isn't much off axis viewing.
> 
> 
> The only worry I have is that, the largest screen I could use, due to the size of my front wall, would be 82-92". Will the image be TOO bright with a screen that small and the new JVC projector? I don't want to burn my retinas, and I'm worried a little about eye strain.
> 
> 
> The room has dark walls/ceilings/carpet with the option to be a near bat cave, but I wouldn't mind having a screen that can hold up to some ambient light for TV/sports and guests.
> 
> 
> What are people's thoughts in the HP in this situation? I was considering the FireHawk for a while, but Da-Lite HP would save me some major cash.
> 
> 
> Please note, I wont be watching much (if any) 3D so that doesn't factor into the equation.



It will not be to bright. Not sure how it will be mounted but try it out at that height before you mount it. You can move it up a few inches if it is. Remember, if you get the projector calibrated it will loose some of it's brightness. There is also low lamp mode and iris settings, so don't fear the light.

My screen is 65" in 16:9 or 72" in 4:3 with the projector 9' away and about 13" below eye level when seated and less when I am reclined and it is not too bright! I have an HC3000 that has been calibrated it runs on low lamp with iris closed.


----------



## drmcdoug

Thanks for the help! This makes my decision much easier!


----------



## fraisa

Would love to see some current screen shots,,,

Not Zoomed shots ...

Something similar size wise per my last screen shot of despicable me...

thanks

fraisa


----------



## Acta7

My hp 2.8 is on the way ... soon I'll post some screenshots


----------



## floridapoolboy

I've been thinking of going HP with my new screen, originally a 2.35:1 125" diag Cinema Contour. After getting a good price quote from AVS, I realized that this screen will still be fairly expensive. Also, I've read that the HP fabric can be a real bear to attach to the frame, since it has no stretch. That got me thinking, I can get a Model C pull-down 16:9 HP screen for WAY less than the Cinema Contour, and at 133" diag. it would have the same length as the 125" widescreen. If I got this I could simply extend the screen down 49 inches and have an identical size as the fixed frame, saving a bundle. Anyone have experience with manual HP screens? My big concern is waves, which I couldn't stand. Is this material resistant to waves? If not then it's back to the drawing board!


----------



## Killroy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *floridapoolboy* /forum/post/19686902
> 
> 
> I've been thinking of going HP with my new screen, originally a 2.35:1 125" diag Cinema Contour. After getting a good price quote from AVS, I realized that this screen will still be fairly expensive. Also, I've read that the HP fabric can be a real bear to attach to the frame, since it has no stretch. That got me thinking, I can get a Model C pull-down 16:9 HP screen for WAY less than the Cinema Contour, and at 133" diag. it would have the same length as the 125" widescreen. If I got this I could simply extend the screen down 49 inches and have an identical size as the fixed frame, saving a bundle. Anyone have experience with manual HP screens? My big concern is waves, which I couldn't stand. Is this material resistant to waves? If not then it's back to the drawing board!



I wrapped a 106" Model-B around square tubing with no issues. It is not that hard. If you work from the center you will have no waves whatsoever. The Model-B has a 2-3" border beyond the active are on the side and almost 6-10" on top and bottom. More than enough to work with.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *floridapoolboy* /forum/post/19686902
> 
> 
> I've been thinking of going HP with my new screen, originally a 2.35:1 125" diag Cinema Contour. After getting a good price quote from AVS, I realized that this screen will still be fairly expensive. Also, I've read that the HP fabric can be a real bear to attach to the frame, since it has no stretch. That got me thinking, I can get a Model C pull-down 16:9 HP screen for WAY less than the Cinema Contour, and at 133" diag. it would have the same length as the 125" widescreen. If I got this I could simply extend the screen down 49 inches and have an identical size as the fixed frame, saving a bundle. Anyone have experience with manual HP screens? My big concern is waves, which I couldn't stand. Is this material resistant to waves? If not then it's back to the drawing board!



You may get some waves eventually but you can not see them when you are watching content. Since it does not stretch waves are less of a problem. I would suggest you go with a model C, I believe the roller is larger and will be less likely to form waves. If you plan on cutting off the fabric to make your own Fixed frame the B would be the way to go.

Good luck!


----------



## Joseph Clark

Anyone ever try using some sort of adhesive to permanently bond the HP fabric to, say, plywood? It would make it harder to move or sell, but it should never develop waves.


----------



## newfmp3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Killroy* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> I wrapped a 106" Model-B around square tubing with no issues. It is not that hard. If you work from the center you will have no waves whatsoever. The Model-B has a 2-3" border beyond the active are on the side and almost 6-10" on top and bottom. More than enough to work with.



Turns out I can get a decent deal on a perm-wall frame so it's no point.


----------



## Hughman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/19687544
> 
> 
> Anyone ever try using some sort of adhesive to permanently bond the HP fabric to, say, plywood? It would make it harder to move or sell, but it should never develop waves.



That seems a little overkill and potentially may cause problems worse than the anticipated cure. Lay the screen flat on the plywood and staple through the black border, the screen will be flat and the process can easily be reversed.


Regarding the HP not showing waves, that's not entirely correct. Though waves are not represented as the typical light/dark transitions you might expect from a non-retro reflective wavy screen, a wavy HP will exhibit the optical distortions, ie: a line which is intended to be straight will not be.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughman* /forum/post/19687708
> 
> 
> a wavy HP will exhibit the optical distortions, ie: a line which is intended to be straight will not be.



But that artifact gets smaller the closer you are to the ideal HP geometry... the pj being as close to the eye as possible. Just think if the image were projected from your forehead (now THERE's a thought!). You would see no wavy lines at all.


----------



## Hughman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/19687870
> 
> 
> But that artifact gets smaller the closer you are to the ideal HP geometry... the pj being as close to the eye as possible. Just think if the image were projected from your forehead (now THERE's a thought!). You would see no wavy lines at all.



For a 16:.14 ratio screen viewed on vertical axis that premise would be entirely correct, depending individual sensitivities that is.


----------



## newfmp3

can anyone here recommend a telescopic ceiling mount for projector? Since this HP needs PJ to be lower then normal, I'd like to have something easy to move up and down


----------



## rgathright

Quote:

Originally Posted by *newfmp3* 
can anyone here recommend a telescopic ceiling mount for projector? Since this HP needs PJ to be lower then normal, I'd like to have something easy to move up and down
This is what I have and it works great.

http://www.chiefmfg.com/productdetai...ccessoryID=236


----------



## ScoHo

On that note, are there any HP screens where you can still get the benefit (even if only some of it) when mounting off axis (ceiling)?


In other words, if I have to ceiling mount my projector, above the image even, is there ANY point to me getting an HP at all?


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ScoHo* /forum/post/19694777
> 
> 
> On that note, are there any HP screens where you can still get the benefit (even if only some of it) when mounting off axis (ceiling)?
> 
> 
> In other words, if I have to ceiling mount my projector, above the image even, is there ANY point to me getting an HP at all?



Some say the fact you don't see wave as much is reason but I personally do not think so. Buy the proper tool for the job you are doing...


----------



## rgathright




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ScoHo* /forum/post/19694777
> 
> 
> On that note, are there any HP screens where you can still get the benefit (even if only some of it) when mounting off axis (ceiling)?
> 
> 
> In other words, if I have to ceiling mount my projector, above the image even, is there ANY point to me getting an HP at all?



I have my projector ceiling mounted and I went back and forth before finally deciding on the HP 2.4 screen. The PJ is about 3' above my head and is also about 2' above the center of the screen. Playing around with the calculations I was still getting about 1.8 gain which is better than what I had with my Carada BW screen. Even using the calculator and changing the PJ height it did not make much difference in the gain. Yes there is some difference if I stand directly under the PJ, but it was not a huge amount of difference. I was ready to slowly adjust my PJ down (I have an adjustable shaft), but figured it was not worth it. It was good enough that I was able to change my lamp back to low mode on my aging Mits HC6000. What made the biggest difference to the gain calculations to me was the off-axis of the seating. Our two chairs are about 3' to the left and the right of the PJ.


----------



## ScoHo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgathright* /forum/post/19695743
> 
> 
> I have my projector ceiling mounted and I went back and forth before finally deciding on the HP 2.4 screen. The PJ is about 3' above my head and is also about 2' above the center of the screen. Playing around with the calculations I was still getting about 1.8 gain which is better than what I had with my Carada BW screen. Even using the calculator and changing the PJ height it did not make much difference in the gain. Yes there is some difference if I stand directly under the PJ, but it was not a huge amount of difference. I was ready to slowly adjust my PJ down (I have an adjustable shaft), but figured it was not worth it. It was good enough that I was able to change my lamp back to low mode on my aging Mits HC6000. What made the biggest difference to the gain calculations to me was the off-axis of the seating. Our two chairs are about 3' to the left and the right of the PJ.



Thanks for the info. My issue is I'll be mounting the projector above the TOP of the screen even so there will be even more lens shift.


And if you go by this AccuCal document, with an off-axis mount you can actually end up below 1.0 gain with the HP: http://accucalhd.com/documents/accuc...een_report.pdf


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ScoHo* /forum/post/19696024
> 
> 
> Thanks for the info. My issue is I'll be mounting the projector above the TOP of the screen even so there will be even more lens shift.
> 
> 
> And if you go by this AccuCal document, with an off-axis mount you can actually end up below 1.0 gain with the HP: http://accucalhd.com/documents/accuc...een_report.pdf



Right. I used an HP sample when I was previewing different screen types. As I moved around the room, I could see the relative brightnesses of the HP, Firehawk and Silverstar fabrics transition and actually reverse.


----------



## twgg

my advice is to setup the projector and get some samples of different fabric material... place the fabric on the wall where the screen will be and sit in your couch to see what they look like.


I was considering a 1.8 gain screen but when I actually tested it out, even though by my calculations and the gain graphs, I should have been getting 1.3-1.4, but when I tested it out, it appeared to be dimmer than a good quality 1.0 gain screen. I went with the 1.0 gain screen instead.


----------



## Toe

Got a HP on the way to replace (if I like it







) my ST130. One screen stays and the other will be sold.........should be interesting. Will be used with a RS40 shelf mount which is 1.5' above my head...........my 2.8 sample showed a significant brightness advantage to the 2.8 vs my 1.3 in all seats on my couch with the center right under the projector being slightly better of course. Excited to finaly see the HP in action!


----------



## Acta7

Da-Lite HP on the left:

http://img340.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=pc262196.jpg 
http://img211.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=pc262209.jpg 
http://img263.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=pc262232.jpg 
http://img263.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=pc262236.jpg 
http://img18.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=pc262270.jpg


----------



## Acta7

here more in dark scenes:
http://img228.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=pc262187.jpg 
http://img191.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=pc262213.jpg 
http://img191.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=pc262251.jpg 
http://img214.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=pc262273.jpg 



PS: looks like a perfect match for my Sharp XV-Z20000


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Acta7* /forum/post/19709388
> 
> 
> Da-Lite HP on the left:
> 
> http://img340.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=pc262196.jpg
> http://img211.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=pc262209.jpg
> http://img263.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=pc262232.jpg
> http://img263.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=pc262236.jpg
> http://img18.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=pc262270.jpg



Wow!










What is your setup situation? (lens/eye level height, projector distance to screen, etc.........)


----------



## badgerpilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Acta7* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> here more in dark scenes:
> http://img228.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=pc262187.jpg
> http://img191.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=pc262213.jpg
> http://img191.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=pc262251.jpg
> http://img214.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=pc262273.jpg
> 
> 
> PS: looks like a perfect match for my Sharp XV-Z20000



That's why I love my HP!


----------



## zombie10k




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/19710610
> 
> 
> Wow!



wait until you see the difference in person, it's quite dramatic.


When is your screen arriving? sounds like you'll find out soon what the praise is all about. imo, the JVC RS40 & the HP is a perfect match.


----------



## RobertR




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/19687544
> 
> 
> Anyone ever try using some sort of adhesive to permanently bond the HP fabric to, say, plywood? It would make it harder to move or sell, but it should never develop waves.



I used a steel frame and magnets. Works GREAT. Zero waves, easy to remove if needed, and no worries about making mistakes when placing the material on the frame (easy to reposition).


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RobertR* /forum/post/19711387
> 
> 
> I used a steel frame and magnets. Works GREAT. Zero waves, easy to remove if needed, and no worries about making mistakes when placing the material on the frame (easy to reposition).



Sounds like a perfect solution.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zombie10k* /forum/post/19711350
> 
> 
> wait until you see the difference in person, it's quite dramatic.
> 
> 
> When is your screen arriving? sounds like you'll find out soon what the praise is all about. imo, the JVC RS40 & the HP is a perfect match.



I am hoping this week, but I have not got a track # yet. As much as I am enjoying my image right now (besides the trailing issue I found), I am VERY excited to see this screen!


----------



## Acta7

while the full black screen is clearly brighter in the Dalite HP then in a 1.0 gain screen, the intrascene blacks remains the same !.

In this famous scene of "The Dark Knight" the black level was absolutely the same in the Dalite HP and my old 1.0 gain screen:
 


but the lights were much more brither in the Dalite HP



This the best screen in the World hands down


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Acta7* /forum/post/19712987
> 
> 
> while the full black screen is clearly brighter in the Dalite HP then in a 1.0 gain screen, the intrascene blacks remains the same !.
> 
> In this famous scene of "The Dark Knight" the black level was absolutely the same in the Dalite HP and my old 1.0 gain screen:
> 
> 
> 
> but the lights were much more brither in the Dalite HP
> 
> 
> 
> This the best screen in the World hands down



What is your setup situation Acta7? Projector height, seated eye/lens height, etc.....?


----------



## Acta7

Seating position and vpr are 4,5 meters from the screen (100" 16:9 fixed). Vpr is on a columns tall 1,2m just next to the seating position.

Vpr is just next to my head on the right


----------



## Acta7

I never noticed that Bourne's t-shirt has horizontal lines


----------



## ScoHo

I'm totally sold on the HP screen...however, my only option is to ceiling mount the projector, 12" above the top of the screen even...so I guess it's not even worth my consideration?


----------



## newfmp3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Acta7* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Da-Lite HP on the left:
> 
> http://img340.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=pc262196.jpg
> http://img211.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=pc262209.jpg
> http://img263.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=pc262232.jpg
> http://img263.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=pc262236.jpg
> http://img18.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=pc262270.jpg



What is the other screen?


----------



## Acta7

the other screen is a normal 1.0 gain screen


----------



## Acta7

Measures taken with Sharp XV-Z20000 in High_Lamp/High_Contrast setting :

(calibration was made on the 1.0 gain screen but resulted good on the Da-Lite HP too)

 

 

 

 


and with iris fully opened:
 


34 Ftl with 5.258:1 native contrast : it's like a giant plasma tv










I want to say thanks to Tryg and Airscapes that inspired me and convinced me to buy this screen from Italy !


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Acta7* /forum/post/19718658
> 
> 
> 
> I want to say thanks to Tryg and Airscapes that inspired me and convinced me to buy this screen from Italy !



Your welcome and take good care of your screen, I would guess the 2.8 gain will be fading to dark sometime in the near future..


NOTE on Cleaning:

I have had to remove some bugs from my screen in the past week, I used hydrogen peroxide on a new microfiber rage (very gently) followed up with denatured alcohol on the same rag. NO water at all. This left the area void of any dark wet marks that would take days to go away. One of the bugs had been squished in the screen for months and a tiny dark mark remained. I did NOT try and get it off, it could not be seen with a white field being displayed.


----------



## Almost60

I have ordered the Contour Electrol 110" with High Power 2.4 (2.8 is finished)

I hope that arrives soon.


----------



## slickrock




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Almost60* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I have ordered the Contour Electrol 110" with High Power 2.4 (2.8 is finished)
> 
> I hope that arrives soon.



When did the 2.8 officially die? Glad I got mine a couple of months back. Its been a sweet experience ever since.


----------



## Almost60

In 13 December (when i request a quote) was available but when i decide in 30 December it wan't more available.

The mine is elecrric screen.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mac_hs10* /forum/post/19752786
> 
> 
> Would this screen be an upgrade over my Vutec silverstar.



That's a loaded question in this thread.










I'd say yes, but SS owners probably wouldn't agree. I think the SS has what I describe as a Pewter-like sheen that's distracting for me. The HP has no sheen that I can detect. If you've been living with the SS and don't see this quality, it's probably wouldn't be worthwhile to switch. You're the best judge of what works in your home theater.


----------



## NickTF




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *floridapoolboy* /forum/post/19686902
> 
> 
> I've been thinking of going HP with my new screen, originally a 2.35:1 125" diag Cinema Contour. After getting a good price quote from AVS, I realized that this screen will still be fairly expensive. Also, I've read that the HP fabric can be a real bear to attach to the frame, since it has no stretch. That got me thinking, I can get a Model C pull-down 16:9 HP screen for WAY less than the Cinema Contour, and at 133" diag. it would have the same length as the 125" widescreen. If I got this I could simply extend the screen down 49 inches and have an identical size as the fixed frame, saving a bundle. Anyone have experience with manual HP screens? My big concern is waves, which I couldn't stand. Is this material resistant to waves? If not then it's back to the drawing board!



I think I have a thread somewhere where I discussed removing a 106" 2.8 gain HP material from the model B setup and putting it on my DIY frame made of 2 1/8" sheets of hardboard laminated together with reinforcement on the back (originally was going to do wilson art laminate but changed my mind). I've been happy as a clam ever since!


----------



## NickTF




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ScoHo* /forum/post/19717765
> 
> 
> I'm totally sold on the HP screen...however, my only option is to ceiling mount the projector, 12" above the top of the screen even...so I guess it's not even worth my consideration?



Sounds like you have a limited range dlp projector. I just replaced my panny ax200 with an 8350 for it's versatility and excellent reviews but was heavily considering the DLP jump. Most every model I looked at required a similar offset. Above the screen was a no go given there would be almost no gain due to the extreme angle. However, if using the table in front of me it would produce a gain of 2.3 according to the calculator. I wasn't really big on table mounting given my infinite baffle subs would shake it off the table and we use that table for eating etc. but the point is if it's a possible option it will work with the retroflective HP screen if you can accomodate that mounting option.


----------



## ScoHo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NickTF* /forum/post/19754087
> 
> 
> Sounds like you have a limited range dlp projector. I just replaced my panny ax200 with an 8350 for it's versatility and excellent reviews but was heavily considering the DLP jump. Most every model I looked at required a similar offset. Above the screen was a no go given there would be almost no gain due to the extreme angle. However, if using the table in front of me it would produce a gain of 2.3 according to the calculator. I wasn't really big on table mounting given my infinite baffle subs would shake it off the table and we use that table for eating etc. but the point is if it's a possible option it will work with the retroflective HP screen if you can accomodate that mounting option.



I don't even have the projector yet. Planning on getting a JVC RS40 possibly. I need to ceiling mount whatever projector I get due to the room set up. Quite frankly I'm surprised how many people are able to mount their projectors on a shelf or table right on axis.


----------



## NickTF

Quote:

Originally Posted by *ScoHo* 
I don't even have the projector yet. Planning on getting a JVC RS40 possibly. I need to ceiling mount whatever projector I get due to the room set up. Quite frankly I'm surprised how many people are able to mount their projectors on a shelf or table right on axis.
My projector is ceiling mounted but i've extended the mount way down to minimize the angle. The projector is in front of me but does not sit low enough to be within the viewing area. If you'd like some pics I may be able to dig some up


----------



## Acta7

yes let us see a pic


----------



## paul77

Im thinking of cutting my model b material out and putting it onto a fixed frame that swings down from the ceiling, two reasons for this


- The pull down on the model b is poor and therefore i rarely will retract it.

- It is easier to create a masking system with a fixed frame


So any tips on sticking the materail and building a frame, I have searched forums but cant find any threads


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Acta7* /forum/post/19712987
> 
> 
> while the full black screen is clearly brighter in the Dalite HP then in a 1.0 gain screen, the intrascene blacks remains the same !.
> 
> In this famous scene of "The Dark Knight" the black level was absolutely the same in the Dalite HP and my old 1.0 gain screen:



I take it you mean that, *subjectively (perceptually to your eyes)* certain intrascene black levels looked the same as your 1.0 gain screen.


Otherwise you'd be claiming the HP breaks the laws of physics. (Objectively speaking, the black levels are obviously going to be raised in all scenes, not just in dark scenes).


This being the AV Science forum we should be on guard that we don't make unrealistic or misleading claims.


(I have the HP screen and compared it extensively to a neutral gain screen. Black levels were always higher on the HP screen, but the more portions of the image that were bright, the less obvious this was to the eye since the contrast effect of the the bright areas next to the dark made the dark bits look darker. Conversely, as images increased their dark area content, the more perceptible the brighter black levels became, vs the neutral gain screen).


ETA: I suppose in a "challenging" room perhaps your claim would be possible. That is if you had light decor and so much light were reflected back to the screen that a neutral gain screen would have lowered ANSI and thus raised black levels (due to wash out effect). If the

HP happened to maintain the ANSI enough, through it's directionality, maybe it's possible the black levels could even out. I haven't done the calculations to see if that's possible. But, again, that would be in a certain situation, and not some general performance of the HP screen itself.


----------



## NickTF




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Acta7* /forum/post/19759622
> 
> 
> yes let us see a pic



From the side standing up










Sitting down looking up from the viewing spot. Youc an see the projector is not in the way of the screen the angle looks a bit more sever on the camera than it really is.


----------



## andyDTC100

What is the biggest size for model B? Is it possible to do an 12 feet scope screen?

thanks!


andy


----------



## Almost60

@ NickTF


The walls of your room are white.

How does the HP with the ambient reflection?

Note differences in this , respect a normal screen 1.0?


----------



## NickTF




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andyDTC100* /forum/post/19764935
> 
> 
> What is the biggest size for model B? Is it possible to do an 12 feet scope screen?
> 
> thanks!
> 
> 
> andy



I think 106" 16:9 but not sure on that


----------



## newfmp3

unless you are finding old stock somewhere. You aren't going to get the 2.8 anymore. I tried my best yesterday, but had to get 2.4


Not @#[email protected]$# impressed.


----------



## NickTF




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Almost60* /forum/post/19766606
> 
> 
> @ NickTF
> 
> 
> The walls of your room are white.
> 
> How does the HP with the ambient reflection?
> 
> Note differences in this , respect a normal screen 1.0?



The white walls don't bother me at all (they are not quite white more of a off white). The HP screen works much better than the high contraste matte white Da-Lite screen Model C it replaced for me. I don't really notice any reflections whatsoever unless they come from the rear where the retroflective screen will amplify them. I can watch this HP screen with side windows open much much more effectively than the high contrast screen. For what it's worth I did specify 2.8 although I was originally incorrectly sent 2.4 and had to send it back.


With the new Epson 8350 (panny ax200 in the pic I put up) I have not had to go above the second highest lumen output on the unit watching during day time. I do have some light control around the screen areas but it's perfectly light in most of the house during viewing.


----------



## Almost60

Ok , Thanks.









I hope my HP 2.4 arrives soon.


----------



## Toe

I guess I really did get one of the last 2.8s










Just wanted to hop in and say that I am LOVING this screen so far for both 2d and 3d! I have never owned a perfect screen out of the 5 (Severtsen HC grey, Carada CCW and BW, Stewart ST130 G3 and now the HP 2.8)I have purchased including this HP, but overall, so far, this 2.8 HP definitely is the best and most impressive screen I have seen/owned.


I bought this screen with 3d in mind more than 2d, but the funny thing is I am actually a bit more impressed with it for 2d than 3d compared to my ST130. 3d is still a noticeable upgrade over the 130 dont get me wrong, but 2d just has so much more punch, impact and WOW factor now! It really is impressive!


Anyway, I am very happy so far and have only found a few extremely minor things I dont like which I find with every screen I have purchased Overall though, this is my favorite screen yet for my setup.


----------



## garrettmoore

I have a Mitsubishi HD1000u which is ceiling mounted and about 2-3 feet above eye height. I'm planning on getting a Da-Lite Designer Contour Electrol screen to replace my current cheap draper screen.


Is it worth the price for the High Power material instead of HC Matte White, since the projector is not at eye level?


----------



## newfmp3

Quote:

Originally Posted by *garrettmoore*
I have a Mitsubishi HD1000u which is ceiling mounted and about 2-3 feet above eye height. I'm planning on getting a Da-Lite Designer Contour Electrol screen to replace my current cheap draper screen.


Is it worth the price for the High Power material instead of HC Matte White, since the projector is not at eye level?
A month ago I might have said yes. Now that the 2.8 gain is replaced with an inferior 2.4 material, I would say probably not. 36" is too high, every room is different but unless you can get pj lower....well try sample first. I have a 2.4 ordered, and my existing and soon to replaced pj is in a similar height. I plan on using a telescopic mount and lower it more. I can post my results but my pj is about 3 weeks away.


----------



## rgathright

My Mits HC6000 is ceiling mounted and I have the 2.4 HP Cinema Contour screen. The projector is about 3' above our heads and the picture is great. This is compared to my old Carada BW screen. There is some difference if I stand up closer to the projector, but not that much. I have started to record some animated shows just to see the colors. I even thought about lowering the projector about 6", but do not think it would make that much difference.


----------



## zombie10k




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *newfmp3* /forum/post/19766634
> 
> 
> unless you are finding old stock somewhere. You aren't going to get the 2.8 anymore. I tried my best yesterday, but had to get 2.4
> 
> 
> Not @#[email protected]$# impressed.



who did you speak with? a dealer, or dalite direct? I will call the VP of Marketing, she helped me order my custom sized cinema contour with the 2.8 material when everyone else (including their own sales people) said it was impossible over 133" without a seam.


This rumor has been around for 6-8 months that the 2.8 was going away, let's find out for certain what the deal is. I will post back when I get a reply email next week.


----------



## newfmp3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zombie10k* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> who did you speak with? a dealer, or dalite direct? I will call the VP of Marketing, she helped me order my custom sized cinema contour with the 2.8 material when everyone else (including their own sales people) said it was impossible over 133" without a seam.
> 
> 
> This rumor has been around for 6-8 months that the 2.8 was going away, let's find out for certain what the deal is. I will post back when I get a reply email next week.



I ordered on Jan 5th. I was told over and over that I could order it in Jan as my dealer here in Canada and was closed for Xmas. I kept in contact with their online chat techs over Xmas,checking almost daily. When it came time to order....could not get it. I am writing them a letter expressing my frustrations with it all as they sent me the wrong samples when I asked back in November, had to get them resent, and due to all the waiting and resending....I missed getting the 2.8. But the real issue is replacing the 2.8 with what I see as an inferior product and asking the same cost for it.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zombie10k* /forum/post/19787527
> 
> 
> who did you speak with? a dealer, or dalite direct? I will call the VP of Marketing, she helped me order my custom sized cinema contour with the 2.8 material when everyone else (including their own sales people) said it was impossible over 133" without a seam.
> 
> 
> This rumor has been around for 6-8 months that the 2.8 was going away, let's find out for certain what the deal is. I will post back when I get a reply email next week.



Jason, the 2.8 is gone........I talked to me dealer again yesterday and he confirmed AGAIN with DaLite that there is no more 2.8 fabric.


By some crazy chance you hear otherwise, let us know, but it sure looks like the 2.8 is history.


----------



## lincoln_husker

hello,


i am looking at replacing my 120" xyz screen with a 133" HP screen after reading a ton of positive posts about it and i was hoping someone can tell me if it would work for my setup.


the projector is ceiling mounted 14ft back from the screen and the top of the 133" screen would be the same height as the projector lens. we sit about 14-15ft back from the screen, directly below the projector and our heads are about 5ft below the projector (eye-level is about the bottom of the screen).


will the new HP 2.4 work with this setup??


any input is greatly appreciated!


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lincoln_husker* /forum/post/19792769
> 
> 
> hello,
> 
> 
> i am looking at replacing my 120" xyz screen with a 133" HP screen after reading a ton of positive posts about it and i was hoping someone can tell me if it would for my setup.
> 
> 
> the projector is ceiling mounted 14ft back from the screen and the top of the 133" screen would be the same height as the projector lens. we sit about 14-15ft back from the screen, directly below the projector and our heads are about 5ft below the projector (eye-level is about the bottom of the screen).
> 
> 
> will the new HP 2.4 work with this setup??
> 
> 
> any input is greatly appreciated!



It will be like watching a standard 1 gain screen. You would not get any benefit. Use the screen gain calculator, I don't have the link but if you look for a post by FLboy, the link to his calculator is in his signature. If you can not lower your projector because you have no lens shift don't bother.


----------



## zombie10k




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/19789816
> 
> 
> Jason, the 2.8 is gone........I talked to me dealer again yesterday and he confirmed AGAIN with DaLite that there is no more 2.8 fabric.
> 
> 
> By some crazy chance you hear otherwise, let us know, but it sure looks like the 2.8 is history.



That's why i want to go straight to the source. When I heard conflicting info regarding the max HP size, I happened to get in touch with the VP of marketing. She was extremely professional and apologized that the incorrect information was being spread to not only the dealers, but their own employees. AVS also thought 133" was the max size based on what Dalite told them.


I am certain she will tell me the correct info when I send an email on monday. If it's truely done for, I am fairly certain I own the largest fixed frame 2.8HP to ever exist.


----------



## newfmp3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zombie10k* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> That's why i want to go straight to the source. When I heard conflicting info regarding the max HP size, I happened to get in touch with the VP of marketing. She was extremely professional and apologized that the incorrect information was being spread to not only the dealers, but their own employees. AVS also thought 133" was the max size based on what Dalite told them.
> 
> 
> I am certain she will tell me the correct info when I send an email on monday. If it's truely done for, I am fairly certain I own the largest fixed frame 2.8HP to ever exist.



Let us know


----------



## lincoln_husker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/19793356
> 
> 
> It will be like watching a standard 1 gain screen. You would not get any benefit. Use the screen gain calculator, I don't have the link but if you look for a post by FLboy, the link to his calculator is in his signature. If you can not lower your projector because you have no lens shift don't bother.



is his calculator based on the 2.8 or the newer 2.4? i read the viewing angle has been improved on the 2.4 so that leaves me some hope??


----------



## henrich3

Here's the link to FLBoy's calculator: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=966057 FLBoy provides the data you need for the 2.8 and 2.4 gain materials in his second post.


----------



## Acta7

I luckily received one of the last 2.8 , now I'm sure of that.


A friend of mine came with his Klein K-10 to take some measures of my Sharp Z20000 with the new hp screen:


Low lamp /iris closed : Klein K-10 measured 74,5 cd/mq (it was 25 on the old screen)


High Lamp / iris closed : Kelin K-10 measured 104,5 cd/mq (it was 35 on the old screen)


So the 2.8 is more like a 3.0




PS: video black was respectively 0,016 cd/mq and 0,019 cd/mq


----------



## Acta7




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/19761254
> 
> 
> 
> ETA: I suppose in a "challenging" room perhaps your claim would be possible. That is if you had light decor and so much light were reflected back to the screen that a neutral gain screen would have lowered ANSI and thus raised black levels (due to wash out effect). If the
> 
> HP happened to maintain the ANSI enough, through it's directionality, maybe it's possible the black levels could even out. I haven't done the calculations to see if that's possible. But, again, that would be in a certain situation, and not some general performance of the HP screen itself.



although I can totally control ambient light my room is the worst possible room for projection : white walls, white pearl furnitures, cristals and mirrors everywhere ...


that being said, blacks in mixed scenes looked the same when I compared them with my old 1.0 gain screen (very good in my opinion)


----------



## RobertR




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/19789816
> 
> 
> Jason, the 2.8 is gone........I talked to me dealer again yesterday and he confirmed AGAIN with DaLite that there is no more 2.8 fabric.
> 
> 
> By some crazy chance you hear otherwise, let us know, but it sure looks like the 2.8 is history.



I'm sooooooo glad I bought the 2.8 last year, and that AVS made me aware of the switch!


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RobertR* /forum/post/19795500
> 
> 
> I'm sooooooo glad I bought the 2.8 last year, and that AVS made me aware of the switch!



I feel VERY fortunate as well........my dealer made it very clear to me that the 2.8 was not going to be around long and that if I wanted one I needed to order ASAP.........I must have just made the cut!


----------



## thrang




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/19795946
> 
> 
> I feel VERY fortunate as well........my dealer made it very clear to me that the 2.8 was not going to be around long and that if I wanted one I needed to order ASAP.........I must have just made the cut!



I don't understand why, if there is such a desire for it, that Da-Lite just doesn't continue making it - a 2.4 and a 2.8 version....I love my 2.8...


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Acta7* /forum/post/19795224
> 
> 
> I luckily received one of the last 2.8 , now I'm sure of that.
> 
> 
> A friend of mine came with his Klein K-10 to take some measures of my Sharp Z20000 with the new hp screen:
> 
> 
> Low lamp /iris closed : Klein K-10 measured 74,5 cd/mq (it was 25 on the old screen)
> 
> 
> High Lamp / iris closed : Kelin K-10 measured 104,5 cd/mq (it was 35 on the old screen)
> 
> 
> So the 2.8 is more like a 3.0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PS: video black was respectively 0,016 cd/mq and 0,019 cd/mq



That is interesting. I assume your old screen was a 1.0?


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thrang* /forum/post/19795971
> 
> 
> I don't understand why, if there is such a desire for it, that Da-Lite just doesn't continue making it - a 2.4 and a 2.8 version....I love my 2.8...



I dont get it either.......


----------



## Acta7




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/19795993
> 
> 
> That is interesting. I assume your old screen was a 1.0?



yes it was a 1.0 gain screen


I still cant decide between low lamp and high lamp mode : 74,5 cd/mq with 4.000:1 static contrast is very very good but 104,5 cd/mq with more then 5.000:1 static contrast just blows me away







... but I could save high lamp for second half life of the lamp ... what would you go with ?


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Acta7* /forum/post/19796104
> 
> 
> yes it was a 1.0 gain screen
> 
> 
> I still cant decide between low lamp and high lamp mode : 74,5 cd/mq with 4.000:1 static contrast is very very good but 104,5 cd/mq with more then 5.000:1 static contrast just blows me away
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... but I could save high lamp for second half life of the lamp ... what would you go with ?



Use your low lamp for normal dark viewing. If your room is used for other things you can use high lamp and or open the iris when you want to watch with the lights on.


----------



## mntwister

I have a question. I just purchased a JVC RS-50 3D projector with 1300 lumins, and 70,000:1 native contrast and 3D. The room is very big so I have the ability to adjust the throw to anything. Right now it is 14.4 feet as suggested in the JVC manual for a 150" screen.


Right now I am using an Elite Maxwhite 1.1 gain 150" screen which cost me $300 a few years ago, it is still around the same price, the cheapest in their line. . I am reading alot about HP screens, and am looking at the Da-Lite 79047 model C, which is 159" diagonal.


My projector is behind the seating on a bedroom dresser straight back from the exact center of the screen.


My room right now is a finished basement with no ambient light, windows are completely covered, and everything between the projector and screen is basically black except for the ceiling which is a medium brown wood finish. I covered my Klipschorns speakers with black fabric, the seating has black sheets on it, the carpet is a very dark brick color, so while not a bat cave it's the best I can do.


My question is, is it worth it to spend $600 on the HP screen with the 2.4 (or is it 2.8) gain? With my projector positioned straight back from the middle of the screen, how much difference would there be? What differences would I notice? And what about the 3D? Is a HP screen better than a 1.1 gain maxwhite? I have found a 2.8 gain version still available, would I go for 2.4 or 2.8 in my situation, or should I change it at all?


Thank you so much for your help.


----------



## airscapes

Quote:

Originally Posted by *mntwister* 
I have a question. I just purchased a JVC RS-50 3D projector with 1300 lumins, and 70,000:1 native contrast and 3D. The room is very big so I have the ability to adjust the throw to anything. Right now it is 14.4 feet as suggested in the JVC manual for a 150" screen.


Right now I am using an Elite Maxwhite 1.1 gain 150" screen which cost me $300 a few years ago, it is still around the same price, the cheapest in their line. . I am reading alot about HP screens, and am looking at the Da-Lite 79047 model C, which is 159" diagonal.


My projector is behind the seating on a bedroom dresser straight back from the exact center of the screen.


My room right now is a finished basement with no ambient light, windows are completely covered, and everything between the projector and screen is basically black except for the ceiling which is a medium brown wood finish. I covered my Klipschorns speakers with black fabric, the seating has black sheets on it, the carpet is a very dark brick color, so while not a bat cave it's the best I can do.


My question is, is it worth it to spend $600 on the HP screen with the 2.4 (or is it 2.8) gain? With my projector positioned straight back from the middle of the screen, how much difference would there be? What differences would I notice? And what about the 3D? Is a HP screen better than a 1.1 gain maxwhite? I have found a 2.8 gain version still available, would I go for 2.4 or 2.8 in my situation, or should I change it at all?


Thank you so much for your help.
Hopefully you have read the first post of the thread which explains all the caveats of the retroreflective material. The 2.8 is what the thread is about but it looks to be just about phased out and replaced with 2.4. As to would it be worth it? At 159" it would be well worth it if your projector is just above your heads when seated. Use FLboys gain calculator to see what you would end up with. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=966057


----------



## Toe

Quote:

Originally Posted by *zombie10k* 
That's why i want to go straight to the source. When I heard conflicting info regarding the max HP size, I happened to get in touch with the VP of marketing. She was extremely professional and apologized that the incorrect information was being spread to not only the dealers, but their own employees. AVS also thought 133" was the max size based on what Dalite told them.


I am certain she will tell me the correct info when I send an email on monday. If it's truely done for, I am fairly certain I own the largest fixed frame 2.8HP to ever exist.










Report back when you talk to her.


----------



## R Harkness

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Acta7* 
although I can totally control ambient light my room is the worst possible room for projection : white walls, white pearl furnitures, cristals and mirrors everywhere ...


that being said, blacks in mixed scenes looked the same when I compared them with my old 1.0 gain screen (very good in my opinion)
Yes, subjectively you perceived the intrascene black levels as the same. We have to be clear that in actual fact - objectively/measured - even your intrascene black levels are higher (brighter) than on the lower gain screen. But luckily the way our perception works, if there is a significant portion of bright area on an image it will make any dark areas look darker to our eyes.

Darker images or "lower APL" scenes have less advantage that way, which is why one can start to notice higher black levels.


We should just be clear about these things because a lot of people come to AVS in their learning phase and they may come away with misunderstandings about what is really happening.


In the end how your perceive your black levels is mostly what matters. After all we watch movies with our eyes/brain not a light meter.


----------



## mntwister

_Quote:

Originally Posted by mntwister View Post

I have a question. I just purchased a JVC RS-50 3D projector with 1300 lumins, and 70,000:1 native contrast and 3D. The room is very big so I have the ability to adjust the throw to anything. Right now it is 14.4 feet as suggested in the JVC manual for a 150" screen.


Right now I am using an Elite Maxwhite 1.1 gain 150" screen which cost me $300 a few years ago, it is still around the same price, the cheapest in their line. . I am reading alot about HP screens, and am looking at the Da-Lite 79047 model C, which is 159" diagonal.


My projector is behind the seating on a bedroom dresser straight back from the exact center of the screen.


My room right now is a finished basement with no ambient light, windows are completely covered, and everything between the projector and screen is basically black except for the ceiling which is a medium brown wood finish. I covered my Klipschorns speakers with black fabric, the seating has black sheets on it, the carpet is a very dark brick color, so while not a bat cave it's the best I can do.


My question is, is it worth it to spend $600 on the HP screen with the 2.4 (or is it 2.8) gain? With my projector positioned straight back from the middle of the screen, how much difference would there be? What differences would I notice? And what about the 3D? Is a HP screen better than a 1.1 gain maxwhite? I have found a 2.8 gain version still available, would I go for 2.4 or 2.8 in my situation, or should I change it at all?


Thank you so much for your help._

Quote:

Originally Posted by *airscapes* 
Hopefully you have read the first post of the thread which explains all the caveats of the retroreflective material. The 2.8 is what the thread is about but it looks to be just about phased out and replaced with 2.4. As to would it be worth it? At 159" it would be well worth it if your projector is just above your heads when seated. Use FLboys gain calculator to see what you would end up with. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=966057


Thanks Airscapes.....Yes I read through many pages of the thread. While I consider myself a home theater buff for over 35 years, I've never dealt with projector angles and polarization, ect. With my Epson I just set it up, adjusted it and watched for the last 4 years. But now that I have my RS50, I want to have the best screen (that I can afford) and am having the projector calibrated (which I didn't do last time).


Why do you say it would be well worth it at 159" if the projector is just above my head? Can you give me some examples of what differences I would notice in my particular case if I were to change screens (see my original post above)?


Some of the information is quite technical and for some it may be easy to understand, but if someone could explain the advantages in layman's terms over what I am using now (see original post above) I would certainly appreciate it. Also, is this better for 3D? My mother has just come home from hip replacement surgery and I am wiped out from helping her so to read all the pages of this thread is just not possible at this time. Thanks.


----------



## Joseph Clark

Quote:

Originally Posted by *mntwister* 
_Quote:

Originally Posted by mntwister View Post

I have a question. I just purchased a JVC RS-50 3D projector with 1300 lumins, and 70,000:1 native contrast and 3D. The room is very big so I have the ability to adjust the throw to anything. Right now it is 14.4 feet as suggested in the JVC manual for a 150" screen.


Right now I am using an Elite Maxwhite 1.1 gain 150" screen which cost me $300 a few years ago, it is still around the same price, the cheapest in their line. . I am reading alot about HP screens, and am looking at the Da-Lite 79047 model C, which is 159" diagonal.


My projector is behind the seating on a bedroom dresser straight back from the exact center of the screen.


My room right now is a finished basement with no ambient light, windows are completely covered, and everything between the projector and screen is basically black except for the ceiling which is a medium brown wood finish. I covered my Klipschorns speakers with black fabric, the seating has black sheets on it, the carpet is a very dark brick color, so while not a bat cave it's the best I can do.


My question is, is it worth it to spend $600 on the HP screen with the 2.4 (or is it 2.8) gain? With my projector positioned straight back from the middle of the screen, how much difference would there be? What differences would I notice? And what about the 3D? Is a HP screen better than a 1.1 gain maxwhite? I have found a 2.8 gain version still available, would I go for 2.4 or 2.8 in my situation, or should I change it at all?


Thank you so much for your help._





Thanks Airscapes.....Yes I read through many pages of the thread. While I consider myself a home theater buff for over 35 years, I've never dealt with projector angles and polarization, ect. With my Epson I just set it up, adjusted it and watched for the last 4 years. But now that I have my RS50, I want to have the best screen (that I can afford) and am having the projector calibrated (which I didn't do last time).


Why do you say it would be well worth it at 159" if the projector is just above my head? Can you give me some examples of what differences I would notice in my particular case if I were to change screens (see my original post above)?


Some of the information is quite technical and for some it may be easy to understand, but if someone could explain the advantages in layman's terms over what I am using now (see original post above) I would certainly appreciate it. Also, is this better for 3D? My mother has just come home from hip replacement surgery and I am wiped out from helping her so to read all the pages of this thread is just not possible at this time. Thanks.
It's pretty simple really. Since the projector is close to your eye level, you're going to get a much brighter image, in 2D and 3D. A 150" screen is unusally large. One of the HP's benefits is that it makes larger screen sizes possible. There might be very little need for an HP if your screen size were small. The benefits are even more pronounced with 3D, because so much of the light is blocked while viewing 3D. A very small percentage typically gets through to your eyes. At 150", you'll need all the light you can get, especially as the lamp ages. It might be marginally OK at first, but after a few hundred hours the 3D might be too dim for you to enjoy it. And lamps aren't cheap.


Also, the HP delivers a fine image for 2D. And since it might allow you to close down the iris on your JVC projector, the on/off contrast advantage of the JVCs should be even more noticeable for 2D.


----------



## airscapes

Quote:

Originally Posted by *mntwister* 
_Quote:

Originally Posted by mntwister View Post

I have a question. I just purchased a JVC RS-50 3D projector with 1300 lumins, and 70,000:1 native contrast and 3D. The room is very big so I have the ability to adjust the throw to anything. Right now it is 14.4 feet as suggested in the JVC manual for a 150" screen.


Right now I am using an Elite Maxwhite 1.1 gain 150" screen which cost me $300 a few years ago, it is still around the same price, the cheapest in their line. . I am reading alot about HP screens, and am looking at the Da-Lite 79047 model C, which is 159" diagonal.


My projector is behind the seating on a bedroom dresser straight back from the exact center of the screen.


My room right now is a finished basement with no ambient light, windows are completely covered, and everything between the projector and screen is basically black except for the ceiling which is a medium brown wood finish. I covered my Klipschorns speakers with black fabric, the seating has black sheets on it, the carpet is a very dark brick color, so while not a bat cave it's the best I can do.


My question is, is it worth it to spend $600 on the HP screen with the 2.4 (or is it 2.8) gain? With my projector positioned straight back from the middle of the screen, how much difference would there be? What differences would I notice? And what about the 3D? Is a HP screen better than a 1.1 gain maxwhite? I have found a 2.8 gain version still available, would I go for 2.4 or 2.8 in my situation, or should I change it at all?


Thank you so much for your help._





Thanks Airscapes.....Yes I read through many pages of the thread. While I consider myself a home theater buff for over 35 years, I've never dealt with projector angles and polarization, ect. With my Epson I just set it up, adjusted it and watched for the last 4 years. But now that I have my RS50, I want to have the best screen (that I can afford) and am having the projector calibrated (which I didn't do last time).


Why do you say it would be well worth it at 159" if the projector is just above my head? Can you give me some examples of what differences I would notice in my particular case if I were to change screens (see my original post above)?


Some of the information is quite technical and for some it may be easy to understand, but if someone could explain the advantages in layman's terms over what I am using now (see original post above) I would certainly appreciate it. Also, is this better for 3D? My mother has just come home from hip replacement surgery and I am wiped out from helping her so to read all the pages of this thread is just not possible at this time. Thanks.
The HP sends the light back to where it came from. The closer your eyes are to the level of the projector lens the more gain you get from the screen. A 159" Diag screen is a BIG screen to light up, so if your projector is 12 inch over your eye level you will get a large gain from the HP screen and a much brighter picture. I have no idea about 3D but the brighter something is I would think the better.


----------



## mntwister




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/19801422
> 
> 
> The HP sends the light back to where it came from. The closer your eyes are to the level of the projector lens the more gain you get from the screen. A 159" Diag screen is a BIG screen to light up, so if your projector is 12 inch over your eye level you will get a large gain from the HP screen and a much brighter picture. I have no idea about 3D but the brighter something is I would think the better.



So this is the screen I have a chance of getting, it is a 2.8 gain screen at 78 x 139 (2nd section)...is this what I would buy? The model C? From what I understand the 2.8 gain is rare and I found one. It is described as HIGH POWER 2.8 GAIN SURFACE -79047

http://da-lite.com/products/spec_pdfs/230.pdf


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mntwister* /forum/post/19802262
> 
> 
> So this is the screen I have a chance of getting, it is a 2.8 gain screen at 78 x 139 (2nd section)...is this what I would buy? The model C? From what I understand the 2.8 gain is rare and I found one. It is described as HIGH POWER 2.8 GAIN SURFACE -79047
> 
> http://da-lite.com/products/spec_pdfs/230.pdf



Either way, 2.4 or 2.8 with the projector at or near eye level when viewing it will be much brighter than your current screen.


----------



## newfmp3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mntwister* /forum/post/19802262
> 
> 
> So this is the screen I have a chance of getting, it is a 2.8 gain screen at 78 x 139 (2nd section)...is this what I would buy? The model C? From what I understand the 2.8 gain is rare and I found one. It is described as HIGH POWER 2.8 GAIN SURFACE -79047
> 
> http://da-lite.com/products/spec_pdfs/230.pdf



be careful. Unless a place has old stock left over, most companies seem to order screens as they need them. So basically the screen comes from Da-lite straight to customer. In which case, according to Da-lite, there is no 2.8 left.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mntwister* /forum/post/19802262
> 
> 
> So this is the screen I have a chance of getting, it is a 2.8 gain screen at 78 x 139 (2nd section)...is this what I would buy? The model C? From what I understand the 2.8 gain is rare and I found one. It is described as HIGH POWER 2.8 GAIN SURFACE -79047
> 
> http://da-lite.com/products/spec_pdfs/230.pdf



Be advised that this screen will NOT be seamless. Per Da-Lite's web site, the High Power material will be seamless in heights *up to 6' high*.


In addition, this screen is WAY too large for 3D with the RS50, IMO. The shutter glasses will block the image from each eye 50% of the time, effectively cutting the perceived brightness in half compared to 2D. Personally, I would not try to go beyond 120" for 3D. Some may disagree.


In any case and as others have mentioned, with the HP you will get your brightest picture if you place the projector lens height as near seated eye level as possible without causing head shadowing of the projector beam.


----------



## GoCaboNow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/19795946
> 
> 
> I feel VERY fortunate as well........my dealer made it very clear to me that the 2.8 was not going to be around long and that if I wanted one I needed to order ASAP.........I must have just made the cut!



Looks like everone's 2.8's just went up in value. A first for me in my HT.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GoCaboNow* /forum/post/19804479
> 
> 
> Looks like everone's 2.8's just went up in value. A first for me in my HT.



Funny..........I have been thinking the same thing


----------



## zombie10k




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/19803022
> 
> 
> 
> In addition, this screen is WAY too large for 3D with the RS50, IMO. The shutter glasses will block the image from each eye 50% of the time, effectively cutting the perceived brightness in half compared to 2D. Personally, I would not try to go beyond 120" for 3D. Some may disagree.
> 
> 
> In any case and as others have mentioned, with the HP you will get your brightest picture if you place the projector lens height as near seated eye level as possible without causing head shadowing of the projector beam.



@mntwister - My dalite HP 2.8 fixed frame is 142". I'm one of the most critical when it comes to 3D brightness (I don't know how folks are satisfied with low gain screens and the JVC's) but my 142" HP with the projector on-axis is excellent imo. The 3D brightness is quite satisfying with a 16 foot throw.


My Acer 3D DLP is slightly brighter than the JVC, but very close overall and both look great on the big HP screen.


You can get the fixed frame in sizes up to 72" tall (slightly larger than my 142"). I've talked to others with the large 159" Model C and they claim you cannot see the seam at all. Something about it being in the back and not in the front material. That is pretty big though, I probably wouldn't go much larger than my current size for 3D. Then again, I think you were happy with the RS50 on a low gain 150" so who knows!


I have an email in to a Dalite executive that i know, she will tell me for certain the story with the 2.8. hopefully will hear back by tomorrow.


----------



## zombie10k

I received an email back from the VP I spoke with a while back at Dalite. She confirmed the 2.8 is done, only 2.4 now.


That's a bit of a let down.. the 2.8HP is what made Dalite popular with the home theater segment. I don't think any of their other screen materials are talked about as much as the original high power screen.


who wants to start a petition. they can't get rid of my favorite screen..~!


----------



## Acta7

a screenshot from "30 days of night 2" on my new hp (one of the last 2.8







)

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=2384


----------



## nguyenphananh

need help

Hi, this is all new to me, so please take it easy on me. Im above to buy the HP 2.8 screen (100"). the distance from the projector to screen is 13.5 ft. my projector (panny ax200) is hang up to the ceiling at 8ft. My question is will I have any problem with this set up? I read some of the earlier posts stated that my eyes level should be close to the projector's height to be benefit from the high gain?? Will I be benefit from buying this high gain screen? or Im better off just buy those matte white 1.x gain?? thank you in advance


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nguyenphananh* /forum/post/19807126
> 
> 
> need help
> 
> Hi, this is all new to me, so please take it easy on me. Im above to buy the HP 2.8 screen (100"). the distance from the projector to screen is 13.5 ft. my projector (panny ax200) is hang up to the ceiling at 8ft. My question is will I have any problem with this set up? I read some of the earlier posts stated that my eyes level should be close to the projector's height to be benefit from the high gain?? Will I be benefit from buying this high gain screen? or Im better off just buy those matte white 1.x gain?? thank you in advance



All depends on the rest of your set up and if you can alter it. If you have 3 seats centered with the screen and lower your projector with an extension pole, or move it to a table mount in front of the viewing area you will benefit. Other wise you will not. This screen has viewing cone limitations and outside that cone there is no benefit. If you can not adjust your environment to fit into the screen requirements it is not the proper tool for you job.


----------



## rana_kirti

hi frens,


i'm planning to get a high power. Since it has to be close to the angle of the screen i will have to get a good projector mount which has a long extension.


Can u guys suggest a good/cheap mount which has a long extension ?


Thanks


----------



## mntwister

Does anyone know if the DaLite model C HP screen can damage in cold weather? I might order one and I am concerned about the shipping time on a truck, I live in Minnesota so it could possibly be in extreme cold a few days on its way here. Thanks.


ALSO: Zombie mentioned a seam, is there a seam in the 159" manual pulldown model?


----------



## mntwister




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/19803022
> 
> 
> Be advised that this screen will NOT be seamless. Per Da-Lite's web site, the High Power material will be seamless in heights *up to 6' high*.
> 
> 
> In addition, this screen is WAY too large for 3D with the RS50, IMO. The shutter glasses will block the image from each eye 50% of the time, effectively cutting the perceived brightness in half compared to 2D. Personally, I would not try to go beyond 120" for 3D. Some may disagree.
> 
> .



I have an Elite 150" 1.1 gain screen right now and the image is incredible in 3D. So the new screen (2.8 gain) would be 9" larger (at 159", since they don't make a 150").


Also, does anyone have a screen with a seam in it? I am concerned about that now.


----------



## rawhit

Just bought an Epson 8700ub. For our situation we do not need the high gain. Using the screen gain calculator excel sheet I see that from where I plan to mount the projector the gain will be 1.0 at seating area which is fine for us.


Will high power 2.8 still provided us the other benefits mentioned below?
Ambient Light Rejection - we have white walls.
Screen waves cant be seen
Screen texture not visible


Other screen I am looking at is a regular angular reflective screen Da-lite High Contrast Matte White.

thanks!


----------



## Aleya

@Tryg, I have to say you did an amazing review. It's fantastic! Thanks a lot.


----------



## henrich3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zombie10k* /forum/post/19806592
> 
> 
> I received an email back from the VP I spoke with a while back at Dalite. She confirmed the 2.8 is done, only 2.4 now.
> 
> 
> That's a bit of a let down.. the 2.8HP is what made Dalite popular with the home theater segment. I don't think any of their other screen materials are talked about as much as the original high power screen.
> 
> 
> who wants to start a petition. they can't get rid of my favorite screen..~!



Kevin at Da-Lite Customer Support corroborated the bad news:


"Unfortunately, we no longer have any of the 2.8 gain High Power material. At this time we do not have any plans to get any more of it in, so we would not be able to fill any special orders for the 2.8 gain. Any High Power screen that is ordered now will get the 2.4 gain version. "


That said, I've been pleased with the PQ on my HP 2.4. It has most of the gain of the 2.8 in the sweet spot and better brightness off axis (> 20 degrees).


----------



## rana_kirti

hi guys i'm considering a HP. Went through the gain calculator..


Is my understanding correct that to get the best gain....


1. the projector lens should be aiming right at the center of the screen....?


2. the screen should be as low as possible so that when a person is sitting at the height of a normal chair of about 3.3 feet then if the screen is as low as possible say maybe the bottom end starting at 3 feet then he will be able to get maximum gain at that viewing height ?


Thanks


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rana_kirti* /forum/post/19813441
> 
> 
> hi guys i'm considering a HP. Went through the gain calculator..
> 
> 
> Is my understanding correct that to get the best gain....
> 
> 
> 1. the projector lens should be aiming right at the center of the screen....?
> 
> 
> 2. the screen should be as low as possible so that when a person is sitting at the height of a normal chair of about 3.3 feet then if the screen is as low as possible say maybe the bottom end starting at 3 feet then he will be able to get maximum gain at that viewing height ?
> 
> 
> Thanks



Not really... #1 doesn't really matter unless your eyes are at the center of the screen too. Trying to aim the pj at the center of the screen introduces unnecessary limits on an already limited installation


In your #2, it depends on how tall the screen is. Your eyes should be 1/3 up the height of the screen. In your scenario you can't really know because you don't say how tall the screen is. But it's too high anyway, because that 1/3 figure would make your screen .9 feet tall.


Maximum gain doesn't really have to do with #1 or #2 anyway. It has to do with the angle of your eyes being as close to the angle of the projector as possible.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rana_kirti* /forum/post/19813441
> 
> 
> hi guys i'm considering a HP. Went through the gain calculator..
> 
> 
> Is my understanding correct that to get the best gain....
> 
> 
> 1. the projector lens should be aiming right at the center of the screen....?
> 
> 
> 2. the screen should be as low as possible so that when a person is sitting at the height of a normal chair of about 3.3 feet then if the screen is as low as possible say maybe the bottom end starting at 3 feet then he will be able to get maximum gain at that viewing height ?
> 
> 
> Thanks



Nice try, but no cigar. Here's what you need to do:


1. Place the *screen* at a height that is comfortable for viewing. For most folks, that means place the screen such that 1/2 to 2/3 of the screen's viewing area is above seated eye level.


2. If the projector is behind the viewers, place the *projector* as close to the viewers' seated eye level as possible without any viewers' heads blocking the projector beam. If the projector is in front of the viewers, place the projector as close to seated eye level as possible without the projector blocking anyone's view of the screen. If the projector is directly over the viewers, place the projector as low as you feel will be comfortable. *The idea is to make the projector's line of sight to a point on the screen as nearly parallel as possible to the viewer's line of sight to the same point on the screen without causing either the projector or the viewer to block the other's view of the any part of the screen. This will maximize the screen gain.*


ETA- @erkq: Oops! I guess we cross posted. Glad we said the same thing.


----------



## rana_kirti




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/19814828
> 
> 
> Not really... #1 doesn't really matter unless your eyes are at the center of the screen too. Trying to aim the pj at the center of the screen introduces unnecessary limits on an already limited installation
> 
> 
> In your #2, it depends on how tall the screen is. Your eyes should be 1/3 up the height of the screen. In your scenario you can't really know because you don't say how tall the screen is. But it's too high anyway, because that 1/3 figure would make your screen .9 feet tall.
> 
> 
> Maximum gain doesn't really have to do with #1 or #2 anyway. It has to do with the angle of your eyes being as close to the angle of the projector as possible.



Could you elaborate on #1



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/19814842
> 
> 
> Nice try, but no cigar. Here's what you need to do:
> 
> 
> 1. Place the *screen* at a height that is comfortable for viewing. For most folks, that means place the screen such that 1/2 to 2/3 of the screen's viewing area is above seated eye level.
> 
> 
> 2. If the projector is behind the viewers, place the *projector* as close to the viewers' seated eye level as possible without any viewers' heads blocking the projector beam. If the projector is in front of the viewers, place the projector as close to seated eye level as possible without the projector blocking anyone's view of the screen. If the projector is directly over the viewers, place the projector as low as you feel will be comfortable. *The idea is to make the projector's line of sight to a point on the screen as nearly parallel as possible to the viewer's line of sight to the same point on the screen without causing either the projector or the viewer to block the other's view of the any part of the screen. This will maximize the screen gain.*
> 
> 
> ETA- @erkq: Oops! I guess we cross posted. Glad we said the same thing.



FLboy,


Firstly a Big Thanks for creating these 3...



All Screen Gain Calculator


Easy Calculator for Screen & Image Size


Manual, Electric, & Fixed Screen Comparison for Novices


Super Job there










Now i'll try to explain my situation and i believe you will be in the best place with your knowledge to really answer this in a simple way for a technically less gifted person as myself.


I was all set to get Matt White but came across threads on High Power and now i've made up my mind to get the High Power coz of the gain, wave free nature amongst other things.


I'm willing to work around to get the best out of the high power screen and also looked on the web for Cheif adjustable columns for projector mount.


Also only 2-3 people max watch a movie together in my house so losing gain on left and right angles is not so much of a concern.


1. I have a sofa set on both sides of the wall. The lowest i can start the screen from the bottom is 3 feet.


2. Ceiling is 9 feet.


3. Screen size targeted is 110" diagonal. ( H = 54" & W =96" )


4. I want to ceiling mount the projector coz keeping it on a table top and removing again and again will be just plain in conveninent.


Some details for you to consider...


Screen width -----------> 96"

Center of screen --------> 69" (bottom of screen is 39" AFF)

Center of lens from floor -----> ??"

Distance from the fron of the lens to the screen ---> 12' 11" ( 145 )

Viewing distance ---------> 12' (144")

Distance to left or right of projector ------> ??

Viewing eyes height --------> 39"



Kindly guide me as to what i can do with this setup and what is my best option to get max gain from the high power....


Thanks a bunch...


Rana


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rana_kirti* /forum/post/19815011
> 
> 
> Could you elaborate on #1
> 
> 
> Rana



The most important thing is to have the angle of your eyes as close as possible to the angle of the projector. So if you align the projector with the center of the screen that determines where you sit. Instead, sit where it's the best for viewing and then place the projector to have as close an angle to that as possible. FLBoy explains this well.


Ceiling mount... I dunno... I think you'd need an extension pole to get the pj low enough relative to your seating and that defeats the purpose of having it "out of the way". People often have the pj just above their heads when using extension poles so you can't walk into it... the seats are in the way... but it's still there visually.


----------



## NickTF

I will have to get the model and brand of my ceiling mount given it was a gift from my fiance but so everyone knows 1" threaded pipe nipples, if I remember correctly on them being 1", are all that is needed as an extension. They will thread right into the mount. The supplied extension is nothing more than a painted 1" pipe nipple itself. You will definitely need to find a truss to mount the mount to given the nipples have a little bit of weight to them but nothing to worry about outside of just having a truss to fasten the mount to.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NickTF* /forum/post/19815520
> 
> 
> 29 Litres of Infinite Baffle Bliss.



OT, but I'm an IB aficionado too! 8 AE IB15's with Behringer 2500. Who needs butt-kickers??


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rana_kirti* /forum/post/19815011
> 
> 
> Kindly guide me as to what i can do with this setup and what is my best option to get max gain from the high power.



Just what erkq and NickTF said. Get an extension pole for your ceiling mount, and place the projector as low down over your viewers' heads as you are comfortable with. If you play with the Screen Gain Calculator, you will see that you can maximize the gain by wearing the projector as a hat. I doubt you would want to do that, so just find the best compromise for you between gain and comfort/aesthetics/fan noise. If you leave the PJ on the ceiling, you will not get much gain out of the HP. In that case, I would probably just recommend you save your money and get a matte white screen.


----------



## NickTF




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/19815612
> 
> 
> OT, but I'm an IB aficionado too! 8 AE IB15's with Behringer 2500. Who needs butt-kickers??



Anyone not running one who has the accomodations to be able to run one is missing out big time in my opinion but that's just my opinion


----------



## rana_kirti

Flboy, erkq and NickTF,


thanks for the input. now the picture regarding High power is clear in my head.







took a while to understand the angles and stuff but i can now see why.... even in it's simplicity the High power is complex to understand due to it's retro-reflective nature and even in it's complexities its very simple for what it does.


I'm gonna go with a extension pole. There ought to be a good quality extension pole which is telescopic in nature and can come down and go up when required by the user....


Anyone know such a extension pole....?


@ Also guys if someone could not put in a High Power in his setup and had a little bit of uncontrolable ambient light in his room which Screen ( only Da-lite ) would be the 2nd best option after High power ?


Thanks


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NickTF* /forum/post/19816043
> 
> 
> Anyone not running one who has the accomodations to be able to run one is missing out big time in my opinion but that's just my opinion



Yes, it's so cheap for what you get... it's SO cheap. $1,000 in woofers and $250 for the 2.5kW amp? Oh, and then another $100 for the Feedback Destroyer Pro. I've never dared turn it up all the way. I think my house would break.


OK, so OT. I'll delete after a bit. I just figure people should know, where ever they are. I'm an obnoxious evangelist.







Just do it!


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rana_kirti* /forum/post/19816109
> 
> 
> Anyone know such a extension pole....?



You should invent one. It's not as easy as first seems as the positioning in the "down" position would have to be very precise. Maybe use a laser with a receiver that fine tunes the projector with servos? None of the parts would be very expensive. Large R/C servos are cheap, powerful, precise and inexpensive.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rana_kirti* /forum/post/19816109
> 
> 
> Flboy, erkq and NickTF, Anyone know such a extension pole....?


 This should get you started.


P.S.- Erkq, you slay me!


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/19817827
> 
> This should get you started.
> 
> 
> P.S.- Erkq, you slay me!



Nice product. Good suggestion.


The "slay" part... I cobble stuff like this together as a hobby.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rana_kirti* /forum/post/19816109
> 
> 
> ....There ought to be a good quality extension pole which is telescopic in nature and can come down and go up when required by the user....



That's exactly what my girlfriend said last night when I told her I had a headache.


----------



## Acta7

Rotfl :d:d:d


----------



## coderguy

A few questions, I have a wall that apparently is only just a few inches not wide enough to use the standard mounts on the 106" da-lite screen. Although the screen itself shouldn't actually hang over the sides much if at all (the wall has a recessed angular side for decorative purposes - those damn architects), meaning the wall is like this:


\\____________________________________

---Std brackets will not fit as they would be to the left of the wall's surface by just a couple inches



I noticed from one site that there are different types of mounting brackets avaiable, floating etc... Do I need the floating brackets, I think I measured that the wall is not wide enough by 2 inches to mount std, can I still mount the screen safely?


Also,


Can someone remind me what the advantages/disadvantages are on the Model C vs Model B, this thread is quite long and I couldn't find the discussion on that again.


----------



## newfmp3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rana_kirti* /forum/post/19807294
> 
> 
> hi frens,
> 
> 
> i'm planning to get a high power. Since it has to be close to the angle of the screen i will have to get a good projector mount which has a long extension.
> 
> 
> Can u guys suggest a good/cheap mount which has a long extension ?
> 
> 
> Thanks



I've been looking. There are quite a few. Peerless PPA ~ 70 bucks, thats what I ordered today after looking. I was limited to what I can find in Canada though. I have one here that's a Premier Mount, very solid, 9" to 13" drop, but it won't fit my epson without a modification. My concern was something that was telescopic, not fixed. Lower it when I need to, keep it up higher when I don't want it in the way.


Monoprice makes one for 12$ with 16" drop, but it's fixed I think.


Any mount that uses standard 1" or 1.5" pipes, you can get the pipes almost anywhere and just thread them and cost 10 bucks. Peerless, Chief, Direct Mounts, mounts and more, Amazon even has the peerless one.


----------



## Murilo

So you cannot get a 2.8 even on request anymore?


Can you still get fixed frame in 2.8?


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/19824420
> 
> 
> So you cannot get a 2.8 even on request anymore?
> 
> 
> Can you still get fixed frame in 2.8?



Apparently not. It's gone.


----------



## Murilo

Well thats odd, when this all started and airscape found it, they kept saying oh its a quality control issue with electric and manual, fixed frames will still be 2.8


Guess it was more then qc issue. Shame because I was actually hoping to buy a bigger one.


----------



## coderguy

Maybe it's them selling cheaper lighter weight material at the same cost to maximize profits, while also producing at least one benefit of a lesser gain to allow customers a slightly larger optimal viewing cone?


I guess some people say the 2.8 is better, but I have a feeling the difference isn't that big of a deal, especially if the viewing cone is slightly larger on the 2.4.


I'm going to order my High Power B 106" and hope it fits, if not it was only $250 and I'll figure it out.


Maybe it will give new life to my old Sanyo Z5, to hold me off until I buy a new projector (keep going back and forth on the fence before getting a new PJ, keep waiting for the next BIG thing, and all this 3D stuff aint helping)


----------



## newfmp3

i don't buy the "larger viewing cone" story. At least not from looking at samples, which I admit is hard to tell. The 2.8 seemed to have a higher gain almost all the time and most angles. I will have a 2.4 in a week or two, it's on its way. I'll take the 2.8 sample and toss it on there and see just how bad the 2.4 is. I really shouldn't do it as I am already pissed off that I missed the 2.8, but hey, curiosity gets the best of me...


I also have a Peerless PPA mount coming with a min drop of 12.78" and Max drop 17". Ceilings are 90", and my second sofa is on 6" riser. This is the lowest I will have had any PJ, so it better be worth it. I could have the lens 20" from my eye level if I want it to be.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *newfmp3* /forum/post/19824809
> 
> 
> i don't buy the "larger viewing cone" story. At least not from looking at samples, which I admit is hard to tell. The 2.8 seemed to have a higher gain almost all the time and most angles. I will have a 2.4 in a week or two, it's on its way. I'll take the 2.8 sample and toss it on there and see just how bad the 2.4 is. I really shouldn't do it as I am already pissed off that I missed the 2.8, but hey, curiosity gets the best of me...



Make sure you warn your family so they can leave the house before you pop the 2.8 on the 2.4.. it will look like this


----------



## coderguy

Yah I wanted the 2.8 as well, but the 2.4 still has the other advantages inherent right?

The "transparency and no sheen" that some screens cause.

At least a max gain of 2.4 (I guess the 2.8 could do 3+ according to some people).


That doesn't sound bad, I don't actually need more than 1.8 gain most likely to compensate for my dim projector.


----------



## airscapes

Anyone would be very happy with 2.4 till they stick the 2.8 square on it.. I recommend not doing that now 2.8 is no longer an option.


Jason Turk, can you just verify what we have been hearing about the 2.8 being done..


----------



## newfmp3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/19826296
> 
> 
> Anyone would be very happy with 2.4 till they stick the 2.8 square on it.. I recommend not doing that now 2.8 is no longer an option.
> 
> 
> Jason Turk, can you just verify what we have been hearing about the 2.8 being done..



I PM'd jason a week back, he said it's done


----------



## henrich3

I don't fall into the "more gain is always better" camp. There's a proper screen gain that will provide a bright image without elevating black too much. I light up a 110" diag HP 2.4 with an RS60 (13' throw). In low lamp mode and iris open the image is too bright. Whites and colors look great but letterbox bars are washed out. I have to close down the iris most of the way to get an image that's bright but also has respectably black letterbox bars.


I understand why folks purchasing much larger screens than mine would lament the passing of the 2.8. I expect that the majority of folks getting the HP 2.4 will find that the image brightness is fine. It's a very nice material.


----------



## newfmp3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *henrich3* /forum/post/19826685
> 
> 
> I don't fall into the "more gain is always better" camp. There's a proper screen gain that will provide a bright image without elevating black too much. I light up a 110" diag HP 2.4 with an RS60 (13' throw). In low lamp mode and iris open the image is too bright. Whites and colors look great but letterbox bars are washed out. I have to close down the iris most of the way to get an image that's bright but also has respectably black letterbox bars.
> 
> 
> I understand why folks purchasing much larger screens than mine would lament the passing of the 2.8. I expect that the majority of folks getting the HP 2.4 will find that the image brightness is fine. It's a very nice material.



excellent point. For ceiling mount, it's probably even more criticall to consider what you are saying as the projector is probably in a "fixed" position once installed. However, in a situation like mine, PQ quality comes first, and I will place the PJ were it needs to be and use a telescopic mount. So if it's too bright on a new bulb, raise the mount. As it gets old, lower mount. I think any decent PJ with a 2.8 gain screen will probably burn your eyes out if you leave it at the highest gain point. I am no pro, just my guess.


----------



## edpowers




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *henrich3* /forum/post/19826685
> 
> 
> I don't fall into the "more gain is always better" camp. There's a proper screen gain that will provide a bright image without elevating black too much. I light up a 110" diag HP 2.4 with an RS60 (13' throw). In low lamp mode and iris open the image is too bright. Whites and colors look great but letterbox bars are washed out. I have to close down the iris most of the way to get an image that's bright but also has respectably black letterbox bars.
> 
> 
> I understand why folks purchasing much larger screens than mine would lament the passing of the 2.8. I expect that the majority of folks getting the HP 2.4 will find that the image brightness is fine. It's a very nice material.




Its not just screen size. Not everybody has a projector as bright as your RS60 or such a short throw. It also depends on your lamp hours. For my own room, viewing cone is the determining factor. I find the 2.8 viewing cone to be more than acceptable in my theater, therefore I will always take the extra gain. I have an RS10 with Iris closed all the way down with an ND filter at the moment. As the bulb continues to age and lose brightness, I'll remove the ND filter. There are many easy ways to reduce brightness but very few ways to add brightness. If you feel you have your brightness dialed in perfectly right now, what happens when your bulb dims by 50% (or if you already have a 50% bulb, what happens when you replace with a new one?).


I think its a real bummer that the 2.8 fabric is gone.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *henrich3* /forum/post/19826685
> 
> 
> I don't fall into the "more gain is always better" camp.



And by the same token, don't fall into the "brighter projector is always better" camp either.


----------



## zombie10k

Quote:

Originally Posted by *edpowers* 
I think its a real bummer that the 2.8 fabric is gone.
+1. I have the JVC RS50 now on my 142" 16:9 2.8 HP cinema contour, and I need every ounce of gain there is for 3D mode. it looks great in 3D, brightness is noticeable brighter than the local Imax theaters.


It's a shame the 2.8 is gone. I have expressed my concerns the VP of Dalite I have been speaking with. The 2.8HP put them on the map with front projection enthusiasts. How often do you hear about the the dalite materials?


----------



## Joseph Clark

Quote:

Originally Posted by *zombie10k* 
+1. I have the JVC RS50 now on my 142" 16:9 2.8 HP cinema contour, and I need every ounce of gain there is for 3D mode. it looks great in 3D, brightness is noticeable brighter than the local Imax theaters.


It's a shame the 2.8 is gone. I have expressed my concerns the VP of Dalite I have been speaking with. The 2.8HP put them on the map with front projection enthusiasts. How often do you hear about the the dalite materials?
I have a local AVS member coming over tonight specifically to view the HP 2.8. He's waiting for an RS40, and he wanted to see how well they perform together. Now I'll have to tell him that he can't get it anymore and will have to settle for the 2.4 gain. 3D guzzles light. We need to coax out every last bit of brightness, especially at larger screen sizes. Although it looks unlikely, maybe 3D will make DaLite reconsider killing the 2.8. Achieving maximum brightness for challenging setups (and 3D is a worst case scenario of that) is what the HP 2.8 was born to do.


----------



## Killroy

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* 
3D guzzles light. We need to coax out every last bit of brightness, especially at larger screen sizes.
Another reason why 3D is EVIL!!!!


----------



## rana_kirti

Quote:

Originally Posted by *newfmp3* 
I've been looking. There are quite a few. Peerless PPA ~ 70 bucks, thats what I ordered today after looking. I was limited to what I can find in Canada though. I have one here that's a Premier Mount, very solid, 9" to 13" drop, but it won't fit my epson without a modification. My concern was something that was telescopic, not fixed. Lower it when I need to, keep it up higher when I don't want it in the way.


Monoprice makes one for 12$ with 16" drop, but it's fixed I think.


Any mount that uses standard 1" or 1.5" pipes, you can get the pipes almost anywhere and just thread them and cost 10 bucks. Peerless, Chief, Direct Mounts, mounts and more, Amazon even has the peerless one.
Quote:

Originally Posted by *newfmp3* 
excellent point. For ceiling mount, it's probably even more criticall to consider what you are saying as the projector is probably in a "fixed" position once installed. However, in a situation like mine, PQ quality comes first, and I will place the PJ were it needs to be and use a telescopic mount. So if it's too bright on a new bulb, raise the mount. As it gets old, lower mount. I think any decent PJ with a 2.8 gain screen will probably burn your eyes out if you leave it at the highest gain point. I am no pro, just my guess.
i'm specially looking for a "telescopic mount". one which can go up and down with complete ease. i spoke to a cus rep at chief mounts and this is what he showed me....

http://www.chiefmfg.com/productdetai...ccessoryID=236 


but he told me that this one was only adjustable and not telescopic in nature.


I'm sure there must be a telescopic mount out there for projectors specially since the high power screen requires it and the high power has been around for so many years.... There's got to be a telescopic mount for it....!


Can any member give some suggestions here coz this can probably affect my decision to get a high power or not in a huge way......


----------



## Murilo

Well this is very sad. After having a 2.4 and then a 2.8 I am not going to want to go back to the 2.4 Unless I get a really bright projector in which case I would probably get something more neutral.


I maybe moving in the next year and also want to upgrade to a bigger hp down the line. Guess thats out the window. At least for the high power.


If da-lite has the ability to still make it, and its not a fact that they somehow cant get the material anymore, we really need to try to see what we can do about this and perhaps push for the 2.8.


----------



## zombie10k




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/19828030
> 
> 
> I have a local AVS member coming over tonight specifically to view the HP 2.8. He's waiting for an RS40, and he wanted to see how well they perform together. Now I'll have to tell him that he can't get it anymore and will have to settle for the 2.4 gain. 3D guzzles light. We need to coax out every last bit of brightness, especially at larger screen sizes. Although it looks unlikely, maybe 3D will make DaLite reconsider killing the 2.8. Achieving maximum brightness for challenging setups (and 3D is a worst case scenario of that) is what the HP 2.8 was born to do.



agreed, the JVC 3D + 2.8HP were made for each other.


I just spoke with the VP of Marketing at Dalite discussing the discontinued 2.8HP material. To paraphrase, she said that Dalite didn't make the decision lightly and one of the key components they used to make the 2.8 material is no longer available.


She did mention the 2.4 is available in seamless sizes to 96" tall which is quite a bit larger than the 2.8 @ 78". You have to take off 6 inches from that size for the real 'max' size limitation.


For my screen, it was 70" tall x 124.5" wide for 142" diag 16:9. I could have gone 2 more inches tall, but the overall size wouldn't have left room for my center channel.


Dalite was telling dealers and customers that 133" fixed frame for the HP 2.8 was the max size. By pure luck, I found a VP who created a customer order # so I could get the 142". I'm pretty sure I have the largest fixed frame 2.8HP that will ever exist.


long live the 2.8HP screen, the 2.4 is just not the same.


----------



## Joseph Clark

Quote:

Originally Posted by *zombie10k* 
agreed, the JVC 3D + 2.8HP were made for each other.


I just spoke with the VP of Marketing at Dalite discussing the discontinued 2.8HP material. To paraphrase, she said that Dalite didn't make the decision lightly and one of the key components they used to make the 2.8 material is no longer available.


She did mention the 2.4 is available in seamless sizes to 96" tall which is quite a bit larger than the 2.8 @ 78". You have to take off 6 inches from that size for the real 'max' size limitation.


For my screen, it was 70" tall x 124.5" wide for 142" diag 16:9. I could have gone 2 more inches tall, but the overall size wouldn't have left room for my center channel.


Dalite was telling dealers and customers that 133" fixed frame for the HP 2.8 was the max size. By pure luck, I found a VP who created a customer order # so I could get the 142". I'm pretty sure I have the largest fixed frame 2.8HP that will ever exist.


long live the 2.8HP screen, the 2.4 is just not the same.
It's ironic that this is happening right at a point in projector history when the 2.8 material was poised to have its greatest impact on the industry - with the potential for a whole new generation of HP converts. 3D should help everyone understand the value of a high quality, high gain screen like the HP 2.8.


If DaLite were to read the comments in the 3D threads about people needing brighter screens, they might ask their materials supplier to reconsider. After all, we can't be talking about titanium or lithium here. Otherwise, the HP would have been a lot more expensive from jump street. Or maybe DaLite is planning to re-introduce a "new 3D enhanced" HP, with a gain of 3.0, at a premium price. As Noah Katz has said, high end home theater enthusiasts might have been all over the HP if it cost 5 times more than it used to.


----------



## airscapes

Most likely the manufacture has retooled and is using a new method that work better for them (read costs less to make). Dalite does not make there money selling screens to home theater enthusiast that take 6 months to make up there minds, they make it selling to business. So the few sales they loss .. wait.. 2.4 is the highest gain you can find at the price..so.. nope won't loose any customers, just make more money with what they sell. Yes, I will be keeping my eyes open for a large used HP screens, even though I don't have room for one.... TVs and projectors come and go.. so it goes with screens, just not as often..


----------



## RonF




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/19829881
> 
> 
> It's ironic that this is happening right at a point in projector history when the 2.8 material was poised to have its greatest impact on the industry - with the potential for a whole new generation of HP converts. 3D should help everyone understand the value of a high quality, high gain screen like the HP 2.8.
> 
> 
> If DaLite were to read the comments in the 3D threads about people needing brighter screens, they might ask their materials supplier to reconsider. After all, we can't be talking about titanium or lithium here. Otherwise, the HP would have been a lot more expensive from jump street. Or maybe DaLite is planning to re-introduce a "new 3D enhanced" HP, with a gain of 3.0, at a premium price. As Noah Katz has said, high end home theater enthusiasts might have been all over the HP if it cost 5 times more than it used to.



No, now it's *unobtanium*...... I too consider myself fortunate with the old formula.....getting ready to go from RS25 to 50 and have 3D capability. 8.5' wide 16x9 screen.


Saw the ugly news in the projector forum and came here to see if true.


----------



## newfmp3

What pisses me off is how the new inferior material is the Same cost


Low blow Da-Lite


----------



## thrang

Well, be kind, gentle and polite, but email Wendy Long at DaLite your persuasive thoughts...

[email protected] 


She is their marketing director I believe


I am a 2.8 owner, but was thinking going 2:35 later this year, so this is disappointing. Running out a component to make the screen sounds like a very odd explanation - I mean, at its price point, how rare could "it" have been?


----------



## henrich3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *newfmp3* /forum/post/19831307
> 
> 
> What pisses me off is how the new inferior material is the Same cost



In what way is the 2.4 inferior?


----------



## rana_kirti




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rana_kirti* /forum/post/19828649
> 
> 
> i'm specially looking for a "telescopic mount". one which can go up and down with complete ease. i spoke to a cus rep at chief mounts and this is what he showed me....
> 
> http://www.chiefmfg.com/productdetai...ccessoryID=236
> 
> 
> but he told me that this one was only adjustable and not telescopic in nature.
> 
> 
> I'm sure there must be a telescopic mount out there for projectors specially since the high power screen requires it and the high power has been around for so many years.... There's got to be a telescopic mount for it....!
> 
> 
> Can any member give some suggestions here coz this can probably affect my decision to get a high power or not in a huge way......



bump...


1. would invite high power owners how have thier projectors ceiling mounted to come forward and share how they are bringing their projectors down close to the eye level.....?


2. What mount system are you using ?


3. Is there a "telescopic mount" that can be bring the projector up and down easily out there....?


Thanks


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rana_kirti* /forum/post/19833331
> 
> 
> bump...
> 
> 
> 1. would invite high power owners how have thier projectors ceiling mounted to come forward and share how they are bringing their projectors down close to the eye level.....?
> 
> 
> 2. What mount system are you using ?
> 
> 
> 3. Is there a "telescopic mount" that can be bring the projector up and down easily out there....?
> 
> 
> Thanks



Many use shelves at the back of the room or tables.


----------



## zombie10k




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thrang* /forum/post/19831334
> 
> 
> Well, be kind, gentle and polite, but email *Wendy Long* at DaLite your persuasive thoughts...
> 
> * [email protected] *
> 
> 
> She is their marketing director I believe
> 
> 
> I am a 2.8 owner, but was thinking going 2:35 later this year, so this is disappointing. Running out a component to make the screen sounds like a very odd explanation - I mean, at its price point, how rare could "it" have been?



This is who I have been speaking with, but didn't want to post her email publicly. Wendy is very nice and her company stance is that they can't get the materials anymore to make the screen. She helped me order the custom sized HP screen I just bought about 3 months ago.


who knows what the real story is, but Joe is right, 3D in the HT with relatively low lumens was the time for the 2.8HP to shine and be more popular than ever.


I was watching 'How to Train your Dragon' 3D last night on the JVC RS50 and it's a blast on the 2.8HP @ 142". The brightness is 'just right' for me and exceeds what I observe at my local Imax theaters in regard to brightness.


If enough people tell them they don't want the 2.4 and want to bring back the 2.8HP, who knows..


----------



## R Harkness

zombie10k,


That's an incredible projector/screen combination you have there. It must look glorious!


----------



## zombie10k




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/19835078
> 
> 
> zombie10k,
> 
> 
> That's an incredible projector/screen combination you have there. It must look glorious!



Rich - I am thrilled with it so far! Most guests of mine could give a rats *** about HT, but I showed a number of 3D scenes last night on the big HP and it became a conversation topic for the rest of the night.


it's hard to believe 3D made it to front projection so soon after the Avatar craze this time last year. I hope it sticks around this time.


----------



## Fabricator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zombie10k* /forum/post/19835039
> 
> 
> 3D in the HT with relatively low lumens was the time for the 2.8HP to shine and be more popular than ever.
> 
> 
> I was watching 'How to Train your Dragon' 3D last night on the JVC RS50 and it's a blast on the 2.8HP @ 142". The brightness is 'just right' for me and exceeds what I observe at my local Imax theaters in regard to brightness.
> 
> 
> If enough people tell them they don't want the 2.4 and want to bring back the 2.8HP, who knows..





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zombie10k* /forum/post/19835177
> 
> 
> Rich - I am thrilled with it so far! Most guests of mine could give a rats *** about HT, but I showed a number of 3D scenes last night on the big HP and it became a conversation topic for the rest of the night.



that sounds VERY impressive !


----------



## Toe

I would only add that How To Train Your Dragon is a great example of a movie that could go from "too dim" to "bright enough" on a HP vs a lower gain screen since it is a darker 3d film in general (most of it). I also watched this on Mon night and was VERY impressed..............this film would have been a bit too dim on my old ST130 I am betting, but on the HP it was bright enough.


I also want to echo what others are saying as far as WTF is DaLite thinking getting rid of the 2.8 at this point in time especially (3d)?


----------



## R Harkness

Toe,


Would you mind giving a brief comparison of your new HP to your ST-130, which you like better and why? (It looks like you much prefer the HP?).


Thanks,


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/19837815
> 
> 
> Toe,
> 
> 
> Would you mind giving a brief comparison of your new HP to your ST-130, which you like better and why? (It looks like you much prefer the HP?).
> 
> 
> Thanks,



No problem Rich







I am going to just cut/paste a PM that I just wrote to a friend of mine on AVS since I was just talking about this exact topic with him.............




So far I have been very impressed with the HP 2.8! What surprised me a little is that I have been more impressed with the 2d difference vs my 130 as compared to the 3d difference. My main thought in moving to the HP was more brightness for 3d which I got, but it is not as obvious for whatever reason as the 2d brightness difference. When I put up a 130 screen sample, you can clearly see the brightness dif for both 2d and 3d, but when I just put on a 2d film and 3d film without the sample up, the 2d was immediately noticeable as far the the impact/punch dif while the 3d was not quite as dramatic. I think this mainly has to do with having such low lumens to begin with in 3d vs much higher amount in 2d........also, the 130 retains some polarization while the HP retains none so this would turn the 130 into more like a ~1.6 gain screen compared to the HP for 3d use. Like I said though, when you put up the 130 sample and have your 3d glasses on, you realize just how much brighter the HP is for 3d as well in every spot on the couch (middle seat being the best of course).


One other thing is in MOST movie scenes the HP disappears as good or maybe even a hair better vs the 130 as far as seeing the screen material/surface (in most scenes, the HP and 130 get out of the way completely for all practical purposes), but in rare instances of an all white screen for example, the ST130 has a more even/uniform screen surface/coating vs the HP and in these type of scenes the 130 would get the edge. This is a VERY minor difference, but the 130 is definitely a bit more pleasing in these type moments to my eyes. The type of scenes I am talking about though rarely even come up in anything I have watched so its hardly worth even mentioning.


Overall though, I am loving the screen..........my 2d collection in particular feels like it has new life (when I first put on CARS and The Simpsons Movie I was floored) and being able to clamp down on my iris (I am running low lamp with iris at -9 or -10 (the lowest it goes is -15) for my ~126" projected 1.78 image when doing the zoom method to fill out my 9' wide 2.35 screen) and still get a much brighter/punchier image vs my 130 is just fantastic! I was watching Minority Report last night and the brightness was just awesome at -10 on the iris. I am at 100hrs on the bulb now so that initial bulb break in is just about over as well and brightness degrade should taper more gradual now. For my 94" 1.78 image, I have the iris clamped down almost all the way at -14 and it is BRIGHT. I have plenty of head room as the lamp ages to maintain this brightness level which I would not have had with my 130.


The main negative of the HP are things I already was aware of before I placed the order as far as the viewing cone. There is a small difference going from middle to either end of the couch which I expected, but what made me happy is that just shifting in my seat produces no noticeable brightness difference which I was a bit concerned about. Every seat on the couch though is still considerably brighter than the 130 for both 2d and 3d so this is a minor gripe for my situation. The only time I can see this being a more significant negative is if people want to sit/lay on the floor which would happen sometimes when kids would come over (me and the GF split up though, so no more kids and this should not be an issue at this point since me and my guests always sit on the couch). At this point, the HP is actually less bright than my 130! I dont see this being a problem though at this point.


As far as assembly, the HP was a PITA to snap on! Due to the material not stetching, it was significantly harder to put this material on the frame vs the 130 (or any screen I have owned for that matter...........I have also owned Severtsen and Carada screens). Once its done of course its done so no biggie here.


Both screens were wrinkle/crease free from the get-go which is not a given with projection screens. Carada for example (I have had 3 at my house) packages their material in a way that you get some initial wrinkles/creases (at least all 3 of mine did) and in the few weeks I had these screens, they never FULLY came out







This drove me nuts and I am happy to report this is a non issue on BOTH the 130 and HP 2.8.


As far as frames go, I would call this a wash. The Stewart frame is ~.25" wider all around (~3.25") while the DaLite frame is a 3" frame........both look fantastic. One small difference is the DaLite frame goes right down to the screen material while the Stewart frame rounds out a bit before it gets to the edge of the material............I dont prefer one way over the other personally but some might.


One other VERY cool thing that I like about the HP over the 130 is how much less my room lights up. This is really amazing to me considering how much brighter the image is, but due to the viewing cone on the HP, my ceiling, floor and side walls light up MUCH less vs the 130 and when you combine this with the much brighter picture, it just feels so much more dynamic.


Some people warned me that there might be a sharpness difference between the 130 and HP with the 130 having the edge. I have not noticed ANY difference, but I have not really done an A/B either (besides my little sample square which is hard to judge this particular aspect with) which may or may not show some differences. If by some crazy chance there are differences here, they would have to be VERY minor since I simply have not noticed ANY difference from what I know of my 130.


Being able to use the Xpand Universal glasses OR the JVC glasses is a nice plus with the HP as well. Since the 130 retains polarization, you need the JVCs for max brightness/performance, but with the HP retaining no polarization I can use either pair of glasses with the same results.............considering how much cheaper the 103s are, this is a nice advantage!


As you can probably tell, I am very happy so far and will most likely put my 130 up for sale







There are advantages/disadvantages to both screens, but if you have the right situation/seating arangement, the HP would be the way to go IMO! Now if we can just get DaLite to start making the 2.8 again which amazes me that they stopped. This is the point when this screen could have the biggest impact for a lot of buyers with 3d coming into the picture and needing all the brightness we can get!


----------



## Joseph Clark

Toe,


One thing I like with the JVC RS40 is that I can get extremely accurate focus on the HP, which makes a big difference with how sharp the image appears overall. I know that sounds incredibly obvious, but it was always a problem with my Sharp 20k and its manual focus ring. What a massive pain it was going back and forth between the lens and the screen to get it just right. It wore me out, and I could never keep binoculars steady enough to solve the problem to my satisfaction. With the JVC remote right at the screen (and a great level of accuracy as I click back and forth on the focus control), I can focus on the word "Focus" right in the middle of the screen, until every last little bit of unfocused "blooming" is gone from around the pixel edges. Despite some rather severe misconvergence with this particular RS40, it comes across as extremely sharp in the middle of the screen. (It's the left side that's a problem.) With this level of focus accuracy, I never see the HP surface intrude itself into the viewing experience. Of course, I don't have a Stewart ST130 sample to compare it to, but my HP replaced a Stewart Firehawk (first gen), and the HP's superiority over the the Firehawk is immediately, painfully obvious. I don't know how the new Firehawk would compare.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/19839206
> 
> 
> Toe,
> 
> 
> One thing I like with the JVC RS40 is that I can get extremely accurate focus on the HP, which makes a big difference with how sharp the image appears overall. I know that sounds incredibly obvious, but it was always a problem with my Sharp 20k and its manual focus ring. What a massive pain it was going back and forth between the lens and the screen to get it just right. It wore me out, and I could never keep binoculars steady enough to solve the problem to my satisfaction. With the JVC remote right at the screen (and a great level of accuracy as I click back and forth on the focus control), I can focus on the word "Focus" right in the middle of the screen, until every last little bit of unfocused "blooming" is gone from around the pixel edges. Despite some rather severe misconvergence with this particular RS40, it comes across as extremely sharp in the middle of the screen. (It's the left side that's a problem.) With this level of focus accuracy, I never see the HP surface intrude itself into the viewing experience. Of course, I don't have a Stewart ST130 sample to compare it to, but my HP replaced a Stewart Firehawk (first gen), and the HP's superiority over the the Firehawk is immediately, painfully obvious. I don't know how the new Firehawk would compare.



A big +1 as far as the motorized focus vs a manual focus! I went from a RS1 to the 40 so I know exactly what you are talking about. When I moved from my 1.78 screen to my 2.35 ST130 last summer and doing the zoom method between the 2 aspect ratios, it only took doing it a few times on the RS1 to annoy the hell out of me!







I figured it out real quick that I at least needed a fully motorized lens if I was going to keep doing the zoom method. Having the fully motorized lens in the 40 has made ALL the difference. Focus in particular as you mention is SO MUCH easier/better being able to do it at the remote and right at the screen. I am MUCH happier now and doing the whole zoom thing is a breeze now with the 40, especially focus.


How is your misconvergence issue going? I assume they are going to get you a new one?


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/19839305
> 
> 
> A big +1 as far as the motorized focus vs a manual focus! I went from a RS1 to the 40 so I know exactly what you are talking about. When I moved from my 1.78 screen to my 2.35 ST130 last summer and doing the zoom method between the 2 aspect ratios, it only took doing it a few times on the RS1 to annoy the hell out of me!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I figured it out real quick that I at least needed a fully motorized lens if I was going to keep doing the zoom method. Having the fully motorized lens in the 40 has made ALL the difference. Focus in particular as you mention is SO MUCH easier/better being able to do it at the remote and right at the screen. I am MUCH happier now and doing the whole zoom thing is a breeze now with the 40, especially focus.
> 
> 
> How is your misconvergence issue going? I assume they are going to get you a new one?



Jason has asked me to send pictures of the corners. I'm also going to include shots of the icons on my Windows desktop, where I can see the convergence problem easily from my normal 11-12' viewing distance. Actually, the desktop (where I spend a relatively significant amount of my time) is significantly off for much of the left side of the image. You don't notice it as much for regular video, of course, but I'm sure it contributes to a lack of sharpness in everything.


----------



## R Harkness

Thanks for all that detail Toe.


Much of it matches well with my experience of both screens (I still have my 2.8 HP screen, though haven't put it up in quite a while).


I do sometimes get some "brightness envy" about the HP because I know how brightness can increase the apparent sharpness and dimensionality of an image. With the RS20 on my variable size screen I'm pretty good with brightness for the 1st 500 hundred hours or so, but then have to start kicking it into high bulb mode.


So many things going for the HP screen...if I weren't driven crazy by the viewing angle issue I'm sure I'd have gone with the HP. I'm glad it's worked out so well for you.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/19839491
> 
> 
> 
> So many things going for the HP screen...if I weren't driven crazy by the viewing angle issue I'm sure I'd have gone with the HP. I'm glad it's worked out so well for you.



I can totally understand that. The viewing angle is annoying. It is not a major issue in my setup, but I can certainly see how this could be a problem in a wider seating arrangement.


----------



## deimh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/19838982
> 
> 
> No problem Rich
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am going to just cut/paste a PM that I just wrote to a friend of mine on AVS since I was just talking about this exact topic with him.............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So far I have been very impressed with the HP 2.8! What surprised me a little is that I have been more impressed with the 2d difference vs my 130 as compared to the 3d difference. My main thought in moving to the HP was more brightness for 3d which I got, but it is not as obvious for whatever reason as the 2d brightness difference. When I put up a 130 screen sample, you can clearly see the brightness dif for both 2d and 3d, but when I just put on a 2d film and 3d film without the sample up, the 2d was immediately noticeable as far the the impact/punch dif while the 3d was not quite as dramatic. I think this mainly has to do with having such low lumens to begin with in 3d vs much higher amount in 2d........also, the 130 retains some polarization while the HP retains none so this would turn the 130 into more like a ~1.6 gain screen compared to the HP for 3d use. Like I said though, when you put up the 130 sample and have your 3d glasses on, you realize just how much brighter the HP is for 3d as well in every spot on the couch (middle seat being the best of course).
> 
> 
> One other thing is in MOST movie scenes the HP disappears as good or maybe even a hair better vs the 130 as far as seeing the screen material/surface (in most scenes, the HP and 130 get out of the way completely for all practical purposes), but in rare instances of an all white screen for example, the ST130 has a more even/uniform screen surface/coating vs the HP and in these type of scenes the 130 would get the edge. This is a VERY minor difference, but the 130 is definitely a bit more pleasing in these type moments to my eyes. The type of scenes I am talking about though rarely even come up in anything I have watched so its hardly worth even mentioning.
> 
> 
> Overall though, I am loving the screen..........my 2d collection in particular feels like it has new life (when I first put on CARS and The Simpsons Movie I was floored) and being able to clamp down on my iris (I am running low lamp with iris at -9 or -10 (the lowest it goes is -15) for my ~126" projected 1.78 image when doing the zoom method to fill out my 9' wide 2.35 screen) and still get a much brighter/punchier image vs my 130 is just fantastic! I was watching Minority Report last night and the brightness was just awesome at -10 on the iris. I am at 100hrs on the bulb now so that initial bulb break in is just about over as well and brightness degrade should taper more gradual now. For my 94" 1.78 image, I have the iris clamped down almost all the way at -14 and it is BRIGHT. I have plenty of head room as the lamp ages to maintain this brightness level which I would not have had with my 130.
> 
> 
> The main negative of the HP are things I already was aware of before I placed the order as far as the viewing cone. There is a small difference going from middle to either end of the couch which I expected, but what made me happy is that just shifting in my seat produces no noticeable brightness difference which I was a bit concerned about. Every seat on the couch though is still considerably brighter than the 130 for both 2d and 3d so this is a minor gripe for my situation. The only time I can see this being a more significant negative is if people want to sit/lay on the floor which would happen sometimes when kids would come over (me and the GF split up though, so no more kids and this should not be an issue at this point since me and my guests always sit on the couch). At this point, the HP is actually less bright than my 130! I dont see this being a problem though at this point.
> 
> 
> As far as assembly, the HP was a PITA to snap on! Due to the material not stetching, it was significantly harder to put this material on the frame vs the 130 (or any screen I have owned for that matter...........I have also owned Severtsen and Carada screens). Once its done of course its done so no biggie here.
> 
> 
> Both screens were wrinkle/crease free from the get-go which is not a given with projection screens. Carada for example (I have had 3 at my house) packages their material in a way that you get some initial wrinkles/creases (at least all 3 of mine did) and in the few weeks I had these screens, they never FULLY came out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This drove me nuts and I am happy to report this is a non issue on BOTH the 130 and HP 2.8.
> 
> 
> As far as frames go, I would call this a wash. The Stewart frame is ~.25" wider all around (~3.25") while the DaLite frame is a 3" frame........both look fantastic. One small difference is the DaLite frame goes right down to the screen material while the Stewart frame rounds out a bit before it gets to the edge of the material............I dont prefer one way over the other personally but some might.
> 
> 
> One other VERY cool thing that I like about the HP over the 130 is how much less my room lights up. This is really amazing to me considering how much brighter the image is, but due to the viewing cone on the HP, my ceiling, floor and side walls light up MUCH less vs the 130 and when you combine this with the much brighter picture, it just feels so much more dynamic.
> 
> 
> Some people warned me that there might be a sharpness difference between the 130 and HP with the 130 having the edge. I have not noticed ANY difference, but I have not really done an A/B either (besides my little sample square which is hard to judge this particular aspect with) which may or may not show some differences. If by some crazy chance there are differences here, they would have to be VERY minor since I simply have not noticed ANY difference from what I know of my 130.
> 
> 
> Being able to use the Xpand Universal glasses OR the JVC glasses is a nice plus with the HP as well. Since the 130 retains polarization, you need the JVCs for max brightness/performance, but with the HP retaining no polarization I can use either pair of glasses with the same results.............considering how much cheaper the 103s are, this is a nice advantage!
> 
> 
> As you can probably tell, I am very happy so far and will most likely put my 130 up for sale
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are advantages/disadvantages to both screens, but if you have the right situation/seating arangement, the HP would be the way to go IMO! Now if we can just get DaLite to start making the 2.8 again which amazes me that they stopped. This is the point when this screen could have the biggest impact for a lot of buyers with 3d coming into the picture and needing all the brightness we can get!



Toe


This is a great post answering a few of the issues I'm trying to get my head around - many many thanks!


Can you please confirm the height of your projector from the floor and the eye-height from the floor, as well as how far back the viewing and projector is from the screen and the width of the screen.


My likley specs are as follows: height of your projector from the floor 180cm and the eye-height from the floor 80cm, as well as how far back the viewing (4.5m) and projector (5.0m) is from the screen and the width of the screen (2.95m). What do you think of this set up with an X3 and the 2.4 gain HP?


Thanks for the help!


Dave


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deimh* /forum/post/19839955
> 
> 
> Toe
> 
> 
> This is a great post answering a few of the issues I'm trying to get my head around - many many thanks!
> 
> 
> Can you please confirm the height of your projector from the floor and the eye-height from the floor, as well as how far back the viewing and projector is from the screen and the width of the screen.
> 
> 
> My likley specs are as follows: height of your projector from the floor 180cm and the eye-height from the floor 80cm, as well as how far back the viewing (4.5m) and projector (5.0m) is from the screen and the width of the screen (2.95m). What do you think of this set up with an X3 and the 2.4 gain HP?
> 
> 
> Thanks for the help!
> 
> 
> Dave



Hi Dave










The dif between your eye height/projector height is almost 3.5'........that would be too much for the HP in my opinion if your goal is to get most of the gain out of it. You would be loosing most the gain advantage at that point. Have you tried plugging your numbers into Flyboys calculator? I would do that and see what you come up with to be sure.


My lens is ~64" off the floor and my eyes are ~41" off the floor. Seating is 12.5' back from a 9' wide 2.35 2.8 HP screen. Projector is 17.5' back from the screen. I am getting ~2.1-2.2 gain at my center spot viewing position according to the calculator (which seems right from a subjective persective as well).


----------



## deimh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/19840049
> 
> 
> Hi Dave
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you tried plugging your numbers into Flyboys calculator? I would do that and see what you come up with to be sure.



Toe


Many thanks for your helpful and detailed reply.


I have plugged gthe info into the great Gain Calc tool (thanks for that guys!) and it showed a gain of around 1.3 or so, but to be honest I wasnt totally sure of the input specs for the HP screen's fall off in gain. This is what I used / got:


BASIC SETUP (Change the green values as needed to fit your situation.)

What is the type of screen? Specify A for angular reflective or R for retro reflective. (Do not guess at this parameter--it makes a huge difference!) R

What is the manufacturer-published on-axis centerscreen gain of your screen? 2.40

What is the published maximum viewing angle (to one side in degrees off-axis)? 15

What is the centerscreen gain at the published maximum viewing angle? (Don't guess at this either. Consult manufacturer if necessary) 1.00

What is the minimum gain of your screen at large off-axis angles, e.g., 60 degrees? (OK, you may guess here, but make it


----------



## newfmp3

Deimh, your 2.4 numbers are wrong. I am stepping out right now and do not time to find the link, but its at the beginning of the calc tool thread for the 2.4


If I remember right , its starting at viewing angle which is 30, then 1.2 and .9


----------



## deimh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *newfmp3* /forum/post/19840241
> 
> 
> Deimh, your 2.4 numbers are wrong. I am stepping out right now and do not time to find the link, but its at the beginning of the calc tool thread for the 2.4
> 
> 
> If I remember right , its starting at viewing angle which is 30, then 1.2 and .9



Ah thanks every so much, I'm not that good at Excel - when I was in school there werent even calculators!


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deimh* /forum/post/19840313
> 
> 
> Ah thanks every so much, I'm not that good at Excel - when I was in school there werent even calculators!



The setup values for the 2.4 HP are in post #2 of the Screen Gain Calc thread.


BTW, when I was in school we also used slide rules.










If you want to see the effect of changing the height of the projector, just leave all the other values of the calculator constant, and change only the projector height. The Excel will recalculate every time you enter a new value for the projector height (or any other input value for that matter). That way you can see what happens to the screen gain as you change your projector height. Easy peasy! No need to be afraid. Just experiment!


----------



## newfmp3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deimh* /forum/post/19840313
> 
> 
> Ah thanks every so much, I'm not that good at Excel - when I was in school there werent even calculators!



No problem. We just got our first snow fall so I had to run out and snow blow drive way...yuck


Here are the parameters for the new 2.4 gain HP screen.


SCREEN NAME: DA-LITE HIGH POWER (NEW)


SCREEN TYPE: RETRO REFLECTIVE


ON-AXIS GAIN: 2.4


MAX VIEWING ANGLE (ONE SIDE): 30 DEGREES (AT ONE-HALF THE ON-AXIS GAIN)*


GAIN AT MAX VIEWING ANGLE: 1.2


MIN OFF AXIS GAIN: 0.9


----------



## nehemiah1

I have a DaLite HP retroreflective (I think about 120" -- had it a while). I use a Panasonic AU4000. We love it and the picture is great. However, it is a manual rolldown and that means when we roll it up, flying insects we did not see that landed on the screen attracted by the light get squished by the roller when the screen is being rolled up -- now I've tried gently cleaning these areas with water and a paper towel (gently), but it still seems to leave a visible area with certain projector lighting (like the blue Panasonic lighting at the beginning) on areas that were cleaned. What do you recommend?


----------



## airscapes

I just had this issue last week.

Not only did I find a bug that had been squished for a long time, but when I put the projector into white screen saw the previously cleaned spot. I had read a post by someone in the past that said hydrogen peroxide would be good for bugs and blood since it had a bleaching effect. I used this on a soft cloth like I would water. I then followed that up with some denatured alcohol.

I would venture a guess if you have had the screen a couple of years it may need to have the complete surface cleaned. Not sure you need anything more than water for the complete cleaning, I have never done that.

I did notice on mine (portable) that when I opened it up all the to it's full height (4:3) I could see an obvious line where it would normally be open to 16:9 size. This was a sharp obvious dark line where the normally used part of the screen was darker that the part that normally stays rolled up.

Good luck


----------



## blee0120

Can someone tell me what is the difference in the type of Da Lite screens? Perm wall, Da snap, and the cinema contour. I can get a Perm wall for a lot less than the other two, just want to know if I should get it or not


----------



## edpowers




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blee0120* /forum/post/19850260
> 
> 
> Can someone tell me what is the difference in the type of Da Lite screens? Perm wall, Da snap, and the cinema contour. I can get a Perm wall for a lot less than the other two, just want to know if I should get it or not



The Perm wall is really simple. Its just a metal tube, and you drill through the tube to mount to your wall. Most importantly, the screen snaps on to the front of the frame


The Da Snap is a much stronger square tube with a 1.5 inch frame. The material snaps on to the back of the frame. You hang the Da Snap like a portrait. I'm not sure, but I think you can order the Da Snap with velvet to make it look much more professional.


the Cinema Contour is very similar to the Da Snap, but it has a 3 inch frame. The frame slopes down to the screen to give a really nice tapered look. I think they all come with velvet, if not, its definitely an option.


I thought I might regret paying so much more for the Cinema Contour vs. the Perm wall, but after installing it, I'm very glad I did. I've seen the Perm walls and the Cinema Contour is in a completely different league. Its a beautiful frame and quite solid. I can't say the same thing for the Perm wall.


----------



## blee0120




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edpowers* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> The Perm wall is really simple. Its just a metal tube, and you drill through the tube to mount to your wall. Most importantly, the screen snaps on to the front of the frame
> 
> 
> The Da Snap is a much stronger square tube with a 1.5 inch frame. The material snaps on to the back of the frame. You hang the Da Snap like a portrait. I'm not sure, but I think you can order the Da Snap with velvet to make it look much more professional.
> 
> 
> the Cinema Contour is very similar to the Da Snap, but it has a 3 inch frame. The frame slopes down to the screen to give a really nice tapered look. I think they all come with velvet, if not, its definitely an option.
> 
> 
> I thought I might regret paying so much more for the Cinema Contour vs. the Perm wall, but after installing it, I'm very glad I did. I've seen the Perm walls and the Cinema Contour is in a completely different league. Its a beautiful frame and quite solid. I can't say the same thing for the Perm wall.



Thanks


----------



## rana_kirti

anyone know whether the high power is manufactured in usa or china ?


----------



## movieguy2001

I am in the final stages of planning my home theater room and I have been agonizing over screens for awhile now. I have a 15x22 room and I was planning on going with a 144" diagonal 2.35 screen with two rows of seating. The first row would be at 13 feet and the second row would be approximately 19 feet. I would shelf mount a RS50 projector on the rear wall at about 6 feet.


I was thinking that a 2.4 gain high power screen would work very well in the room and would allow for a bright image on a pretty big screen. I have put the numbers in the All Screen Gain spreadsheet to see what the gain numbers look like and the center seats will be wonderful with right around 2.0 gain. The issue I see is in the first row of seating on the side seats. If I put an offset of 65 inches for the outside seating my gains go to 1.36 1.48 1.79 across the screen. I would think that this variance across the screen would be distracting to the viewer in these seats.


Has anyone used an HP in a similar configuration? If so, have they had issues with the gain across the screen? My backup plan is a ST130 screen, but with a 1.3 gain I'm not sure if I've gone too big and wouldn't be able to get decent light output after the bulb has aged.


Any thoughts from the screen experts?


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *movieguy2001* /forum/post/19859256
> 
> 
> I am in the final stages of planning my home theater room and I have been agonizing over screens for awhile now. I have a 15x22 room and I was planning on going with a 144" diagonal 2.35 screen with two rows of seating. The first row would be at 13 feet and the second row would be approximately 19 feet. I would shelf mount a RS50 projector on the rear wall at about 6 feet.
> 
> 
> I was thinking that a 2.4 gain high power screen would work very well in the room and would allow for a bright image on a pretty big screen. I have put the numbers in the All Screen Gain spreadsheet to see what the gain numbers look like and the center seats will be wonderful with right around 2.0 gain. The issue I see is in the first row of seating on the side seats. If I put an offset of 65 inches for the outside seating my gains go to 1.36 1.48 1.79 across the screen. I would think that this variance across the screen would be distracting to the viewer in these seats.
> 
> 
> Has anyone used an HP in a similar configuration? If so, have they had issues with the gain across the screen? My backup plan is a ST130 screen, but with a 1.3 gain I'm not sure if I've gone too big and wouldn't be able to get decent light output after the bulb has aged.
> 
> 
> Any thoughts from the screen experts?



You have to remember, your guest won't be jumping from seat to seat. If you have special guest over you want to impress with the brightest image, you give them the pilots seats and you sit on the side. I sit outside the cone when we have guest over, I still enjoy the image and do not really notice that is not as bright as in my normal seat. Your eyes adjust to the dimmer image.. nothing else changes..

OH, maybe you are thinking the image on the sides is not evenly lit? That is not the case, the image is just not as bright but complete even.


----------



## nehemiah1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rana_kirti* /forum/post/19855155
> 
> 
> anyone know whether the high power is manufactured in usa or china ?



Our Dalite High Power was manufactured in the good old USA (Warsaw, IN).


Buying well-made American products when possible (for quality mainly, not just patriotic reasons) has been a good policy. I had a more difficult time with speakers/subwoofers as most what I can find are from China (even small company products). So I've bought SVS, manufactured in Ohio -- I've been very happy with the performance.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *movieguy2001* /forum/post/19859256
> 
> 
> If I put an offset of 65 inches for the outside seating my gains go to 1.36 1.48 1.79 across the screen. I would think that this variance across the screen would be distracting to the viewer in these seats.



Don't worry. The human eye/brain is very tolerant of non-uniform brightness as long as the change is gradual, which it is. You won't be able to detect the brightness non-uniformity unless it exceeds about 2:1, and you are nowhere near that.


As to overall brightness, you could have an issue with 3D if that's an interest, but I think 2D probably will be fine.


----------



## rana_kirti

Hi friends,


I live in india and i'm ordering a HP from my dealer who said he's gonna order it from da-lite. The delivery time is 45 days by sea and 10 by air ( extra charges ) both with 100% advance payment.


1. I wanted to know what things can i make sure so that i get a perfect screen so that i don't have to go through the process of exchange etc because as you all can see that will be quite a hassle if required...


2. I see that dalite website mentions that that the HP will be seamless uptp 6' high. I'm planning to get a 110" ( i'e 54" = 4.5" ) so i should expect the 110" screen to be seamless right ?


3. So what steps can i take at the ordering process and what instructions can i give my dealer which he can give to da-lite so that we can be extra sure that the screen that is sent out is free from defects etc....


4. What tips would you guys suggest...?


Thanks


----------



## airscapes

Pray to the God of your choice?


----------



## movieguy2001




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/19861171
> 
> 
> Don't worry. The human eye/brain is very tolerant of non-uniform brightness as long as the change is gradual, which it is. You won't be able to detect the brightness non-uniformity unless it exceeds about 2:1, and you are nowhere near that.
> 
> 
> As to overall brightness, you could have an issue with 3D if that's an interest, but I think 2D probably will be fine.



Thank you. That is what I was concerned about. The shift in gain across the screen from the side seats. This should work well then. For 3D, I am assuming most of the content will be 16:9 for awhile and my 16:9 image is only 115" diagonal so I should get decent light output at that size.


----------



## jholzbauer

This thread is great, guys... thanks for all the information. Honestly, I wasn't even thinking about a HP screen until starting to read through this and now I am almost convinced.


Most of this thread deals with the Da-Lite screen material. I was somewhat interested in Focupix because of the low (maybe too low?) cost. Has anyone compared Da-Lite's material to theirs to compare video quality? Has anyone been able to get values from them to plug into FL Boy's calculator to determine off axis gain?


Thanks-if the recommendations are mainly against Focupix I may save some $ by just getting a Da-Lite pull down instead of electric.


----------



## coderguy

All the praises are DEFINITELY valid, I had my doubts at first, but it's definitely the screen to get if your budget is not in the thousands, and even then it may be worth a look or subjective.


Get the HP, I just got it after years and years of fence sitting. I am an idiot for not buying it sooner.


My only concern originally was the HP would look less film-like because of the high gain, boy that isn't true at all. Compared to every other screen I've used (cheap ones mostly), it is unbelievable how much better the HP looks. It's sharper, there is no sheen, it is true that the screen is invisible. That last point of the screen being invisible causes a much more FILM-LIKE experience, much much more.


I've used several cheap screens (some tripods, some Elite pulldowns, etc...).

Even if the HP was double the price, it would be a deal.


Let me explain, the Elite 84" I owned never looked right, it seemed to add a random texture to the screen causing text to look blurry. I thought maybe it was just my projector's optics aging, no it wasn't, it was the screen. I also have a light brown / almost yellow wall where the projectr points, so I couldn't project onto a wall. The 84" Elite looked worse than a wall. Elite owners, keep in mind I have a very cheap ELITE screen that is 4 years old, new Elite models or more expensive ones probably look far better.


The HP is AMAZING, it is clear, bright, and FILM LIKE. I'd say it increased the quality of the image I was viewing compared to the ELITE screen by almost double, at least 50%. I don't mean brightness, I mean sharpness and colors, but yah I did have a bad screen before.


It gave a HUGE HUGE boost to my Ansi contrast because of my white ceiling and white wall on one side. Everything looks more POP / 3D / but also more Film like now.


Yes, the 2.8 gain is brighter, but I really really doubt it can look any better other than the gain itself.

With this screen, it pushed my Z5 into the maximum capabilties of what the projector could do (And although not as good as the newer projectors), it did EXACTLY what I hoped, it gave my Z5 new life, clarity, and contrast.


Forget the black level crud some people post, if you have an HP in a dark room, you can lower black levels just as they were once the lamp ages (I mean think of it this way, your lamps will even last longer).


There is actually a HIGHER chance of the HP improving your perceived black levels in many rooms, because of contrast and the smoothness of the screen it actually accenuates and contrasts the dark scenes out better. I found the blacks on the HP far far better looking than projecting onto a white wall or the Elite screen I used before.


It's amazing how a screen with this much gain actually has fewer artifiacts and screen visibility than a cheap white matte screen, lol.


OH and HTPC text looks so much better now because 1) i got a bigger for cheap. 2) The gain helps text differentiate, 3) The texture on the HP does not affect sharpness of text (unlike just about every other sub-$300 screen I've seen)


SDE = Highly reduced by the HP, my white matte screen increased SDE, the HP texture seems to blend with 720p in a way that not only increases sharpness but also makes SDE on skin textures nearly invisible even if making the SDE on text more visible (only because this screen is sharper than my other one which blurred text), it's so weird how a single screen can improve all this stuff (of course remember my previous screen was pretty bad - $60 84" Elite screen).


However, the HP is brilliant, I can't praise it enough.


I would have maybe wanted it a tad brighter than 2.4 (probably 2.8 would have been better for brightness), but keep in mind, I'm using a Sanyo Z5 with a 3000+ hour lamp, my replace lamp light is on, and the Z5 is already known to be a DIM projector even with a new lamp, and I'm using a dog old lamp.


On a regular white matte screen, it was barely bright enough with a new lamp on a 80-100" screen, with the HP the 106" screen is brighter than the 84" even when the 84" had a near new lamp.


I will still be getting a new projector eventually, but this holds me off for a while, and few projectors are as DIM as a Z5 with 3000 hours on the bulb, so this thing is definitely plenty plenty bright even without the 2.8 gain characteristic, ESPECIALLY for newer projectors (most being 2x-3x brighter than my Z5). There is no way, and I mean no way I could have even used a 106" screen with my Z5's current lamp if it was not for the HP's increased gain.


Oh, and one last benefit, with the increased brightness I was able to get more accurate colors by reducing the Z5's yellow and red push in Dynamic mode without sacrificing too much brightnesss. I never was able to get dynamic mode / high brightnes mode looking right on my Z5 until I got the HP, even when I had a new lamp.


ALSO - brightness uniformity is excellent and a non-issue, when watching a couple movies not once did I see any non-uniform brightness, you'd have to sway back and forth pretty far and intentionally to see any change in brightness (suddle movements don't cause problems).



Hope this helps...


----------



## newfmp3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coderguy* /forum/post/19869958
> 
> 
> All the praises are DEFINITELY valid...



So I guess you like it huh?


Mine is sitting on the floor of my office right now. Going up tonight I hope.


----------



## deimh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/19840939
> 
> 
> The setup values for the 2.4 HP are in post #2 of the Screen Gain Calc thread.
> 
> 
> BTW, when I was in school we also used slide rules.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to see the effect of changing the height of the projector, just leave all the other values of the calculator constant, and change only the projector height. The Excel will recalculate every time you enter a new value for the projector height (or any other input value for that matter). That way you can see what happens to the screen gain as you change your projector height. Easy peasy! No need to be afraid. Just experiment!





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *newfmp3* /forum/post/19841522
> 
> 
> No problem. We just got our first snow fall so I had to run out and snow blow drive way...yuck
> 
> 
> Here are the parameters for the new 2.4 gain HP screen.
> 
> 
> SCREEN NAME: DA-LITE HIGH POWER (NEW)
> 
> 
> SCREEN TYPE: RETRO REFLECTIVE
> 
> 
> ON-AXIS GAIN: 2.4
> 
> 
> MAX VIEWING ANGLE (ONE SIDE): 30 DEGREES (AT ONE-HALF THE ON-AXIS GAIN)*
> 
> 
> GAIN AT MAX VIEWING ANGLE: 1.2
> 
> 
> MIN OFF AXIS GAIN: 0.9



Guys, many thanks for your help here!


I'm slowly getting to grips with what is what


----------



## rana_kirti

Guys i need some honest and expert opinions on this....


Here's my situation... Ever since i read about HP i'm trying hard to find ways to make it happen in my living hall.



1. Table mounting is not a option as it's very inconvinent to install the projector time and time again to watch a movie.

2. Shelf mounting behind the back is also not a option because of room design/other restrictions.

3. My ceiling is 9'5" = 113 inches.

4. I can't find a telescopic mount which can remain up at ceiling and come down near to eye level when in use in order to get max gain of HP's retro reflective nature.

5. I found was a adjustable column which had 3'-5' extension but keeping it at 3 feet level from ceiling means its 6 feet from ground and it's has the in-convinience of people walking into it all the time. More-over everytime it has to be brought down to 5 feet extension down you have to unscrew and re screw the adjustable column. Just not practical.


So for me the best available solution is to keep the projector lens at a steady height of 84" high from the bottom of the floor ie 29" from the ceiling towards the ground in my 113 inches high celing.


Now's the intresting and important part...


After putting in my required values in FLboy's Screen Gain Calculator as follows....


BASIC SETUP (Change the green values as needed to fit your situation.)

What is the type of screen? Specify A for angular reflective or R for retro reflective. (Do not guess at this parameter--it makes a huge difference!) R

What is the manufacturer-published on-axis centerscreen gain of your screen? *2.40*

What is the published maximum viewing angle (to one side in degrees off-axis)? 30

What is the centerscreen gain at the published maximum viewing angle? (Don't guess at this either. Consult manufacturer if necessary) *1.20*

What is the minimum gain of your screen at large off-axis angles, e.g., *60* degrees? (OK, you may guess here, but make it


----------



## airscapes

If the price of Matte white is less than that of the HP, meaning a budget screen, I would get the HP. If the price is more than that of the HP meaning very expensive, then I would get the HP. This gives you the option to move the projector in the future which will give you a visual upgrade for free. The HP is not that expensive in a manual pull down.. not sure what you wanted to buy.. You have read the requirements, you understand the limitations, go for it!


There are free standing lifts that will raise your projector from a lower lever to a higher level. There is a guy in the Dedicated Home Theater forum that has one and it looks very cool. I saw this last year so it may take a bit of work to find it but it may be worth your while. His projector came up from behind his seating when in use.


Did not find the thread with the lift but did find a picture of it in this thread
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...projector+lift


----------



## henrich3

Quote:

Originally Posted by *rana_kirti* 
So now the most important set of questions....

1. Is getting a Gain of 1.80 in my situation still Worth getting the HP ?

2. My other option is Matt White with 1.0 gain. Will the HP with 1.80 Gain still be better than the 1.0 Gain of the Matt White ?

3. Should i get the HP or Matt White ?

4. Although i can only utilize 1.80 of the 2.40 available from the HP will 1.80 still be a great experience over 1.0 of Matt White ?
Will the 1.8 gain that you can get from an HP yield a noticeable improvement over a matte white? Yes! An 80% increase in gain is quite obvious. Order samples of the HP and a matte white and compare for yourself. The image on a matte white will appear drab next to the HP. When you see the difference with your own eyes the numbers from FLBoy's gain calculator will make more sense.


----------



## coderguy

This screen kicks some serious...

Owned 3 cheap screens before, replacing all with HP's, other screens going in the trash.


----------



## newfmp3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coderguy* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> This screen kicks some serious...
> 
> Owned 3 cheap screens before, replacing all with HP's, other screens going in the trash.



Can not say I am impressed yet. It's bright yup, viewing angle seems to be a non issue, color uniformity great, no hot spotting, but my blacks have increased too much. I was expecting this some., need to recalibrate everything and then decide. When I started the process of ordering this screen I had a 4805. Now I have a 8350 since the 4805 started acting up after deciding to get the hp. The 8350's blacks are not as good as the old 4805 dlp to start with, add in brighter screen...well, I need to play with it more before deciding.


----------



## coderguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *newfmp3* /forum/post/19878582
> 
> 
> Can not say I am impressed yet. It's bright yup, viewing angle seems to be a non issue, color uniformity great, no hot spotting, but my blacks have increased too much. I was expecting this some., need to recalibrate everything and then decide. When I started the process of ordering this screen I had a 4805. Now I have a 8350 since the 4805 started acting up after deciding to get the hp. The 8350's blacks are not as good as the old 4805 dlp to start with, add in brighter screen...well, I need to play with it more before deciding.



If your using a brand new 8350, yah you are looking at a massively pumped up image with too much brightness and contrast. You need to crank everything way down.


The black levels are relative to the lamp brightness relative to the IRIS's and lamp mode. If you can't crank it down enough, simple solution, move the projector off-axis temporarily unless it's mounted.


For instance, if with the HP you have to close all the IRIS's completely down and lower the brightness to where your FL acheivment is within recommended spec (or how you prefer), then that is a problem and requires a filter (But I would seriously doubt this situation would last long).


Remember, it's ALL relative, the extra brightness won't hurt you unless your above a certain FL and just can't get below that point in which you need to take additional steps temporarily until your lamp fades down a bit.


Now if you were in a 100% bat cave with black walls, then another screen may fair better than the HP for black levels only compared to a gray screen or something similar. If this is the case and all you wanted was better black levels in a completely dark room, then I don't know why you bought the HP when pairing with one of the brightest PJ's that exist. Although again, these problems are not problems to me, simply move the projector or install a filter, reduce all settings, or whatever. I mean of course the image is terribly bright on this PJ on this screen with a new lamp using god knows what settings you have.


----------



## dragonbud0

Well, I've gone thru a lot of projectors, but my screen is a Da-Lite HCCV 92" with a DIY frame, very crude. I might know a bit about PJs, but absolutely not handy at all. My light weight screen now is hanging off 3 10-pound picture frame hangers.


After 9 years, I'm finally going to upgrade and pick up a used Model B HP 106" for My PJ. Based on specs, the B is suppose to be about 25 pounds, unlike the 50 pounds Model C (would have been my 1st choice).


Someone suggested to screw to the wall studs a 9-ft 2x2 (painted white to match my wall). Is this an overkill for a model B (he has the C)? What kind of brackets or hooks should I screw onto the 2x2 to hang the screen?


Thanks a bunch. BTW, it's not likely that I will move onto a Model C.


----------



## coderguy

Yah it's overkill for drywall unless you have kids that might hang from it and rip it down. You have 2 choices, go into a stud or use a sheetrock anchor.

Home depot makes a 77 pound rated anchor screw for $7 for a pack of like 8 or something and it comes with the drill bit to make the hole. Assuming all home depots carry these same ones, the anchors you want will look like a regular fairly long screw + a regular plastic anchor (don't buy the ones with the funny looking spider legs at the end, these are a pain to do depending on sheetrock depths). The anchors come with the screws and the drill bit all as one package.


You only need 1 of these screws on each side (2 screws total). Two of these can theoretically hold 154 pounds, no obviously I wouldn't trust it probably to hold more than 30-40, but it sure as heck can easily hold 25lbs if mounting to the wall and not the ceiling of course, unless you have kids that might hang from the screen or something. Mounting the screen to the ceiling is a different story.


First make sure you have a drill, second drill the first hole into a non-stud part (you may need a stud finder to make sure) and use the drill bit that came in the package to make this first hole. If there is a stud there, so be it, it probably won't matter, although a metal stud may break your bit.


BE VERY CAREFUL to make the hole only EXACTLY as wide as the drill bit is, do not let the drill bit wiggle and loosen the sheet rock, if you do this, you'll need to mount it in a different way or a different hole. However, it is ok if the drill wiggles a tiny bit when you are starting the hole, just don't let it wiggle as the hole is being completed. You really need a fairly decent drill to ensure you get a clean hole that matches the size of the drill-bit, if you use a $10 screwdriver as a drill, chances are you will wiggle the hole and it will get too wide for the anchor to secure itself.


Second, stick the plastic anchor into the hole and screw the screw into the anchor. Don't screw the screw all the way in, because then the projector screen wont rest securely, leave a little bit of the screw sticking out (but not much).


Now mount the left side of the projector screen by sticking the hole for the projector screen over the screw. Also make sure you feel the screen hole lock onto the screw (and not just sit there on top), you'll know what I mean when you do it.


Next using 2 people, drag the right side of the screen up as the left side is already mounted, and using a LEVEL (a fairly big one) make damn sure the screen is level, then after the LEVEL shows a good reading, using a pencil mark a spot through the right hole of the projector screen where it mounts. Drill the second hole, place plastic anchor, insert screw, hang right side, done ---- perfectly invisible and secured mounting (as long as no kids around).


You are going to need 2 people for the part where you mount the right side, unless your real strong and can hold the screen with one arm for a while whle reading the LEVEL and marking with a pencil, that is until you get it perfectly level.


----------



## coderguy

Updated my instructions for you, better re-read to make sure. Thx...


----------



## dragonbud0

So sounds like this:


1. Avoid the studs

2. Drill hole with drill bit from supply

3. Screw one plastic anchor in

4. Screw a long screw into the anchor

5. Hang screen on one side

6. Mark the next hole with pencil to ensure leveling with a long leveler

7. Repeat 2-5.


Now if I do hit a stud, then I guess I would not need the plastic anchor on one of the holes?


Thx.

Thanks.


----------



## dragonbud0

BTW, I went to HD web site, I could not find the described anchor screws; maybe in store only


----------



## dragonbud0

I found these for Da-lite screens; looks like I need to screw them in w/ some kind of screw anchors since none was provided:

http://www.amazon.com/Wall-Bracket-W.../ref=de_a_smtd 


Allowing up to 6 inches from the wall.


----------



## coderguy

You don't need that unless you just want to mount the screen in front of the wall.

Regular anchor screws with a high weight rating protruding 1/4" to 1/2" is all you need, also some of the weight of the screen will be taken off the screws because it pushes back against the wall. In this configuration, everything works nicely.


----------



## vmanju123

Hi Tryg


Thanks for a very good review of high power screens,

I am planning to buy a screen for my HT setup, I have a living room which i want to use for HT Setup which is 15ftX20ft, the screen will on the 15 ft wall, the cieling height is 14ft, My throw distance will be 19ft from screen.

My plan is to use angular reflective method since i have provisioned cabling for that already. I have quotes from Dalite high power and Draper screens and dalite seems to be on expensive side and i am considering qoute from draper. Draper has a 133" Diag 16:9 High power screen - Glass beaded material(Gain 2.6) manual pull down screen -Luma 2 series, which is what i am considering. Draper doesnot say whether it is microbeaded or not neither i have any review of this screen so far to determine its quality, but since draper is already in this business for many years i tend to assume, it should be good, Do you have any idea of this draper screen ?

I have seen in Dalite, Draper and many other websites where they have mentioned that there is certain amount of image clarity loss in high power screens, can you provide your thoughts on this ?, also the quality loss increases with viewing angle, in my setup above could you please suggest if there will be a quality loss ?, i can go for retro - relective method also but that will call for projector to be in rear center of the wall and cabling to pop out of the wall which i want to avoid as much as possible,


thanks for your guidance in advance

MV


----------



## Tryg

There is no substitute that I'm aware of for the High Power.


Set up properly, there is no better image.


----------



## dragonbud0

coderguy,


Thanks. Saves me about $25.


----------



## mntwister

Can someone please help? I have found a HP 78 x 139" manual pulldown HP screen with 2.8 gain (159" diag) still in stock (no more 2.8 are being made). I was told by DaLite that the 2.8 version had a seam, but the new 2.4 gain does not. Does anyone else have the 159" model C with 2.8 gain? I am wondering now noticeable the seam is and where it is.


I am using a JVC RS-50 3D projector that sits directly behind the seating straight back from the center of the screen on a dresser, from what I heard this is the best situation for a HP screen, is this correct?


Right now I am using an Elite MaxWhite 1.1 gain, how much difference will I notice? Is it worth spending $750 for an upgrade?


Thank you.


----------



## airscapes

Is 12 Noon brighter than 12 Midnight? $750 seems like a drop in the bucket when compared to the price of an RS50..Even if you don't like it (not likely), you will have one big piece of 2.8 which I would venture you could resell without the case to someone looking to do a BIG DIY fixed frame. Plug then numbers into FLboys screen gain calculator and see what your gain will be.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=966057


----------



## mntwister




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mntwister* /forum/post/19886354
> 
> 
> Can someone please help? I have found a HP 78 x 139" manual pulldown HP screen with 2.8 gain (159" diag) still in stock (no more 2.8 are being made). I was told by DaLite that the 2.8 version had a seam, but the new 2.4 gain does not. Does anyone else have the 159" model C with 2.8 gain? I am wondering now noticeable the seam is and where it is.
> 
> 
> I am using a JVC RS-50 3D projector that sits directly behind the seating straight back from the center of the screen on a dresser, from what I heard this is the best situation for a HP screen, is this correct?
> 
> 
> Right now I am using an Elite MaxWhite 1.1 gain, how much difference will I notice? Is it worth spending $750 for an upgrade?
> 
> 
> Thank you.




That is basically what I have read, my only question now is whether to get the 2.4 or 2.8 gain. The question left is that DaLite told me there used to be a seam on the 159" 2.8 gain, and I was wondering if anyone has one of these that has a seam to see how noticeable (if so) it is. Otherwise I am ready to place the order for one of them, either the 2.4 or 2.8.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mntwister* /forum/post/19887426
> 
> 
> That is basically what I have read, my only question now is whether to get the 2.4 or 2.8 gain. The question left is that DaLite told me there used to be a seam on the 159" 2.8 gain, and I was wondering if anyone has one of these that has a seam to see how noticeable (if so) it is. Otherwise I am ready to place the order for one of them, either the 2.4 or 2.8.



No clue on the seam.. and not sure I have ever heard anyone speak of such a large screen. Do a search for 159 in this thread and see what you find.. looks like from the quick glance at the list returned, 159" screens have not been made for some time.. just gota wonder if you are getting good data on the size. There does seem to be people who say they have that size, so maybe PM or email if they list an email in their profile to ask them directly.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mntwister* /forum/post/19887426
> 
> 
> That is basically what I have read, my only question now is whether to get the 2.4 or 2.8 gain. The question left is that DaLite told me there used to be a seam on the 159" 2.8 gain, and I was wondering if anyone has one of these that has a seam to see how noticeable (if so) it is. Otherwise I am ready to place the order for one of them, either the 2.4 or 2.8.



Easy decision. They don't make the 2.8 anymore.


----------



## mntwister




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/19887552
> 
> 
> Easy decision. They don't make the 2.8 anymore.



I have found one to be available to me in 2.8


----------



## GoCaboNow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/19885080
> 
> 
> Set up properly, there is no better image.



Can someone do a search to see how often Tryg says this? I think it is an automated response in this thread.


----------



## Tryg

It is now automated.

STATISTICS


# of times Tryg has said in a PM "Read the review. The information you are asking about is contained in the review"


478 times


# of times Tryg has said in a PM or this thread "Set up properly, there is no better image".


1265 times


# of times Tryg has said in PM "buy the damn screen"


2498 times


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/19888357
> 
> 
> It is now automated.
> 
> STATISTICS
> 
> 
> # of times Tryg has said in a PM "Read the review. The information you are asking about is contained in the review"
> 
> 
> 478 times
> 
> 
> # of times Tryg has said in a PM or this thread "Set up properly, there is no better image".
> 
> 
> 1265 times
> 
> 
> # of times Tryg has said in PM "buy the damn screen"
> 
> 
> 2498 times



Fanboy.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/19888450
> 
> 
> Fanboy.



Yes, but is he wrong? I think that's the important question. Nothing wrong with fanboys imparting good information.


----------



## coderguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/19888808
> 
> 
> Yes, but is he wrong? I think that's the important question. Nothing wrong with fanboys imparting good information.



No, he isn't wrong, for the price it's the best screen in almost all situations (almost all). Sure you can get better screens for particular situations where you have a complete bat-cave with a very bright projector, but at what cost?


Maybe 5x the cost of the HP screen, depends which HP screen you get too to compare the cost with (model b, CSR or no CSR, model c, fixed, manual, electric, etc...). Model B with NO CSR with a black case and manual pull down looks fine to me. Looks great actually.


For a 106" HP Model B High Power manual 2.4 gain, you can get this for around $250. Show me a screen anywhere near this good for anywhere near that price.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coderguy* /forum/post/19889086
> 
> 
> No, he isn't wrong, for the price it's the best screen in almost all situations (almost all). Sure you can get better screens for particular situations where you have a complete bat-cave with a very bright projector, but at what cost?
> 
> 
> Maybe 5x the cost of the HP screen, depends which HP screen you get too to compare the cost with (model b, CSR or no CSR, model c, fixed, manual, electric, etc...). Model B with NO CSR with a black case and manual pull down looks fine to me. Looks great actually.
> 
> 
> For a 106" HP Model B High Power manual 2.4 gain, you can get this for around $250. Show me a screen anywhere near this good for anywhere near that price.



You put it well. This is exactly my point. I need an AT screen in my situation. Otherwise I'd have one of these for sure.


----------



## R Harkness

This "HP is the best screen" stuff is over the top. (Yes, I own one). It's really silly to say it without really specific qualification.


It all depends on one's room, criteria etc.


I had a Carada BW and an HP High Power, same size. One wasn't "better" than the other. They each had strong and weaker points and it was hard to choose between them (although I ended up with neither, both were excellent).


----------



## coderguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/19889186
> 
> 
> This "HP is the best screen" stuff is over the top. (Yes, I own one). It's really silly to say it without really specific qualification.
> 
> 
> It all depends on one's room, criteria etc.
> 
> 
> I had a Carada BW and an HP High Power, same size. One wasn't "better" than the other. They each had strong and weaker points and it was hard to choose between them (although I ended up with neither, both were excellent).



We said for cost and depending on the room. I don't think anyone said otherwise, but given cost and all other factors, saying it is the best screen isn't far from the truth.


----------



## DrMark

All,


I found a problem with using the "All Screen Gain" calculator to compute the gain of the Da-Lite high-power screen material. After exchanging PMs with the original spreadsheets author (FLBoy), I developed and posted a high-power (2.4 and 2.8 gain) only spreadsheet that should much more accurately match the published data for this material.


I posted the info about this new calculator here .


--Mark


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/19888808
> 
> 
> Yes, but is he wrong? I think that's the important question. Nothing wrong with fanboys imparting good information.



Preachin' to the choir.










I just got a call tonight from a friend I had over on Saturday for a 3D demo. He just wanted to say how much he enjoyed it. I attribute much of the success of the demonstration to the HP 2.8, which gave the 3D the extra brightness it needed to really "pop." The HP is the perfect screen for 3D, for the same reasons it's always been a great screen for people who want or need extra brightness.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coderguy* /forum/post/19889226
> 
> 
> We said for cost and depending on the room. I don't think anyone said otherwise,



!

!

!

V



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/19885080
> 
> 
> There is no substitute that I'm aware of for the High Power.
> 
> 
> Set up properly, there is no better image.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coderguy* /forum/post/19889226
> 
> 
> but given cost and all other factors, saying it is the best screen isn't far from the truth.



"Best" meaning what?


I don't know how you can say that given that an image is a combination of the projector, the screen type, room interactions, personal criteria, and the specific goals of any particular system.


Some might say the very expensive new Stewart ST-100 screen, an almost perfect Lambertian diffuser with purportedly the lowest visible screen artifacting available is the "best" screen available. But of course it could easily look like crap in many rooms, compared with much cheaper screens.


It just doesn't make much sense, given the variety of issues involved, to be proclaiming "best" screens, is all I'm sayin'.


----------



## nirvy111

I bought a 160" HP model c pull down around the time that the 2.4 gain version was starting to sell and although I requested the 2.8 gain fabric I was never sure what I actually got. What it has is a seam(join) at exactly 6 feet from the bottom so that would make it the 2.8 version would it not?


----------



## coderguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by *R Harkness* 
!

!

!

V


"Best" meaning what?
OK, but I think it's inherent and obvious to what he means. It's not like people don't read the many pages in this thread and see all viewpoints. I mean no worries here.


----------



## Acta7




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/19889579
> 
> 
> !
> 
> 
> 
> "Best" meaning what?



If you're ok with the setup conditions, how would you call a screen that more then double your vpr lumens without artifacts ? more lumens, isn't that what everyone is asking for by new projectors ?


----------



## GoCaboNow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/19888357
> 
> 
> It is now automated.
> 
> STATISTICS
> 
> 
> # of times Tryg has said in a PM "Read the review. The information you are asking about is contained in the review"
> 
> 
> 478 times
> 
> 
> # of times Tryg has said in a PM or this thread "Set up properly, there is no better image".
> 
> 
> 1265 times
> 
> 
> # of times Tryg has said in PM "buy the damn screen"
> 
> 
> 2498 times



Right on!


----------



## mntwister




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nirvy111* /forum/post/19889631
> 
> 
> I bought a 160" HP model c pull down around the time that the 2.4 gain version was starting to sell and although I requested the 2.8 gain fabric I was never sure what I actually got. What it has is a seam(join) at exactly 6 feet from the bottom so that would make it the 2.8 version would it not?



Yes, you have a 2.8, when I talked to DaLite they told me that the 2.8 models that are 159" at 2.8 gain had a seam and the 2.4 do not. So yours is certainly 2.8.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Acta7* /forum/post/19891156
> 
> 
> If you're ok with the setup conditions, how would you call a screen that more then double your vpr lumens without artifacts ? more lumens, isn't that what everyone is asking for by new projectors ?



I had excellent set up conditions with my HP screen, full light control, having the projector almost right at head height to get the full lumens etc. I found the viewing angle so restrictive that I could notice brightness changes on the screen even when I simply shifted in my chair. Most people don't notice...but I do. So even in great set up conditions I had issues with this screen.


But aside from that as to the brightness: It depends on individual criteria and the projector used. With my first projector (older Panasonic) I found the rise in black levels unacceptable. Bright scenes looked really good, many dark scenes looked like crap (washed out due to very grayish "blacks"). A neutral gain screen tended to reverse this issue: Bright scenes looked good, but not as spectacular as the HP, but dark scenes looked much more solid and convincing. So...no easy win for the HP.


Pure brightness is not on everyone's priority list. Take a projector like the JVC on which you can choose your own brightness setting (by adjusting the iris settings to let more or less light out). Note that people who own the JVC projector, and with a variety of different screens, often don't have the adjustable iris opened fully. They are more comfortable with a lower brightness. So brighter doesn't automatically mean "better" to everyone.


BTW, funny thing: A friend of mine who has a projection set up uses and HP screen. He's not a "videophile" at all. He simply did a bit of research on AVS before buying, saw people kept raving about this "HP" screen and bought one. When I went to check out the HP screen at his place I noticed his projector was ceiling mounted. I pointed out how that failed to take advantage of the HP's screen gain and that he was losing significant brightness from the viewing position. He was unaware of this. I said stand up and look how much brighter the image is, since that puts your head closer to the height of the projector. He did so and went "wow...you're right! I never noticed!" But after a while of testing standing vs sitting he said he actually preferred the darker image from the seated position. He felt the brighter image looked more washed out, especially in the space scenes of the Star Wars we were watching.


Which is just to reiterate: an increase in brightness does not automatically equate to "better" in every situation, for every person.


Also, most projectors don't have a user adjustable iris so making everything brighter will mean choosing between more convincing bright scenes vs more convincing darker scenes (generally speaking).


Now, I personally do enjoy a pretty bright image so I do like that aspect of the HP screens. I've raved numerous times about how amazing many movie images can look on the HP screen. Brightness tends to increase the perception of sharpness and dimensionality (in bright and "mixed" brightness scenes). I'm intrigued by the newer 2.4 gain material somewhat...wondering if it reduces the viewing angle issue enough for my comfort (probably not, but one can hope). But there are also "wows" to be had by the effects of darker screens as well (I love deep black levels), which of course come with their own set of issues.


So..it's never that simple.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/19892480
> 
> 
> So..it's never that simple.



Honestly, I do understand your point. But heaven forbid they ever try to dump 4,000 lumen projectors (with current cr performance) on us unsuspecting slobs. That would NEVER do! Washed out images... yuck! My point... well... everyone knows my point. But I get yours too.


----------



## coderguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/19892480
> 
> 
> Which is just to reiterate: an increase in brightness does not automatically equate to "better" in every situation, for every person.



The biggest issue for most of us is we don't want to waste so much money on the screen, so for those of us paying around $250 to $300, how are we possibly going to find a screen besides the HP? The only ones I know about are the off-brands and the Elites, and I haven't been impressed so far even if you have the other issues of the HP.


For people spending more than this on a screen ($500+), then I'd hope they'd do their research. It's not our fault if someone sees a few posts and makes a rash decision without reading all the material.


There are plenty of posts about the viewing angle on the HP and other potential issues, so I still don't see the problem with people praising the screen.


And... with most setups and projectors the brightness can be reduced plenty enough to compensate for the HP increase. The only problem with the HP is sometimes getting to a best mode because of the added brightness, but this should not happen in most peoples setups. Brightness is relative and so are black levels. A huge number of people in here have white ceilings, and in that case the HP should improve not reduce black levels.


Of course ceiling mounting can be an issue with the HP, but our point is the price. We're getting an HP for sub $300, I mean come on.


----------



## newfmp3

R.Harkness is pretty much on the money. Last time around, I made my setup dedicated to a best black and brightness compromise I could find. This time around, I tend to use the PJ with the lights on more lately, long story, but I wanted brighter.


I tend to like an image with deep dark blacks....why I love plasma's over lcd. To me, blacks make the image.


But, I also hate a dim image and wanted "room to move" with dimming bulbs and with lights on.


It's a balancing act for sure.


Get two screens! Grey screen and a HP


----------



## airscapes

So what is the issues with the HP we are all up in arms writing 6 paragraph post about??? There are 109 pages of info on this screen in this thread alone. Every screen is a compromise of one kind or another.. that is stated more than a few times in Tryg's reviews.. If people do not read the first post and understand the caveats then shame on them.. it has all been spelled out in black and white over and over. If you like inky blacks this may not be for your.. why would you buy the screen after this has been talked about hundreds of times? If you have a wide seating area or bounce around like a Mexican jumping bean while gaming, this is not the screen for you.. it has all be said..

And yes there are hundreds of raving fans that just love their HP and have upgraded to bigger screens only to rebuy the HP.. they can not all be wrong.. can they?


Now could someone answer the question mntwister asked about

"What does the seam look like on the 159" HP"


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *newfmp3* /forum/post/19892705
> 
> 
> R.Harkness is pretty much on the money. Last time around, I made my setup dedicated to a best black and brightness compromise I could find. This time around, I tend to use the PJ with the lights on more lately, long story, but I wanted brighter.
> 
> 
> I tend to like an image with deep dark blacks....why I love plasma's over lcd. To me, blacks make the image.
> 
> 
> But, I also hate a dim image and wanted "room to move" with dimming bulbs and with lights on.
> 
> 
> It's a balancing act for sure.
> 
> 
> Get two screens! Grey screen and a HP



Every room/person/situation is different, but for me and my room/situation, this screen is pretty much ideal in my setup. Having a projector with a 16 step iris makes the HP a VERY attractive option since you can customize brightness to your tastes pretty much. I am using the zoom method going between a 94" 1.78 image and ~126" 1.78 thrown image to fill my 2.35 screen. One thing I LOVE about the HP is that with my smaller 1.78 image, I have my projector at max throw and iris all the way down at -15 which gives me MAX contrast out of my JVC RS40, but least light output. Because of the great HP gain, the image is punchy and bright while getting the max on/off contrast out of my projector............I would not be able to do this with my ST130 as the image would be too dim for my tastes. For my bigger 2.35 image, I can just open the iris up about 6 clicks and get subjectively similar brightness to my smaller image.........in both setups, I have a LOT of room to grow as far as bulb aging.........AWESOME!


----------



## GoCaboNow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/19892875
> 
> 
> I have a LOT of room to grow as far as bulb aging.........AWESOME!



That's the big thing for me as well. Peace of mind. My scope image is based off a 133" diag 16x9 screen. About 52.5 sq feet of screen to light up. I started off at the lowest iris as well on my RS10 and very happy with the punch, and blacks, in my PQ. Two years later and my bulb is over 1000 hours and I am at middle iris with plenty of headroom still. Plus for two years I have had zero concern about wear on the bulb and dimming, as I knew I had this headroom. When LED's hit 900+ lumens, calibrated and in my budget, then I could see a better screen for my set up in an AT screen. That is still a few years down the road. But then if you consider 3d there is always a need.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GoCaboNow* /forum/post/19893727
> 
> 
> That's the big thing for me as well. Peace of mind. My scope image is based off a 133" diag 16x9 screen. About 52.5 sq feet of screen to light up. I started off at the lowest iris as well on my RS10 and very happy with the punch, and blacks, in my PQ. Two years later and my bulb is over 1000 hours and I am at middle iris with plenty of headroom still. Plus for two years I have had zero concern about wear on the bulb and dimming, as I knew I had this headroom. When LED's hit 900+ lumens, calibrated and in my budget, then I could see a better screen for my set up in an AT screen. That is still a few years down the road. But then if you consider 3d there is always a need.



I agree. When I first went to CIH with my 130, my RS1 had ~1800 hours on the bulb and while the image was bright enough for 2.35/40, I would have liked more lumens...........now with the HP, that wont be an issue










Was just checking out your HT and WOW!







Nice work! I love how your 1.78 and 2.35/40 image have similar screen area. Very well done!


----------



## GoCaboNow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/19894039
> 
> 
> I agree. When I first went to CIH with my 130, my RS1 had ~1800 hours on the bulb and while the image was bright enough for 2.35/40, I would have liked more lumens...........now with the HP, that wont be an issue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was just checking out your HT and WOW!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice work! I love how your 1.78 and 2.35/40 image have similar screen area. Very well done!



Thanks!


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/19892875
> 
> 
> Every room/person/situation is different, but for me and my room/situation, this screen is pretty much ideal in my setup. Having a projector with a 16 step iris makes the HP a VERY attractive option since you can customize brightness to your tastes pretty much. I am using the zoom method going between a 94" 1.78 image and ~126" 1.78 thrown image to fill my 2.35 screen. One thing I LOVE about the HP is that with my smaller 1.78 image, I have my projector at max throw and iris all the way down at -15 which gives me MAX contrast out of my JVC RS40, but least light output. Because of the great HP gain, the image is punchy and bright while getting the max on/off contrast out of my projector............I would not be able to do this with my ST130 as the image would be too dim for my tastes. For my bigger 2.35 image, I can just open the iris up about 6 clicks and get subjectively similar brightness to my smaller image.........in both setups, I have a LOT of room to grow as far as bulb aging.........AWESOME!



That's a HUGE plus for the HP screen with a JVC projector, and it's one of the reasons why I was so interested in the HP screen.


----------



## Acta7




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/19892480
> 
> 
> 
> Pure brightness is not on everyone's priority list. Take a projector like the JVC on which you can choose your own brightness setting (by adjusting the iris settings to let more or less light out). Note that people who own the JVC projector, and with a variety of different screens, often don't have the adjustable iris opened fully. They are more comfortable with a lower brightness. So brighter doesn't automatically mean "better" to everyone.



for every step of iris open they lose contrast !

the best contrast is obtained with high lamp /iris closed : Art from Cine4Home measured 100.000:1 on RS60 with high lamp / iris closed / long trow but unfortunately only with 250 lumens. With HP He could have still 100.000:1 but with kinda 700+ lumens (with the 2.8 ver.) and with a still excellent black of about 0,007 lumens !


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Acta7* /forum/post/19897101
> 
> 
> for every step of iris open they lose contrast !



On/off contrast yes. But for every step of the iris you close you lose ANSI contrast. So..as always...trade offs. (I have the JVC projector and when I close down the IRIS I notice these trade offs).


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Acta7* /forum/post/19897101
> 
> 
> for every step of iris open they lose contrast !
> 
> the best contrast is obtained with high lamp /iris closed : Art from Cine4Home measured 100.000:1 on RS60 with high lamp / iris closed / long trow but unfortunately only with 250 lumens. With HP He could have still 100.000:1 but with kinda 700+ lumens (with the 2.8 ver.) and with a still excellent black of about 0,007 lumens !



Exactly. I have the JVC RS40 mounted for optimum gain with the HP 2.8. With well over a hundred hours on the lamp, the iris is still closed down all the way for regular viewing. For my room and throw distance, I'm getting the maximum contrast possible from this projector, while still having plenty of brightness and a very low black level. I'm also getting a bright, satisfying 3D image.


My Panasonic AE4000 had a dynamic iris. I had to raise it up about 2 1/2 feet with the HP (to a high shelf mount), because the black level was too high when the projector was mounted closer to eye level on a pole. Up high, the HP's gain was far less, but the image quality was still excellent, and I had the option of putting the projector back on the pole as the lamp aged.


----------



## Acta7




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/19897160
> 
> 
> On/off contrast yes. But for every step of the iris you close you lose ANSI contrast. So..as always...trade offs. (I have the JVC projector and when I close down the IRIS I notice these trade offs).



Yes but in fact we were talking about blacks and on-off contrast ( like the deep space scenes you mentioned ).

Anyway, since I've always tought that blacks keep excellent up to 0,05 lumens, you can still open some steps of iris if you want more balance from on-off and ansi and get even more light


----------



## DrMark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/19897272
> 
> 
> Exactly. I have the JVC RS40 mounted for optimum gain with the HP 2.8. With well over a hundred hours on the lamp, the iris is still closed down all the way for regular viewing. For my room and throw distance, I'm getting the maximum contrast possible from this projector, while still having plenty of brightness and a very low black level. I'm also getting a bright, satisfying 3D image.
> 
> 
> My Panasonic AE4000 had a dynamic iris. I had to raise it up about 2 1/2 feet with the HP (to a high shelf mount), because the black level was too high when the projector was mounted closer to eye level on a pole. Up high, the HP's gain was far less, but the image quality was still excellent, and I had the option of putting the projector back on the pole as the lamp aged.



I think Joseph makes a good point. I have a high-power, and I've noticed that it does tend to bring out some of the flaws in the projector (poor black level), or in the source material (macro-blocking is one that kind of sticks out to me now). I think this is really a factor of having a very bright image (the flaws aren't hidden in the darker material).


--Mark


----------



## Acta7




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DrMark* /forum/post/19898876
> 
> 
> (the flaws aren't hidden in the darker material).



if there are flaws in the video material I want to see them


----------



## DrMark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Acta7* /forum/post/19899414
> 
> 
> if there are flaws in the video material I want to see them



Yeah, it is a 2-edged sword. You can try to hide the flaws, but then you hide good stuff too. You can try to see every last detail, and you will see the flaws. On balance, I really like my high-power; I hate Time-Warner.


--Mark


----------



## coderguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by *DrMark* 
Yeah, it is a 2-edged sword. You can try to hide the flaws, but then you hide good stuff too. You can try to see every last detail, and you will see the flaws. On balance, I really like my high-power; I hate Time-Warner.


--Mark
You can just turn the contrast and sharpness down if you really want to hide something. On normally almost perfect blu-ray transfers I do not see anything different on the HP screen than any other screen except that the HP looks much better to me, actually I see less texture than all the other screens I've used, so in that sense it looks way clearer.


I'm sure a lot of you guys are comparing this thing to $800 to $2,500 screens, but I mean the fact that an HP manual B series screen can even hang with screens that expensive (or even look almost as good) for 1/5th the cost is saying something.


You can buy a JVC HD250 and a Manual B 106" for less than an Epson 8700ub paired with a higher cost screen, and I promise you the HD250 will look better if your room is perfectly light controlled, even with the cheaper HP than some black diamond or some more expensive screen with the Epson. The HP comes pretty close to nirvana for the price.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coderguy* /forum/post/19901867
> 
> 
> You can just turn the contrast and sharpness down if you really want to hide something. On normally almost perfect blu-ray transfers I do not see anything different on the HP screen than any other screen except that the HP looks much better to me, actually I see less texture than all the other screens I've used, so in that sense it looks way clearer.
> 
> 
> I'm sure a lot of you guys are comparing this thing to $800 to $2,500 screens, but I mean the fact that an HP manual B series screen can even hang with screens that expensive (or even look almost as good) for 1/5th the cost is saying something.
> 
> 
> You can buy a JVC HD250 and a Manual B 106" for less than an Epson 8700ub paired with a higher cost screen, and I promise you the HD250 will look better if your room is perfectly light controlled, even with the cheaper HP than some black diamond or some more expensive screen with the Epson. The HP comes pretty close to nirvana for the price.



I cant think of another screen at any price I would take over my HP 2.8 at this point so I dont see price having much to do with it for a lot of us who like this screen. I have a much more expensive ST130 G3 screen that has been collecting dust since the HP got here. Not saying the HP is perfect because its not (I have found a few characteristic HP 2.8 material issues that I dont like compared to my 130, but they are minor in the grand scheme of things), but OVERALL, I dont know of a better screen for my room/tastes/projector.


Having said that, if we ever get projectors pumping out 2000+ calibrated lumens with the native contrast performance of the JVC units, I would probably go back to my 130 since I would not need/want the extra gain of the HP at that point, but that wont be happening any time soon.


----------



## coderguy

I guess I can no longer discuss the HP screen, received an infraction from the moderator of the forums.


The infraction was for disussing non-MSRP prices on the screen.

I never mentioned the vendor, and it's only a small dollar item. Everyone posts non-MSRP about projectors all the time in here so I didn't think it was enforced, I can't say how many times I've seen someone post "I found this PJ for under $xxxx" or I paid "$xxxx for my JVC".


----------



## newfmp3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coderguy* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I guess I can no longer discuss the HP screen, received an infraction from the moderator of the forums.
> 
> 
> The infraction was for disussing non-MSRP prices on the screen.
> 
> I never mentioned the vendor, and it's only a small dollar item. Everyone posts non-MSRP about projectors all the time in here so I didn't think it was enforced, I can't say how many times I've seen someone post "I found this PJ for under $xxxx" or I paid "$xxxx for my JVC".



Rules are rules, but you can certainly discuss the screen


....sounds to me like maybe someone complained about it.


In other news, I got my screen up, enjoying it so far.


----------



## coderguy

Yah, I know what happened, I don't hold it against anyone though, they just got PO'd at my aggressive arguments to buy the HP.


The only reason I was even aggressively arguing the HP screen was to BALANCE and COUNTER all these people in the forums that were trying to sell people $2,000 screens with $1,000 projectors, hence telling them that it is better to have a cheap projector with a super-expensive screen instead of the other way around (This is totally false).


The other more important point being we don't even know what kind of screens we need for projectors in 2-3 years with all the changes coming (LED, LCOS, 3D, etc...). So why buy a screen for so many years of use when a cheaper alternative is out there, and wait for the market to calm down. I can understand it for people that have the money to spend, but if your buying a sub 2k projector, you probalby don't have the money to spend.


The HP certainly is a winner in many cases, but there is no BEST at everything, but it does many things very well.


----------



## funwid

i have better suggestions for u!!

u wl love...


----------



## coderguy

This little spat was nothing compared to the time I pointed out that some of the Epsons had faulty lamps, at least one entire thread was deleted due to the bad nature of the posts.

People take this stuff so seriously, relax people!

On that relentless lamp argument I was ironically vindicated by Epson admitting the lamps had issues. So few people grasped the concept of marginal and joint probability when reading posts about failures, instead they went by polls. Anyways, not wanting to drag all this up again, just pointing out that people are quick to go on the attack without logically thinking through the arguments. This forum is a trip sometimes.


----------



## Gregory

Queston for you HP owners about how well the HP reduces reflections off of a white ceiling and light colored walls.


Have you seen that Black Diamond video on the Screen Inovations site where they are showing an image on a standard white screen and the light is really reflecting strongly off of the ceiling and then they start raising the white screen revealing the BD screen behind it and you can see the ceiling reflections redcuing until the white screen is totally gone and so are the reflections............the room was very dark, even with a white ceiling.


My question is how close to a BD screen does the HP screen come in reducing reflections, both ceiling and walls?


I will most likely will have to go with the HP 2.4 because the 2.8 is not available anymore and the 2.4 will give me better off-axis gain, however I would like to hear about both screens.


Thanks,

Greg


----------



## airscapes

I saw the BD at BB before Christmas. There will be more light reflected from the HP than the BD. Then again the image will be 2x brighter than the image on the BD. I was not impressed with the over all image, yes the black sere blacker but a dark room the image was darker as well.. none of the POP we all love with the HP. If you search for airscapes in the BD thread I posted my thoughts after viewing it.


----------



## coderguy

Yup, it's a catch 22 when you need a bright image but have a white ceiling or white walls, because no matter what you do, blacks will never be as good with that reflection.


You can lower the screen closer to the floor, or watch the image a little darker than normal and it helps by reducing the backwashed light overall in the room to acheive better blacks, but then you get that DIM looking picture, and in retrospect it's better just to watch the brighter picture with the worsened black levels.


----------



## Gregory

Doug and Coderguy, thanks for the reply.


I should try to get a large sample of the HP 2.4, if possible and borrow our business projector from work and experiment to see what the effect is. I could then temporarily hang some black material up to see the effects of a completely dark room. It would be an interesting experiment.


Thanks again,

Greg


----------



## dragonbud0

Well, thanks for Tryg for starting this thread, and others such as Claus and coderguy, I'm ecstatic w/ my transition from HCCV to the HP 2.8.


Watched parts of Casino Royale, Sound of Music, Golden Compass and Despicable Me today, it was a totally different experience. My JVC w/ 600 hours looked almost like a new bulb; may need to get a filter or tone down the brightness.


Cheers.


----------



## edpowers




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gregory* /forum/post/19922417
> 
> 
> Doug and Coderguy, thanks for the reply.
> 
> 
> I should try to get a large sample of the HP 2.4, if possible and borrow our business projector from work and experiment to see what the effect is. I could then temporarily hang some black material up to see the effects of a completely dark room. It would be an interesting experiment.
> 
> 
> Thanks again,
> 
> Greg



There is no screen material that will fully solve your light sidewall/ceiling problem, but the High Power will go a long way in minimizing it. Black walls make a HUGE difference if you have a good high contrast projector. You may not notice as much of a difference with a low contrast business projector.


----------



## Joseph Clark

I've made many changes in my home theater over the years, but no one single thing has made a bigger difference than darkening the room. My eyes were always fighting with the light walls, ceiling and floor. It took considerable effort to do it, but there's no way I'd ever go back.


----------



## coderguy

Yah, people definitely underestimate how much the room affects the image. That's why so many people upgrade their projectors and only notice small differences. If your black levels are starting too high, and even though blacks do not affect the TOTAL ON/Off contrast ratio, the perception of the blacks being too bright has a big negative effect.


But so many of us are stuck with the rooms we have and can't paint them. Getting an HP screen to redirect some of the light away from the ceiling, dropping the screen lower to the floor, throwing a dark rug over the carpet in front, and curtaining the sidewalls helps tremendously, but even then you're only at 80% bat-cave status with a white ceiling.


----------



## nguyenphananh

Hi

Im new to the projector, and I have an odd question. I just bought a MANUAL PULL DOWN 106" HP 2.8 screen. I have difficult time retract the screen... so I was thinking about converting the screen into motorized (didnt have $ to buy the motorized version) ... Is it possible?? is it doable with minor mod?? have any one done this before? or have any information, links of how to do it?? and what and where can I buy the parts?? I chatted with da-lite and ofcourse their answer is no.

Thanks in advance....


----------



## newfmp3

All sorts of tricks you can do to make room darker. You do not need to paint a room black. A lot of other dark colors will be just as good as black with lights down. We use moss green, flat paint on screen wall and roof, and did a faux finish paint on walls. There is this old way of thinking that all ceilings have to be painted white in every room.....why I do not know, but we started painting ceilings different colors a few years back and would never go back to white now.


Here's mine partially finished, perm wall dalite with hp 2.4, Epson 8350, just waiting on mono price order to tidy up some wires and stuff


----------



## Laserfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *newfmp3* /forum/post/19927026
> 
> 
> We use moss green...



Hey I like your room!


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coderguy* /forum/post/19926312
> 
> 
> Yah, people definitely underestimate how much the room affects the image. That's why so many people upgrade their projectors and only notice small differences. If your black levels are starting too high, and even though blacks do not affect the TOTAL ON/Off contrast ratio, the perception of the blacks being too bright has a big negative effect.
> 
> 
> But so many of us are stuck with the rooms we have and can't paint them. Getting an HP screen to redirect some of the light away from the ceiling, dropping the screen lower to the floor, throwing a dark rug over the carpet in front, and curtaining the sidewalls helps tremendously, but even then you're only at 80% bat-cave status with a white ceiling.



I have found improvement in the overall viewing experience even going from dark navy blue to flat black in my HT and then going from flat black to black velvet (which is on my sidewalls, part of the ceiling and first 9' of the floor) was even better than flat black paint. The closer you can get to an all flat black room, the better the viewing experience will be IMHO from my experiments. Obviously this is not practical though for most, but if you can do it, it will give you the best PQ/video performance.


----------



## jholzbauer

Toe-would you mind sharing what method you used to get the velvet in there? Curtains/staples/frames? Thanks.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jholzbauer* /forum/post/19927328
> 
> 
> Toe-would you mind sharing what method you used to get the velvet in there? Curtains/staples/frames? Thanks.



I used flat black over sized thumb tacks..........it looks better then it sounds, but I dont have the WAF to deal with which could very well shut this down










The velvet on my floor is just layed out and not ideal..........at some point, I would love to get black carpet, but until then this works fine (performance wise, the black velvet would be as good or better vs black carpet)..............It probably goes without saying that aesthetics were not my top priority when I decided to do this, but from a pure performance standpoint, it is killer.


----------



## coderguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nguyenphananh* /forum/post/19926388
> 
> 
> Hi
> 
> Im new to the projector, and I have an odd question. I just bought a MANUAL PULL DOWN 106" HP 2.8 screen. I have difficult time retract the screen... so I was thinking about converting the screen into motorized (didnt have $ to buy the motorized version) ... Is it possible??



No way is that feasible, it would cost more than just buying it outright. Most likely your problem is the mounting, either you have a slight angle (or not enough of an angle) or it is too close to the wall, or something. I would suggest you take the screen down and see if it retracts normally on the floor, if it does, you need to mount it differently so that it can retract easier.


----------



## nguyenphananh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coderguy* /forum/post/19927840
> 
> 
> No way is that feasible, it would cost more than just buying it outright. Most likely your problem is the mounting, either you have a slight angle (or not enough of an angle) or it is too close to the wall, or something. I would suggest you take the screen down and see if it retracts normally on the floor, if it does, you need to mount it differently so that it can retract easier.



The retraction is working fine. Just that Im not getting use to it yet. I took me many trieds to get the screen all the way up. guest Im not very patient... I have the same problem with my bro's screen too. The motorized version is twice the price of the manual's. I wish I can make it motorzied. I consider myself handy, and willingly to play with it.... just dont want to screw up... this thing is expensive....


----------



## coderguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nguyenphananh* /forum/post/19928570
> 
> 
> I consider myself handy, and willingly to play with it.... just dont want to screw up... this thing is expensive....



It would take more than being handy to do something like that, and attempting it would screw it up.


----------



## Gregory




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coderguy* /forum/post/19926312
> 
> 
> Yah, people definitely underestimate how much the room affects the image. That's why so many people upgrade their projectors and only notice small differences. If your black levels are starting too high, and even though blacks do not affect the TOTAL ON/Off contrast ratio, the perception of the blacks being too bright has a big negative effect.
> 
> 
> But so many of us are stuck with the rooms we have and can't paint them. Getting an HP screen to redirect some of the light away from the ceiling, dropping the screen lower to the floor, throwing a dark rug over the carpet in front, and curtaining the sidewalls helps tremendously, but even then you're only at 80% bat-cave status with a white ceiling.



I'm thinking about getting the AE4000 projector, mainly for its lens memory, but it is also a reason not to spend more for a JVC if I can't provide a good room to take advantage of the increased black level and contrast. I am not as concerned with the walls, as we can place artwork to help combat reflections, as do our darkish fabric shades.

I'm slowly working on the wife..........but, she really loves her white ceiling. This is a southwestern themed room, so I think earthy tones would do well on the ceiling........still wouldn't go very dark, but anything would be an improvement.


Thanks for all of the advice,

Greg


----------



## mntwister

Ok, so I am ready to buy the 2.4 gain HP screen at 78 x 139 (159") Da-Lite Model C to replace my Elite Maxwhite 1.1 gain 150" screen which I have had since 2006. So this would be a 9" increase in size as well as the gain increase.


This is my set-up:


Room is the finished basement, so zero light comes in, windows are completely covered. Carpet is a darker burgandy/orange, ceiling is a mid to mid-light oak and front walls are cement and painted a dark beige with a hint of orange. Same color with the left wall, the right wall has all my Blu-rays and DVD's of course many of those spines are white. The rest of the wall I have covered in black frabric from the projector to the screen (on the right side).


The room is big enough that I can have pretty much any throw distance. Right now I have the projector about 14.4 feet back from the exact center of the screen (per JVC's specs) on a bedroom dresser about 1 to 1.5 feet above head height right in back of the middle seat. There are 4 seats, mine of course is directly in the center, then the one to the right and first left are about 3 feet from the screen center and the 4th seat (the left side is a reclining loveseat 2-seater) is about 6 feet to the left (facing) of the center. The person on that far left would still have screen directly in front of them, though it is near the left end. This is the seat that is used the least.


I am choosing to go again with a manual pulldown as I might be moving in the next couple of years and don't know what size I will be able to use so want to be able to be able to pull it up just in case.


My questions are:


1. Will the person on that very left see a less bright screen on the opposite side (right half of the screen) since he is 6 feet to the left of the center? I have read that with the HP just moving your head can change it and as few people have posted this bothers them. If that person will have less light, will it at least be equal to what my 1.1 gain was from that fat left seat?


2. Is it noticeable for anyone (in terms of brightness) if they move their heads, or is the image pretty stable. Remember I am used to a maxwhite 1.1 which is pretty close to the same all the way across.


3. Is this the optimum set-up for my new JVC RS-50 3D projector?


4. I have a few slight waves in my current screen because of its size, they developed over the first 3-4 months I had it, they never got worse. Are waves more noticeable on a high power screen? I have actually taped the sides of my current model back to the wall which has pretty much gotten rid of the waves. Are they more likely/less likely to develop with the HP screen?


5. I have left my current screen pulled down since day 1, is it okay to do this or should I retract it every time I am done using it?


Any info would be very helpful, I'm a bit nervous about this as I consider my current screen to look great, but I am hearing that as the JVC bulb ages, the brightness goes down and the 3D will be darker. I have found a great price on this so this is a great time to do it.


Thanks for all your help throughout my process, this thread has been so helpful.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mntwister* /forum/post/19932128
> 
> 
> Ok, so I am ready to buy the 2.4 gain HP screen at 78 x 139 (159") Da-Lite Model C to replace my Elite Maxwhite 1.1 gain 150" screen which I have had since 2006. So this would be a 9" increase in size as well as the gain increase.
> 
> 
> This is my set-up:
> 
> 
> Room is the finished basement, so zero light comes in, windows are completely covered. Carpet is a darker burgandy/orange, ceiling is a mid to mid-light oak and front walls are cement and painted a dark beige with a hint of orange. Same color with the left wall, the right wall has all my Blu-rays and DVD's of course many of those spines are white. The rest of the wall I have covered in black frabric from the projector to the screen (on the right side).
> 
> 
> The room is big enough that I can have pretty much any throw distance. Right now I have the projector about 14.4 feet back from the exact center of the screen (per JVC's specs) on a bedroom dresser about 1 to 1.5 feet above head height right in back of the middle seat. There are 4 seats, mine of course is directly in the center, then the one to the right and first left are about 3 feet from the screen center and the 4th seat (the left side is a reclining loveseat 2-seater) is about 6 feet to the left (facing) of the center. The person on that far left would still have screen directly in front of them, though it is near the left end. This is the seat that is used the least.
> 
> 
> I am choosing to go again with a manual pulldown as I might be moving in the next couple of years and don't know what size I will be able to use so want to be able to be able to pull it up just in case.
> 
> 
> My questions are:
> 
> 
> 1. Will the person on that very left see a less bright screen on the opposite side (right half of the screen) since he is 6 feet to the left of the center? I have read that with the HP just moving your head can change it and as few people have posted this bothers them. If that person will have less light, will it at least be equal to what my 1.1 gain was from that fat left seat?
> 
> No the image will look great just not quite a bright as your seat. My wife can not tell the difference.
> 
> 
> 2. Is it noticeable for anyone (in terms of brightness) if they move their heads, or is the image pretty stable. Remember I am used to a maxwhite 1.1 which is pretty close to the same all the way across.
> Not unless they are a inspector gadget or a giraffe
> 
> 
> 3. Is this the optimum set-up for my new JVC RS-50 3D projector?
> If you can get the projector closer to eye level you wil get more gain but 18" should work out way better than what you had!
> 
> 
> 4. I have a few slight waves in my current screen because of its size, they developed over the first 3-4 months I had it, they never got worse. Are waves more noticeable on a high power screen? I have actually taped the sides of my current model back to the wall which has pretty much gotten rid of the waves. Are they more likely/less likely to develop with the HP screen?
> Wave can be caused by the roller sagging so I would roll it up when not in use (stays cleaner that way to) HP fabric does not stretch so less likely to get wave unless the roller sags
> 
> 
> 5. I have left my current screen pulled down since day 1, is it okay to do this or should I retract it every time I am done using it?
> 
> 
> Any info would be very helpful, I'm a bit nervous about this as I consider my current screen to look great, but I am hearing that as the JVC bulb ages, the brightness goes down and the 3D will be darker. I have found a great price on this so this is a great time to do it.
> 
> 
> Thanks for all your help throughout my process, this thread has been so helpful.



See above in red


----------



## coderguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gregory* /forum/post/19929633
> 
> 
> I'm thinking about getting the AE4000 projector, mainly for its lens memory, but it is also a reason not to spend more for a JVC if I can't provide a good room to take advantage of the increased black level and contrast. I am not as concerned with the walls, as we can place artwork to help combat reflections, as do our darkish fabric shades.
> 
> I'm slowly working on the wife..........but, she really loves her white ceiling. This is a southwestern themed room, so I think earthy tones would do well on the ceiling........still wouldn't go very dark, but anything would be an improvement.
> 
> 
> Thanks for all of the advice,
> 
> Greg



I haven't tested a JVC compared to a diferent projector with a full bat cave except the ceiling, but the JVC should still look far better and do far darker blacks.


I'd correct myself and say that if your using an HP relatively low to the floor (or you have high ceilings) and everything in the room is dark except the ceiling, you'd probably be around 90% bat cave status or so, but remember ANSI contrast has a huge effect to a point, but then the returns are dimenshing. The JVC is also a bit different of a case because it does not use an IRIS to acheive those blacks, so yah the JVC still wins. I think actually most people even without a bat cave noticed the JVC did much better, and it makes since because On/Off contrast isn't directly affected by brightness of the room (only perceivably of the starting black level range).


Mostly it's people upgrading to real bright projectors and thinking they lost all their black levels because of the HP screen, which is just a matter of room and the current calibration of the projector to the given screen.


----------



## Gregory




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coderguy* /forum/post/19935343
> 
> 
> I haven't tested a JVC compared to a diferent projector with a full bat cave except the ceiling, but the JVC should still look far better and do far darker blacks.
> 
> 
> I'd correct myself and say that if your using an HP relatively low to the floor (or you have high ceilings) and everything in the room is dark except the ceiling, you'd probably be around 90% bat cave status or so, but remember ANSI contrast has a huge effect to a point, but then the returns are dimenshing. The JVC is also a bit different of a case because it does not use an IRIS to acheive those blacks, so yah the JVC still wins. I think actually most people even without a bat cave noticed the JVC did much better.
> 
> 
> Mostly it's people upgrading to real bright projectors and thinking they lost all their black levels because of the HP screen, which is just a matter of room and the current calibration of the projector to the given screen.



The screen will be 16" away from the ceiling, so not so far away. If I can lower the center channel speaker I can gain a little more room, but not too much. The room has a standard 8' ceiling.


Good news for the JVC, then. If I can only convince myself that I can live without the lens memory.










Thanks,

Greg


----------



## avswilier

Thinking of getting a model b high power, manual pulldown 16x9. Please advise on the following:


The standard black drop is two feet. In my current home I need only a bit over one foot, but I want to buy two feet in case I move flat and can then use it there. Does the model b allow me to partially pull the screen down so that the black drop is only extended by one feet?


How simple is it for a non professional installer to fix the screen onto the wall? Is there any other types of installation work to get the fabric onto the rollers for example?


I have a panasonic pt-ae4000u, shooting a 88" diagonal from 12 feet away. It's bright enough at night but washed out at daytime. Shooting onto a white wall.


Also, I have ambient light aplenty. A large window behind my back, a small window on left and right wall (when facing screen). Finding the picture washed out in daytime even on dynamic mode.


Will the 2.4 gain help a lot? I need a visible improvement for me to buy the screen.


If I buy a 16x9 screen will the 2.35:1 look awful or will anything be better than a white wall as a screen?


Thx in advance.... Still a noob but really really enjoying the experience so far!


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *avswilier* /forum/post/19954323
> 
> 
> Thinking of getting a model b high power, manual pulldown 16x9. Please advise on the following:
> 
> 
> The standard black drop is two feet. In my current home I need only a bit over one foot, but I want to buy two feet in case I move flat and can then use it there. Does the model b allow me to partially pull the screen down so that the black drop is only extended by one feet?
> No idea, call Dalite Customer Service
> 
> 
> How simple is it for a non professional installer to fix the screen onto the wall? Is there any other types of installation work to get the fabric onto the rollers for example?
> Depends on your skills, would you try and hang a large mirror or flat panel TV? Would you be comfortable finding the studs in the wall and or using drywall anchors?
> 
> 
> I have a panasonic pt-ae4000u, shooting a 88" diagonal from 12 feet away. It's bright enough at night but washed out at daytime. Shooting onto a white wall.
> No projector and or screen will work in daylight, you need to invest in a room darkening shades/curtains. Keep in mind, you dark areas of the image will only be a dark as your screen is with no image projected. The screen does not make light nor is it black when nothing is projected like a TV screen is..
> 
> 
> Also, I have ambient light aplenty. A large window behind my back, a small window on left and right wall (when facing screen). Finding the picture washed out in daytime even on dynamic mode.
> 
> Same as above, cover the windows...
> 
> 
> Will the 2.4 gain help a lot? I need a visible improvement for me to buy the screen.
> No it will not help for the amount of light you are talking about. It will look a LOT better at night.
> 
> 
> If I buy a 16x9 screen will the 2.35:1 look awful or will anything be better than a white wall as a screen?
> It will look the same as 16x9 but with black bars that may or may not bother you.
> 
> 
> Thx in advance.... Still a noob but really really enjoying the experience so far!



See above


----------



## Canary_Jules

Hi. I have a JVC HD750 (RS20) in a bat cave (black walls and ceiling, black curtains, the lot). I presently project onto 110" diagonal 1.0 gain fixed fram screen. But with 650 hours on the lamp I do find myself wishing it had a few more lumens for more impact. Also, coming from DLP I find myself hankering after extra sharpness. The possibility of purchasing a 100" Da-Lite Hi Gain manual screen has come up - for a great price. I wonder whether people think that this would help in the areas I ask about. Would I lose much in terms of black levels? I could cut the fabric out, reduce the size of my present frame, and attach it to it. Very keen to hear your views asap as I have to make a snap decision on this. Thanks.


----------



## avswilier

Thanks airscapes, advice much appreciated!


----------



## sb1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Laserfan* /forum/post/19927153



How is that screen mounted? I thought it was a pulldown but I don't see a housing. I can't make it out.


----------



## Canary_Jules

Okay, my pressing need to make a snap decision on the HP screen has gone. The buyer withdrew it from sale. Nevertheless, I still think it may be the way to go forward. If I can repeat what I said before and ask for your advice. I projector from 11ft on to a 1.0 gain matt white screen - 110" diag - with my JVC HD750. The room is a bat cave (black everywhere including black felt on ceiling and black curtains at either side of screen. With 650 hours used on my 750 there are times when I'd like more lumens without using High lamp mode. I'd also like a bit more punch and pop in the picture - and if the High Power screen can help with impressions of sharpness that would be great. My seating is all within the width of the screen. Projector is currently ceiling mounted with at least a 6" drop due to mount. I'd say the ceiling is 8ft high (haven't measured this) and the top of the screen is about 6" from the ceiling - so the pj lens is adjacent to top of the screen. Our seating eye level is obvious a few feet below this. Is there a way of working out what brightness gain I'd get from using the High Power? Do you think it will do what I want? Punch, pop, sharpness? I'm looking at getting one of the manual B screens and cutting out the fabric and then placing this on my home made wooden frame. This seems to be the most cost effective method. Have others done this too?


I appreciate your advice.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Canary_Jules* /forum/post/19956139
> 
> 
> Okay, my pressing need to make a snap decision on the HP screen has gone. The buyer withdrew it from sale. Nevertheless, I still think it may be the way to go forward. If I can repeat what I said before and ask for your advice. I projector from 11ft on to a 1.0 gain matt white screen - 110" diag - with my JVC HD750. The room is a bat cave (black everywhere including black felt on ceiling and black curtains at either side of screen. With 650 hours used on my 750 there are times when I'd like more lumens without using High lamp mode. I'd also like a bit more punch and pop in the picture - and if the High Power screen can help with impressions of sharpness that would be great. My seating is all within the width of the screen. Projector is currently ceiling mounted with at least a 6" drop due to mount. I'd say the ceiling is 8ft high (haven't measured this) and the top of the screen is about 6" from the ceiling - so the pj lens is adjacent to top of the screen. Our seating eye level is obvious a few feet below this. Is there a way of working out what brightness gain I'd get from using the High Power? Do you think it will do what I want? Punch, pop, sharpness? I'm looking at getting one of the manual B screens and cutting out the fabric and then placing this on my home made wooden frame. This seems to be the most cost effective method. Have others done this too?
> 
> 
> I appreciate your advice.


 Here's what you're looking for.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Canary_Jules* /forum/post/19956139
> 
> 
> Okay, my pressing need to make a snap decision on the HP screen has gone. The buyer withdrew it from sale. Nevertheless, I still think it may be the way to go forward. If I can repeat what I said before and ask for your advice. I projector from 11ft on to a 1.0 gain matt white screen - 110" diag - with my JVC HD750. The room is a bat cave (black everywhere including black felt on ceiling and black curtains at either side of screen. With 650 hours used on my 750 there are times when I'd like more lumens without using High lamp mode. I'd also like a bit more punch and pop in the picture - and if the High Power screen can help with impressions of sharpness that would be great. My seating is all within the width of the screen. Projector is currently ceiling mounted with at least a 6" drop due to mount. I'd say the ceiling is 8ft high (haven't measured this) and the top of the screen is about 6" from the ceiling - so the pj lens is adjacent to top of the screen. Our seating eye level is obvious a few feet below this. Is there a way of working out what brightness gain I'd get from using the High Power? Do you think it will do what I want? Punch, pop, sharpness? I'm looking at getting one of the manual B screens and cutting out the fabric and then placing this on my home made wooden frame. This seems to be the most cost effective method. Have others done this too?
> 
> 
> I appreciate your advice.



ceiling mount is going to give you about .8 or 1 gain. You should read the first post of this thread to understand how the HP work and what it's drawbacks are.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Canary_Jules* /forum/post/19956139
> 
> 
> Okay, my pressing need to make a snap decision on the HP screen has gone. The buyer withdrew it from sale. Nevertheless, I still think it may be the way to go forward. If I can repeat what I said before and ask for your advice. I projector from 11ft on to a 1.0 gain matt white screen - 110" diag - with my JVC HD750. The room is a bat cave (black everywhere including black felt on ceiling and black curtains at either side of screen. With 650 hours used on my 750 there are times when I'd like more lumens without using High lamp mode. I'd also like a bit more punch and pop in the picture - and if the High Power screen can help with impressions of sharpness that would be great. My seating is all within the width of the screen. Projector is currently ceiling mounted with at least a 6" drop due to mount. I'd say the ceiling is 8ft high (haven't measured this) and the top of the screen is about 6" from the ceiling - so the pj lens is adjacent to top of the screen. Our seating eye level is obvious a few feet below this. Is there a way of working out what brightness gain I'd get from using the High Power? Do you think it will do what I want? Punch, pop, sharpness? I'm looking at getting one of the manual B screens and cutting out the fabric and then placing this on my home made wooden frame. This seems to be the most cost effective method. Have others done this too?
> 
> 
> I appreciate your advice.




I've seen the JVC HD750 on a neutral gain screen and the directly compared it on an HP screen, in a true "bat cave" (all black velvet). By significantly raising the brightness of the image the HP definitely gave the image more vividness, "pop" and apparent contrast and added sharpness. All those things tend to go up when you brighten an image. It was a real "wow" difference.


Be aware that if you use the HP screen to raise your brightness you will in all likelihood also be raising your black levels. Most people don't seem to care but if you are really into great black levels you might consider this issue.


That said, if you like the brightness of a bulb-on-high image, then playing with placement of your projector/screen angle and also with your JVC's iris control, you can probably end up with an image similar to high bulb on your neutral gain screen, but with the iris dialed down a lot more than you have it now. In other words, you'll have a lot of head room for opening the iris as your bulb ages.


BTW, I have the same projector (RS20) and I found myself starting to be dissatisfied with the brightness as it was nearing 500 hours. In that way I really envy HP screen owners. Unfortunately since I have a hard time with the HP's viewing cone I didn't see it as an option so instead I've just bought a new bulb (I have Stewart ST-130 1.3 gain white screen).


----------



## coderguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/19957771
> 
> 
> BTW, I have the same projector (RS20) and I found myself starting to be dissatisfied with the brightness as it was nearing 500 hours. In that way I really envy HP screen owners. Unfortunately since I have a hard time with the HP's viewing cone I didn't see it as an option so instead I've just bought a new bulb (I have Stewart ST-130 1.3 gain white screen).



Wow, suprised the bulb dimmed that much at 500 hours. Anyone know how long people with 106" HP screens usually get out of JVC bulbs, on average I mean?

Like 1000-1500 is my guess?


----------



## Canary_Jules

Thanks all for the replies. Very helpful.


I put my data into the gain calculator (thanks for the link) and it tells me:


RETRO REFLECTIVE

SCREEN SCREEN SCREEN

LEFT CENTER RIGHT

Calculated Error Angle (Degrees): 14.70 15.58 14.70

Estimated Screen Gain: 1.91 1.88 1.91


Strange that it's giving me higher can outside the centre position. Still, looks like a nice increase in brightness overall.


----------



## Canary_Jules




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/19957771
> 
> 
> I've seen the JVC HD750 on a neutral gain screen and the directly compared it on an HP screen, in a true "bat cave" (all black velvet). By significantly raising the brightness of the image the HP definitely gave the image more vividness, "pop" and apparent contrast and added sharpness. All those things tend to go up when you brighten an image. It was a real "wow" difference.
> 
> 
> Be aware that if you use the HP screen to raise your brightness you will in all likelihood also be raising your black levels. Most people don't seem to care but if you are really into great black levels you might consider this issue.
> 
> 
> That said, if you like the brightness of a bulb-on-high image, then playing with placement of your projector/screen angle and also with your JVC's iris control, you can probably end up with an image similar to high bulb on your neutral gain screen, but with the iris dialed down a lot more than you have it now. In other words, you'll have a lot of head room for opening the iris as your bulb ages.
> 
> 
> BTW, I have the same projector (RS20) and I found myself starting to be dissatisfied with the brightness as it was nearing 500 hours. In that way I really envy HP screen owners. Unfortunately since I have a hard time with the HP's viewing cone I didn't see it as an option so instead I've just bought a new bulb (I have Stewart ST-130 1.3 gain white screen).



Really appreciate your feedback. The dilemma I have is this. I really like my HD750. However, I come from a DLP background and I periodically get it into my head as I watch my HD750 that I wish it were brighter, sharper and had more 'pop'. This neurosis sometimes makes just watching and enjoying a film difficult as I'm constantly analysing the picture. Recently I happened to open my iris up to 0 and switch to high lamp power as an experiment and I was wowed. It seems the brighter picture just pleased me more. I could just sell my HD750 and go and buy an Optoma HD87. That would probably cost me £500-600. Or I could swap out my screen for a High Power and hope that it will satisfy my cravings. I want slightly sharper, brighter, more punch than I currently see but without a dynamic iris. So it's go High Power and stay JVC HD750 or go Optoma HD87. Either way I'm going to have to slightly reduce my screen size because the largest Da-Lite Model B High Power is 106" diag, and the HD87 doesn't have the zoom required to match my present 100" screen size. If you have any thoughts I'd appreciate them again. I guess I need to demo both. I have a 6" square sample of High Power screen material coming but I'm not sure that's going to tell me much about the capabilities of the HP screen.


----------



## mntwister

As I've posted previously I have a Maxwhite Elite 150" screen and am going to order my 2.4 DaLite on Monday at 159". My question is this. I can only look at a 12 x 12 sample sent to me by DaLite. What a difference, what was light gray on my older screen (which I thought was white) looks like real bright white on the 2.4 gain.


But how does this look on all parts of the screen if you are in the center? Obviously, 159" is huge, and it will go pretty far to the left and right of me. How will that look on the sides when the brightest area is in the center? I sit 12 feet back from the screen, projector (JVC RS50) is on a dresser behind the seating area 14.4 feet from screen about 1 l/2 feet above eye level.


----------



## dragonbud0

Cancary_Jones,


I switched from a 92 HCCV to a 106 HP, using a JV RS1 w/ 550 hours, the picture now looks more plasma like. My wife cannot deal w/ DLP's RBE. I still use my Infocus IN76 as a backup for regular TV fare when watching alone.


Prior to the change in screen, the picture looked dim in low lamp mode, considering only 550 hours. It's the cheapest investment in home theater for me. Wished I had done this earlier (got the HCCV since 2002). It's so bright that I adjusted the brightness by 2 notches. My current room and pj can easily accommodate a 120" screen but looking to downsize to a smaller house, so 106" is a reasonable compromise.


----------



## Laserfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sb1* /forum/post/19955496
> 
> 
> How is that screen mounted? I thought it was a pulldown but I don't see a housing. I can't make it out.



It's not "mounted" at all. It is a gatorfoam board that is sitting on a couple of bookend-style holders that I fabricated (look closely at the left & right top shelf of the rack), and held at the top to keep it from falling-forward. I put it-up and take it down as needed, setting it alongside the wall on the left. Note gatorfoam, even at my 1/2" thickness, is very stiff yet light in weight i.e. I wouldn't try this with an MDF or plywood or even drywall.


I don't even need the cat to help me get it up and down!


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mntwister* /forum/post/19958987
> 
> 
> As I've posted previously I have a Maxwhite Elite 150" screen and am going to order my 2.4 DaLite on Monday at 159". My question is this. I can only look at a 12 x 12 sample sent to me by DaLite. What a difference, what was light gray on my older screen (which I thought was white) looks like real bright white on the 2.4 gain.
> 
> 
> But how does this look on all parts of the screen if you are in the center? Obviously, 159" is huge, and it will go pretty far to the left and right of me. How will that look on the sides when the brightest area is in the center? I sit 12 feet back from the screen, projector (JVC RS50) is on a dresser behind the seating area 14.4 feet from screen about 1 l/2 feet above eye level.



Not to worry. Retroreflective screens have great brightness uniformity--far better than angular reflective gain screens. In fact, when the PJ is slightly above seated eye level (as yours seems to be), the left and right sides of the screen will often have slightly _higher_ gain than the center, thereby helping compensate for any drop in edge brightness caused by the PJ itself. Stick your parameters into my screen gain calculator linked below to see what I mean.


----------



## Canary_Jules




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dragonbud0* /forum/post/19959263
> 
> 
> Cancary_Jones,
> 
> 
> I switched from a 92 HCCV to a 106 HP, using a JV RS1 w/ 550 hours, the picture now looks more plasma like. My wife cannot deal w/ DLP's RBE. I still use my Infocus IN76 as a backup for regular TV fare when watching alone.
> 
> 
> Prior to the change in screen, the picture looked dim in low lamp mode, considering only 550 hours. It's the cheapest investment in home theater for me. Wished I had done this earlier (got the HCCV since 2002). It's so bright that I adjusted the brightness by 2 notches. My current room and pj can easily accommodate a 120" screen but looking to downsize to a smaller house, so 106" is a reasonable compromise.



Thanks for sharing your experience.


----------



## Canary_Jules

Can anyone comment about the effect of the HP screen on apparent sharpness of the image. I read a review over at Projector Central which criticised the HP screen to the effect that it would be great with 720p but not 1080p!!


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Canary_Jules* /forum/post/19959768
> 
> 
> Can anyone comment about the effect of the HP screen on apparent sharpness of the image. I read a review over at Projector Central which criticised the HP screen to the effect that it would be great with 720p but not 1080p!!



Do a search of this thread with the words Projector Central review and read what has been said.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Canary_Jules* /forum/post/19958981
> 
> 
> Really appreciate your feedback. The dilemma I have is this. I really like my HD750. However, I come from a DLP background and I periodically get it into my head as I watch my HD750 that I wish it were brighter, sharper and had more 'pop'. This neurosis sometimes makes just watching and enjoying a film difficult as I'm constantly analysing the picture. Recently I happened to open my iris up to 0 and switch to high lamp power as an experiment and I was wowed. It seems the brighter picture just pleased me more. I could just sell my HD750 and go and buy an Optoma HD87. That would probably cost me £500-600. Or I could swap out my screen for a High Power and hope that it will satisfy my cravings. I want slightly sharper, brighter, more punch than I currently see but without a dynamic iris. So it's go High Power and stay JVC HD750 or go Optoma HD87. Either way I'm going to have to slightly reduce my screen size because the largest Da-Lite Model B High Power is 106" diag, and the HD87 doesn't have the zoom required to match my present 100" screen size. If you have any thoughts I'd appreciate them again. I guess I need to demo both. I have a 6" square sample of High Power screen material coming but I'm not sure that's going to tell me much about the capabilities of the HP screen.



I have the HP 2.8 gain screen (full screen) which I've tested against another white screen and a Stewart ST-130 1.3 gain screen. I chose the Stewart screen ultimately because it had better viewing angles for my home theater.


The HP will give you what you say you are craving. I even started testing the HP vs a neutral gain white screen with an old Panasonic AE900 720p LCD projector - hardly known for a high contrast image. But even playing that thing on the HP made it look "WOW" on bright scenes, like a DLP projector.


When I was at another forum member's place we viewed some of King Kong (Jackson's) in HD on a neutral gain screen then his HP screen and it was a "holy [email protected]" experience. Everything about the image just got elevated - image punch, pop, color detail, image detail, apparent sharpness you name it. It was like "super-HD."


As I said, it's a scientifically established fact that increasing contrast and (within certain parameters) increasing brightness makes images appear sharper and clearer to us. Just try dialing the brightness way down then up on your computer screen and you should see this effect. And after all isn't that also what you see when you go from a dim image to using high bulb and opening up your iris on your JVC projector?


If you look up super close at the pixel structure of an image on the HP you'll see the surface has a bit of a glaze and the pixel structure may not be as super sharp as possible (but still very good). But it's what you see from the viewing seat that counts. From that seat I find the much brighter image will add a sharpness effect to my perception that outdoes pretty much any screen I've seen (except maybe my Stewart screen).


----------



## henrich3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/19960416
> 
> 
> If you look up super close at the pixel structure of an image on the HP you'll see the surface has a bit of a glaze and the pixel structure may not be as super sharp as possible (but still very good).



When you mention a "glaze" appearance I assume that you're referring to the HP 2.8. I saw the same thing on my 2.8 sample. I don't see that characteristic on my 2.4 however. When I look at the 2.4 up close every pixel and the interpixel gap is clearly defined. To my eye the image on an HP 2.4 is just as sharp as a matte white.


----------



## Gregory

Do you get that "film" like look with the HP 2.4 and HP 2.8? What concerns me is that the comments are that you get this "pop" on the image and I immediately start thinking of a plasma like image. I'm lokking for that smooth film like image. If the brightness was lowered by a lower lamp mode or higher projector mounting would that increase the smoothness or maybe it's smooth already and I am overly concerned for no reason.......hopefully!


How does it compare to the ST-130 in this regard?


Thanks,

Greg


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gregory* /forum/post/19961335
> 
> 
> Do you get that "film" like look with the HP 2.4 and HP 2.8? What concerns me is that the comments are that you get this "pop" on the image and I immediately start thinking of a plasma like image. I'm lokking for that smooth film like image. If the brightness was lowered by a lower lamp mode or higher projector mounting would that increase the smoothness or maybe it's smooth already and I am overly concerned for no reason.......hopefully!
> 
> 
> How does it compare to the ST-130 in this regard?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Greg



I don't think it's so much a screen issue as a brightness issue. Traditionally the projected film images we've seen in theaters is nowhere near as bright as a flat screen. Once you start seriously raising brightness beyond movie theater standards then it's not suprising many start percieving the image as being more flat-screen-like vs film/theater-like.


You just have to decide what you like.


I was able to place an HP screen and my projector at just the right angles to get pretty much all the gain of the HP, so I could have a really bright image. I definitely found this had the effect of making movies look more flat screen like, more video-like. It was neat but a bit off-putting for movies at least on my big screen. I tend to like a sort of in-between look. In between a neutral gain and an HP 2.8 gain.


If you have some flexibility with your projector height/screen height you can play with the angles to get the brightness you desire (to some degree). Even better is having a projector with a user adjustable iris, like the JVCs, which you can further dial to your taste.


I have the ST-130 and it is a gorgeous screen. But I also vary my screen size sometimes up to 120" wide, in which case I like to put my JVC proj. into high bulb mode. It would be nice to have a bit more headroom, a bit more gain, but so far I haven't seen a screen with more gain that didn't have issues for me.


I'm sort of caught between two desires: the desire for deeper black levels and the desire for higher brightness, and the two seem opposed at this time in projector technology. Deeper black levels give an more realistic, richer and more satisfying solidity to darker scenes, and higher brightness does the same for brighter scenes. I wish I could have both, but my set up with an ST-130 gives me the best compromise between the two that I could find.


----------



## coderguy

Maybe possible to get both punchier on both sides of the spectrum if someone invents a better dynamic IRIS and adds it to a JVC-like projector, then you'd have a huge enough range. To me though JVC is smart in avoiding a dynamic IRIS for now, because the technology is kind of gimpy. Never seen the Sony IRIS's at work though as they could do this somewhat, but Native On/Off will still beat it of course and the Sony's are behind in Native.


Sometimes I feel that dynamic IRIS actually improves the fact that you get a punchier image in brighter scenes and a darker image in darker scenes, but at least half the time I feel the IRIS went the wrong way or didn't do anything. That is one thing that might be interesting on the new Epsons, if the IRIS's work better and the fact that the new Epson LCOS have contrast a lot closer to JVC's but also have an IRIS. It seems that current IRIS technology doesn't really know what to do or at what brightness level to adjust to for a given scene. Some scenes IRIS's get it right, but too often they go too far or do too little given a particular scene.


----------



## Canary_Jules




> Quote:
> I'm sort of caught between two desires: the desire for deeper black levels and the desire for higher brightness, and the two seem opposed at this time in projector technology. Deeper black levels give an more realistic, richer and more satisfying solidity to darker scenes, and higher brightness does the same for brighter scenes. I wish I could have both, but my set up with an ST-130 gives me the best compromise between the two that I could find.



I thought about what you said last night as I watched a movie - Winter in Wartime (very recommended btw!). I opened up the iris and put the JVC into high lamp mode. Lumens on the screen were greatly increased. It's a movie with a lot of white in it due to the snow. I know this is with the caveat that opening the iris and using high lamp changes the colour space etc, but, to be honest, when I thought about the picture I actually preferred the original image. The blacks were much deeper for a start and this looked better against the white background. It was a film that just didn't benefit from looking like a plasma. It looked cinematic. I think there are probably films like this which benefit from the cinematic look. Others, however, - perhaps especially HDTV - may benefit from more lumens etc - the plasma look. In which case the ability of a screen and projector combo to be able to adapt is a great advantage. Perhaps the High Power will allow this.


----------



## Gregory




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/19961652
> 
> 
> I don't think it's so much a screen issue as a brightness issue. Traditionally the projected film images we've seen in theaters is nowhere near as bright as a flat screen. Once you start seriously raising brightness beyond movie theater standards then it's not suprising many start percieving the image as being more flat-screen-like vs film/theater-like.
> 
> 
> You just have to decide what you like.
> 
> 
> I was able to place an HP screen and my projector at just the right angles to get pretty much all the gain of the HP, so I could have a really bright image. I definitely found this had the effect of making movies look more flat screen like, more video-like. It was neat but a bit off-putting for movies at least on my big screen. I tend to like a sort of in-between look. In between a neutral gain and an HP 2.8 gain.
> 
> 
> If you have some flexibility with your projector height/screen height you can play with the angles to get the brightness you desire (to some degree). Even better is having a projector with a user adjustable iris, like the JVCs, which you can further dial to your taste.
> 
> 
> I have the ST-130 and it is a gorgeous screen. But I also vary my screen size sometimes up to 120" wide, in which case I like to put my JVC proj. into high bulb mode. It would be nice to have a bit more headroom, a bit more gain, but so far I haven't seen a screen with more gain that didn't have issues for me.
> 
> 
> I'm sort of caught between two desires: the desire for deeper black levels and the desire for higher brightness, and the two seem opposed at this time in projector technology. Deeper black levels give an more realistic, richer and more satisfying solidity to darker scenes, and higher brightness does the same for brighter scenes. I wish I could have both, but my set up with an ST-130 gives me the best compromise between the two that I could find.



Rich, thanks for the reply.


So, it sounds like you are really saying is that the increased brightness and not some other attribute of the HP screen could lean towards a more video like look. Given screen size (125" diag. 2.35 AR), picture/lamp mode and projector mounting height I can potentially acheive a low enough foot-lamberts coming off the screen to emulate a theater like look, which is my goal. I can also change these to achieve more brightness as the lamp ages or if I end up desiring a brighter image.


It would also appear that if you really hit the ST-130 with a lot of lumens that image too, would tend towards more video like.


I think what I'm trying to say is that it's really just brightness no matter how you get there (raw lumens, gain, screen size, etc.).


Would you agree with this?


How's the sparklies with the ST-130? Forgive me if I asked this question before........I don't remember.


Thanks,

Greg


----------



## jbolt

My sister gave me her manual pulldown Da-Lite 77" HDTV screen that she bought a couple of years ago, but she cannot remember what type of screen it was. She said it was the best they had so I am hoping it is a high power screen. Is there a way to tell what kind of screen it is? I cannot find any serial number or screen type on the screen anywhere. Just the Da-Lite name. Thanks.


----------



## Kilgore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jbolt* /forum/post/19963698
> 
> 
> My sister gave me her manual pulldown Da-Lite 77" HDTV screen that she bought a couple of years ago, but she cannot remember what type of screen it was. She said it was the best they had so I am hoping it is a high power screen. Is there a way to tell what kind of screen it is? I cannot find any serial number or screen type on the screen anywhere. Just the Da-Lite name. Thanks.



One clue to it being an HP screen is the weight of the fabric. It's quite heavy compared to other screens.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jbolt* /forum/post/19963698
> 
> 
> My sister gave me her manual pulldown Da-Lite 77" HDTV screen that she bought a couple of years ago, but she cannot remember what type of screen it was. She said it was the best they had so I am hoping it is a high power screen. Is there a way to tell what kind of screen it is? I cannot find any serial number or screen type on the screen anywhere. Just the Da-Lite name. Thanks.



Read this, http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post17854754 and follow the link a the end of the first post. There are pictures with written comments (click the thumbnails, comments under full size photos). This thread is about the differences between the 2.8 and 2.4 HP but if it is a few years old and is HP it will probably be 2.8.

Good luck


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gregory* /forum/post/19963621
> 
> 
> 
> I think what I'm trying to say is that it's really just brightness no matter how you get there (raw lumens, gain, screen size, etc.).
> 
> 
> Would you agree with this?




Yes. A while back a friend and I put up various projectors against a Pioneer plasma. We zoomed down the images to plasma size (50" diag) which of course greatly increased the brightness of the image. The images certainly became much more plasma-like and if someone didn't know it was a projection I'd bet they'd assume they were watching a plasma or LCD.


BTW, minor note: To be really picky I'd say the small projected images were still distinguished from a plasma image even though they were pretty much as bright and just about as sharp. They looked more like a bright rear projector image. I still find there is something of a signature to a projection-technology image vs the signature of a plasma image, which I put down to the difference between light reflected off a surface (projection) vs directly emitted light (plasma).



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gregory* /forum/post/19963621
> 
> 
> How's the sparklies with the ST-130?



They are there but very subtle.


I hate sparklies but needed a bit of gain on my screen. The gain on the ST-130 was the most benign I could find. Most of the time the screen seems "invisible" but occasionally in brighter spots I can spot some sparklies. Luckily it's subtle enough that it goes back to "invisible" mode soon afterward while I'm watching.


----------



## coderguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/19964327
> 
> 
> I still find there is something of a signature to a projection-technology image vs the signature of a plasma image, which I put down to the difference between light reflected off a surface (projection) vs directly emitted light (plasma).



Agreed, the light source seems to cause a bit of a video or "fake" look on a plasma, for lack of a better word, which causes it to look less natural. Perhaps it is also the screen itself which even the non-glossy Plasmas still have a bit of that glossed look. I remember some of the old Plasmas that had those excessively high gloss screens, those really looked unnatural.


To me it also appears that Plasmas exagerrate contrast sometimes, although it could just be because I have only seen very few pro-calibrated plasmas. Sometimes when I'm watching a Plasma image I think to myself, wow if I were viewing that scene in real life, no way would it look like that.


Of course I'll still take the Plasma contrasty pop video look over a projector if I had a choice, but it probably depends what I'm watching too.


----------



## R Harkness

coderguy,


We have precisely the opposite view of plasma. I find a well calibrated plasma image (and even a newer LCD image) to be the most realistic image to be found. I have a hunch that like a number of people you find flat screen images look "fake" due to typical calibration issues.


Long time members of the plasma forum remember me as being quite obsessed with the idea of image realism and how to achieve it. I constantly compared various technologies against real life. I also tried different calibration methods, not only ISF type but also "calibrated to life" methods. That is I would look at the video image, sometimes it was footage taken of someone in my family, and try to discern what was the obvious differences between them. Obviously pretty much any out of the box settings, especially the type we see in stores, will have too much contrast, color saturation, sharpness, brightness etc. But I'm not only talking of OOTB settings - in terms of sheer image realism even an ISF calibrated set will tend to look more saturated than life. And intense saturation tends to give the image an electronic glow.


By carefully adjusting the picture settings you can reduce these issues to a very sedate, extremely natural look.


As for the plasma glass in front of the image it's easy, at least for night viewing, for this to be a non-issue. I would just make sure there weren't lights shining on the screen. In fact for a cinematic effect I always preferred watching with lights fully off.

So any glass in front of the pixels completely disappears and all you have is the direct light coming to you. Since, unlike any form of projection, there is not surface on which the light is reflecting, there is no sense of a "mediated" image and hence that artifact is removed, and the image looks more believably "dense" and "there."


I've simply never seen images as realistic, so "reach out and touch it solid," as on my plasma after taking such care, and I've seen the best projection has to offer. Modern LCD displays have similar capabilities when properly handled. I've occasionally found LCDs that were actually well calibrated and which produced a realism that no projection I've seen could touch. I get it in glimpses in projection, but not nearly as consistently as from an excellent flat screen - not surprising as the ON/OFF contrast combined with ANSI contrast capabilities of current flat screens, while not yet at real life stage, far exceed what is possible in front projection.


But...I love a big image and I love the cinematic, romantic feel of projection, which is why I went that route for my home theater.


----------



## airscapes

I think we are getting a bit Off Topic here guys.. HP screen thread...


----------



## coderguy

I hear you, I guess it depends on the specific TV like anything else. I haven't really paid attention to many Plasmas lately. Also I don't think I've ever seen a Plasma in a true pure bat cave, so not a good judge.


Most realistic image I ever seen was IMAX on the better PJ's before they started replacing them with the cheaper ones.


----------



## newfmp3

well, my hp 2.4 has very little texture on it when viewing. I can't see anything on it from 10' back that is for sure.


As for the plasma comments. LCD's are getting better, but I have yet to see a LCD ,properly calibarated or not, touch a good plasma for "realistic" picture quality. And I've seen far too many cheap LCD's that were worse at screen reflection then some plasma's. It goes both ways. LCD tends to look over blown, over bright, over saturated etc. Great for cartoons I guess. That being said, my plasma(s) have their faults too.


I can't say I got any screen reflection issues with my HP though







I am starting to appreciate it more now that my bulb is breaking in some. Given how @#[email protected]#$ hard the snaps were too put on the frame...it ain't coming down any time soon that is for sure. I am very surprised that Da-Lite has not been sued for a serious injury given the nature of how the snaps go on their screens....holy #$$%


----------



## coderguy

Yah it's almost impossible to see the texture of the HP screen, I heard the 2.8 gain one has a tiny bit more, but not much, not enough to matter. I think I saw it a few times on an all white background, but it's so hard to see might have just been the film or my projector showing it's age.


----------



## fraisa

Would like to see some screen shots on this screen....


----------



## dragonbud0

fraisa,


try this and others under Screenshot Wars, searching for hp:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post14291093


----------



## Murilo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coderguy* /forum/post/19966401
> 
> 
> Yah it's almost impossible to see the texture of the HP screen, I heard the 2.8 gain one has a tiny bit more, but not much, not enough to matter. I think I saw it a few times on an all white background, but it's so hard to see might have just been the film or my projector showing it's age.




Not true, I found the 2.8 has less texture for sure. More of a clearness. There is no pattern on the 2.8, unlike the 2.4.


----------



## Gregory

Thanks for clearing up some of my concerns with the HP screen and the comparison to plasma's. It sounds like I would be very happy with the HP. Depending on what wall I put the screen on will dictate if it's a fixed or motorized screen. The fixed wall set-up will have some sonic compromises, like the couch being too close to the rear wall, surround speakers will have to be mounted on the rear wall (not ideal) and the projector kind of close to the seating area (may require a telescoping mount to get it out of the way when not in use), but the screeen wall is huge and it would look great there. Perfectly flat screen. The wall requiring a motorized screen (due to two windows) has a nice sonic set-up with ample room off of the rear wall and perfectly mounted surround speakers to the side (and rear speakers if I desire) and more room away from the projector. I can make this set-up look great, as well, but it will require the more costly screen with potential waves and screen sag (87"x115").


To be honest, after reading the many posts on how great this screen is and then reading that Projector Central review of the HP, which basically said it's only strong point was its brightness had me really concerned. And to a degree, still does.


Thanks again for the advice and help,

Greg


----------



## coderguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/19968546
> 
> 
> Not true, I found the 2.8 has less texture for sure. More of a clearness. There is no pattern on the 2.8, unlike the 2.4.



Really, I think I heard others say the opposite?

Oh well, can't get the 2.8 anymore, gotta be happy with what u can get.


----------



## airscapes

When you examined the physical texture of the 2 products up close the 2.4 has a cross hatch texture and the 2.8 does not. This is not visible when viewing content. The 2.8 can have a paisley shaped dark patter on full white fields, but is not always so. This leads me to believe it was a manufacturing problem and possibly why the have discontinued using the 2.8 product.


----------



## rana_kirti

Guys i need some honest and expert opinions on this....


Ever since DrMark came out with the new version HP Screen Gain calculator i had to re-calculate the gain available with the 2.4 in my room.


Here's my situation... Ever since i read about HP i'm trying hard to find ways to make it happen in my living hall.



1. Table mounting is not a option as it's very inconvinent to install the projector time and time again to watch a movie.

2. Shelf mounting behind the back is also not a option because of room design/other restrictions.

3. My ceiling is 9'5" = 113 inches.

4. I can't find a telescopic mount which can remain up at ceiling and come down near to eye level when in use in order to get max gain of HP's retro reflective nature.

5. I found was a adjustable column which had 3'-5' extension but keeping it at 3 feet level from ceiling means its 6 feet from ground and it's has the in-convinience of people walking into it all the time. More-over everytime it has to be brought down to 5 feet extension down you have to unscrew and re screw the adjustable column. Just not practical.


So for me the best available solution is to keep the projector lens at a steady height of 84" high from the bottom of the floor ie 29" from the ceiling towards the ground in my 113 inches high celing.


Now's the intresting and important part...


BASIC SETUP (Change the green values as needed to fit your situation.)


Which high-power screen? (specify 2.4 or 2.8) *2.4*

What is the horizontal width of the viewing area of your screen? *104*

How high above the room floor is the center of your screen? *67*

How high above the room floor is the center of your projector's lens? *84*

What is the distance from the front of the lens to the screen? (Measure perpendicular to the screen.) *176*

How far back from the screen is the viewing position? (Measure perpendicular to the screen.) *180*

How far to the right or left of the screen center is the viewing position? (Use positive distance for right; negative distance for left.) *0*

How high above the floor are the viewer's eyes when seated at the viewing position? *37*


I'm getting these figures....


Estimated Screen Gain: *1.55 1.53 1.55*


So now the most important set of questions....


1. Is getting a Gain of 1.53 in my situation still Worth getting the HP ?

2. My other option is Matt White with 1.0 gain. Will the HP with 1.53 Gain still be better than the 1.0 Gain of the Matt White ?

3. Should i get the HP or Matt White ?

4. Although i can only utilize 1.53 of the 2.40 available from the HP will 1.53 still be a great experience over 1.0 of Matt White ?


I'll have a little amount of ambient light present in the room.


I'd request the experts and HP owners to please come forward and give me honest replies on this as i have put in a lot of research into this and i need closure on this so i can finally order my screen which i've been wanting to do since very long.....


Thanks


( a special request to people who are using the HP with a ceiling mounted projector... How high is your projector lens from the ground ? Are you still getting good enough Gain as compared to what it would have been if you had table mounted it ? )


----------



## airscapes

Lets keep this real simple.

1. The HP is not expensive in the world of screens, it is not the cheapest but by far not expensive compared to some.

2. You will get a gain of 1.5 vs 1 so yes, 1.5 is better than 1.

3. You may end up changing your room at some point to be able to take advantage of more gain (with matte white you do not get this ability to upgrade your image by moving your projector)

4. If you are buying a non fixed frame screen that is not tensioned, the HP will fair better for waves compared to matte white

5.111 pages of happy people can not be wrong!

Oh one last thing I tell my boss all the time.. with sufficient money, time, and information, you can do anything.. keep looking for that drop down mount.. you could also do a mount that rises from behind the seating area..


Lots of options.. just have to google different things.. pneumatic telescopic projector stands seems to be a good one.


Here's one.. http://www.unitech-systems.gr/en/com...code=plt-hydra 

another to us with something DIY http://www.tamico.com.tw/eng_11.htm 


another ..look very promising http://www.csnstores.com/asp/show_de...3&PiID=2288457 
http://www.chaseavdirect.co.uk/ccp6/...tor-Stand.html 
http://www.chaseavdirect.co.uk/ccp6/...tor-Stand.html 
http://www.francisav.com/daliteprojectioncarts.htm 
http://www.projected.co.uk/stands.htm


----------



## henrich3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rana_kirti* /forum/post/19969926
> 
> 
> I found was a adjustable column which had 3'-5' extension but keeping it at 3 feet level from ceiling means its 6 feet from ground and it's has the in-convinience of people walking into it all the time..



Can you put a large potted plant, table, or something under the pj so people won't bump into it? You can then lower it further to get more gain.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rana_kirti* /forum/post/19969926
> 
> 
> 1. Is getting a Gain of 1.53 in my situation still Worth getting the HP ?



53% brighter is a very noticeable improvement. Order samples of the HP and a matte white and you'll see.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rana_kirti* /forum/post/19969926
> 
> 
> I'll have a little amount of ambient light present in the room.



The HP 2.4 does not do well with ambient light but neither does a matte white. Ambient light will make the image look washed out on either fabric.


----------



## edpowers




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *henrich3* /forum/post/19970073
> 
> 
> The HP 2.4 does not do well with ambient light but neither does a matte white. Ambient light will make the image look washed out on either fabric.



It depends on where the ambient light is coming from in relation to the screen/lens/viewer. If the ambient light is coming from the side of the viewing area (outside the viewing cone), the HP is far superior at rejecting ambient light compared to a matte white. The screen will be far less washed out with an HP in that scenario because that ambient light is directed back to its source and away from the viewer. Granted, the HP will still wash out, but not nearly as much as a matte white.


----------



## rana_kirti

airscapes, henrich, edpowers,


thanks for the recommendations and link. Here's the situation. my setup will be in a living hall and the projector will drop from the ceiling behind the viewing couch. but behind the couch is the dining table and in between paths lead to another room and the kitchen.


airscapes as much as i want to install a stand ( and thanks for numerous links ) i have no choice but to ceiling mount the projector as keeping it on a stand is just not an option for me as the stand comes right in the way of walking in that are. Mom won't allow it










i want to go HP because of all the advantages you mentioned...... so just trying to see which is the lowest i can keep my projector from the ceiling and not have people walk into it and get the max gain i can ( in my situation )....


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rana_kirti* /forum/post/19973334
> 
> 
> airscapes, henrich, edpowers,
> 
> 
> thanks for the recommendations and link. Here's the situation. my setup will be in a living hall and the projector will drop from the ceiling behind the viewing couch. but behind the couch is the dining table and in between paths lead to another room and the kitchen.
> 
> 
> airscapes as much as i want to install a stand ( and thanks for numerous links ) i have no choice but to ceiling mount the projector as keeping it on a stand is just not an option for me as the stand comes right in the way of walking in that are. Mom won't allow it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i want to go HP because of all the advantages you mentioned...... so just trying to see which is the lowest i can keep my projector from the ceiling and not have people walk into it and get the max gain i can ( in my situation )....



Point was, the calculator says it is higher gain than than matte white and you can always play with the projector placement in the future so just go for it and start enjoying it.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fraisa* /forum/post/19967105
> 
> 
> Would like to see some screen shots on this screen....



2.8 HP, 4mp cam. hand held, image not paused, but you can get an idea of the brightness compared to the Sony CRT
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post19973918


----------



## henrich3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edpowers* /forum/post/19971074
> 
> 
> It depends on where the ambient light is coming from in relation to the screen/lens/viewer. If the ambient light is coming from the side of the viewing area (outside the viewing cone), the HP is far superior at rejecting ambient light compared to a matte white. The screen will be far less washed out with an HP in that scenario because that ambient light is directed back to its source and away from the viewer. Granted, the HP will still wash out, but not nearly as much as a matte white.



The HP 2.8 did a good job of rejecting off-axis ambient light. I've got the 2.4 and it does not perform well with any ambient light, off-axis or not, IMO.


----------



## newfmp3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *henrich3* /forum/post/19974061
> 
> 
> The HP 2.8 did a good job of rejecting off-axis ambient light. I've got the 2.4 and it does not perform well with any ambient light, off-axis or not, IMO.



my experience is the same. coming from a m2500 draper which was angular reflective, I would say my biggest surprise was how bad the 2.4 material picks up lights in the room. ANY light on whatsover just makes the screen glow. So it's bat cave mode for me when it counts. That being said, my room is long and narrow at 12.3' x 19' long. So almost every light is practically in front of the 110" screen. Now if my room was 20x20, that might be a different story


----------



## GoCaboNow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *newfmp3* /forum/post/19978248
> 
> 
> my experience is the same. coming from a m2500 draper which was angular reflective, I would say my biggest surprise was how bad the 2.4 material picks up lights in the room. ANY light on whatsover just makes the screen glow. So it's bat cave mode for me when it counts. That being said, my room is long and narrow at 12.3' x 19' long. So almost every light is practically in front of the 110" screen. Now if my room was 20x20, that might be a different story



I have 116" wide 2.8 in my dedicated 13x23 room. For the super bowl we had all the lights on except the cans over the screen wall. Lots of ambient light between this and the entrance door being left open to acces the food all the time. The picture was so bright and clear - overpowered the lights of the room. My guests were really struck by the image with the room being so lit up - and that is with 1000 hours on the bulb. Thank you High Power.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *newfmp3* /forum/post/19978248
> 
> 
> my experience is the same. coming from a m2500 draper which was angular reflective, I would say my biggest surprise was how bad the 2.4 material picks up lights in the room. ANY light on whatsover just makes the screen glow. So it's bat cave mode for me when it counts. That being said, my room is long and narrow at 12.3' x 19' long. So almost every light is practically in front of the 110" screen. Now if my room was 20x20, that might be a different story



This is true, it was the first clue I had not received the 2.8 gain way back when they started shipping 2.4 without telling anyone.. the image was not much better than matte white with a lamp on... It has to do with the size and spacing of the micro beads...


----------



## Gregory




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *henrich3* /forum/post/19974061
> 
> 
> The HP 2.8 did a good job of rejecting off-axis ambient light. I've got the 2.4 and it does not perform well with any ambient light, off-axis or not, IMO.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *newfmp3* /forum/post/19978248
> 
> 
> my experience is the same. coming from a m2500 draper which was angular reflective, I would say my biggest surprise was how bad the 2.4 material picks up lights in the room. ANY light on whatsover just makes the screen glow. So it's bat cave mode for me when it counts. That being said, my room is long and narrow at 12.3' x 19' long. So almost every light is practically in front of the 110" screen. Now if my room was 20x20, that might be a different story



I will have total light control (no lights on, no light coming through the windows, etc.). My concern is due to the non-dedicated theater environment (white ceiling and lightish walls).


How well does the HP 2.4 prevent/reduce the ceiling and walls from being lit up due to reflected light, as compared to the HP 2.8 and to a matte white screen. I heard that the HP 2.8 was quite good in this regard.


Thanks,

Greg


----------



## airscapes

It will be better than Matte white.

Bottom line, if you can't cover the white, it's gona light..


----------



## newfmp3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GoCaboNow* /forum/post/19979734
> 
> 
> I have 116" wide 2.8 in my dedicated 13x23 room. For the super bowl we had all the lights on except the cans over the screen wall. Lots of ambient light between this and the entrance door being left open to acces the food all the time. The picture was so bright and clear - overpowered the lights of the room. My guests were really struck by the image with the room being so lit up - and that is with 1000 hours on the bulb. Thank you High Power.



Do not get me wrong, I'm not saying the 2.4 is not bright with the lights on, I do have a 8350 which is also a very bright PJ. It's certainly watchable by anyones standards. Its just that with any light hitting it, it ruins the colors/contrast and kills black levels. My ceiling and walls do light up a bit, but lets get real. I have a 54 x 96" wide screen on a 12" wall with 7.5' ceilings. I'm going to get light reflecting onto walls/ceilings unless I go get a black diamond or something at way more $$$$$$$$. My ceilings and walls are dark green, flat paint anyways


----------



## rana_kirti

I got the samples from da-lite. I tried the MW, HCMW, Silver Matte, VIdeo Spectra, Pearlascent and High Power 2.4 next to each other... first in ambient light and then max darkness.


My findings...


1. The HP stood out from the rest with very bright colors. The difference between HP and other was very huge. The colors had a lot of pop and others fabrics were looking lifeless as compared to HP.


2. When I'd get up and move a 2 feet to left or right the HP would look and feel like Matt White. How many degrees would be 2 feet left or right at 15 feet viewing distance...?


I guess the HP is best for 2 people sitting close together like say a couple and also good for a single person watching alone. If there are like 5/6 people sitting together then they'll have to make 2 rows otherwise if they sit in a single row the 2 people on the edge would as good as looking at a Matt White screen.


2. Blacks on HP were looking washed out.


Now I'm not a master of calibration but I tried to calibrate as much as I could to get good blacks from HP but I just couldn't.


Maybe I'm missing something... Or maybe my Optoma HD65 doesn't have good blacks to start with... I don't know but I'll be glad if others could share how to get good blacks from HP or do we have to live with washed out blacks....?


Thanks


----------



## mntwister

I received my screen sample of the 2.4 HP from Da-Lite. The screen I am looking at is the manual 159" (9" diag larger than the one I have). I put the sample up on my 150" Elite maxwhite 1.1 gain screen and I am shocked how bright it is. What used to look white on my Elite now looks dull and a very light grey. I used some Blu-rays, Dish Network and DVD's. ....


I am sitting in the center recliner and behind me directly above my head is the projector about 15" above my eye level, about 4 inches to the right of the center of my recliner. On my JVC RS-50, when a scene was completely black near that 12" x 12" sample. I could not tell the difference between my old screen or where the sample was, it was all black.


There is a recliner to the right of mine also used nightly, with no table in between. Eye level is the same and their view is about 21" to the right of the lens, and at that chair I could still see a big increase in brightness. To the left of my center chair, however, is a 14" table and then a 2 seat loveseat recliner. The first seat on the left side of the table is about 58 inches away from the center (lens) and the sample looks exactly like the Elite 1.1 screen behind it.


So my conclusion is for me, and after doing FLboy's great gain calculator, is that the high power would be worth it for me as the center chair and the one to the right are always used, the first chair to the left (58" away fron lens) is used occasionally. The far left chair is 71" to the left of the lens. I was concerned the furthest chair to the left would be darker than my 1.1 gain Elite but it was still very close.



Here are the values I used in the screen gain calculator:


What type of screen: R

Manufacturer on-axis centerscreen gain: 2.40

Published max viewing angle: 30

centerscreen gain at published max viewing angle: 1.20

Minimum gain of screen: .9

Horizontal width of screen: 139

How high above floor is center of screen: 55

How high above floor is center of lens: 55

distance from front of screen to lens: 190 (at full zoom per JVC's chart)

How far back is viewing position: 138

How far to left or right is viewing position: 4 (my center recliner)

How high above floor are viewer's eyes: 35" when reclined


So I get a screen center gain of 2.06, left of 1.97, right of 2.03



My question is this: I have my projector lens at about 14.5 feet from the screen as recommended by JVC. The RS50 zoom is at max. I do, however, have room to move the projector back farther (about 3-4 feet available) and reduce the zoom. Is this going to help brighten the screen on a 2.4 HP from the side chairs or hurt everything all around by having the projector father back or just be the same? Or is it best to have the projector as close to the screen as I can at max zoom?


The projector is on a bedroom dresser that is full of cd's so it is very difficult to move just to test it. So I thought I would ask here. I have calculated all seats from the screen gain calculator but figured it doesn't hurt to ask those who may have similar angles. My room is completely dark and I have covered furniture in black. Ceiling is a mid-tone wood, side walls to the left and right of the screen are a medium dark beige, carpet (flat industrial) a dark brick color.


Also, what is the calculated error angle (degrees)??


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mntwister* /forum/post/19987666
> 
> 
> I received my screen sample of the 2.4 HP from Da-Lite. The screen I am looking at is the manual 159" (9" diag larger than the one I have). I put the sample up on my 150" Elite maxwhite 1.1 gain screen and I am shocked how bright it is. What used to look white on my Elite now looks dull and a very light grey. I used some Blu-rays, Dish Network and DVD's. ....
> 
> 
> I am sitting in the center recliner and behind me directly above my head is the projector about 15" above my eye level, about 4 inches to the right of the center of my recliner. On my JVC RS-50, when a scene was completely black near that 12" x 12" sample. I could not tell the difference between my old screen or where the sample was, it was all black.
> 
> 
> There is a recliner to the right of mine also used nightly, with no table in between. Eye level is the same and their view is about 21" to the right of the lens, and at that chair I could still see a big increase in brightness. To the left of my center chair, however, is a 14" table and then a 2 seat loveseat recliner. The first seat on the left side of the table is about 58 inches away from the center (lens) and the sample looks exactly like the Elite 1.1 screen behind it.
> 
> 
> So my conclusion is for me, and after doing FLboy's great gain calculator, is that the high power would be worth it for me as the center chair and the one to the right are always used, the first chair to the left (58" away fron lens) is used occasionally. The far left chair is 71" to the left of the lens. I was concerned the furthest chair to the left would be darker than my 1.1 gain Elite but it was still very close.
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the values I used in the screen gain calculator:
> 
> 
> What type of screen: R
> 
> Manufacturer on-axis centerscreen gain: 2.40
> 
> Published max viewing angle: 30
> 
> centerscreen gain at published max viewing angle: 1.20
> 
> Minimum gain of screen: .9
> 
> Horizontal width of screen: 139
> 
> How high above floor is center of screen: 55
> 
> How high above floor is center of lens: 55
> 
> distance from front of screen to lens: 190 (at full zoom per JVC's chart)
> 
> How far back is viewing position: 138
> 
> How far to left or right is viewing position: 4 (my center recliner)
> 
> How high above floor are viewer's eyes: 35" when reclined
> 
> 
> So I get a screen center gain of 2.06, left of 1.97, right of 2.03
> 
> 
> 
> My question is this: I have my projector lens at about 14.5 feet from the screen as recommended by JVC. The RS50 zoom is at max. I do, however, have room to move the projector back farther (about 3-4 feet available) and reduce the zoom. Is this going to help brighten the screen on a 2.4 HP from the side chairs or hurt everything all around by having the projector father back or just be the same? Or is it best to have the projector as close to the screen as I can at max zoom?
> 
> 
> The projector is on a bedroom dresser that is full of cd's so it is very difficult to move just to test it. So I thought I would ask here. I have calculated all seats from the screen gain calculator but figured it doesn't hurt to ask those who may have similar angles. My room is completely dark and I have covered furniture in black. Ceiling is a mid-tone wood, side walls to the left and right of the screen are a medium dark beige, carpet (flat industrial) a dark brick color.
> 
> 
> Also, what is the calculated error angle (degrees)??



Um.. Change the value in the calculator to reflect the change in projector placement and see what it does. You now know what the numbers look like in real life.. compare the calculator numbers to what you see and then make the adjustment on paper.


----------



## henrich3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rana_kirti* /forum/post/19987543
> 
> 
> I got the samples from da-lite. I tried the MW, HCMW, Silver Matte, VIdeo Spectra, Pearlascent and High Power 2.4 next to each other... first in ambient light and then max darkness.
> 
> 
> My findings...
> 
> 
> 1. The HP stood out from the rest with very bright colors. The difference between HP and other was very huge. The colors had a lot of pop and others fabrics were looking lifeless as compared to HP.
> 
> 
> 2. When I'd get up and move a 2 feet to left or right the HP would look and feel like Matt White. How many degrees would be 2 feet left or right at 15 feet viewing distance...?
> 
> 
> I guess the HP is best for 2 people sitting close together like say a couple and also good for a single person watching alone. If there are like 5/6 people sitting together then they'll have to make 2 rows otherwise if they sit in a single row the 2 people on the edge would as good as looking at a Matt White screen.
> 
> 
> 2. Blacks on HP were looking washed out.
> 
> 
> Now I'm not a master of calibration but I tried to calibrate as much as I could to get good blacks from HP but I just couldn't.
> 
> 
> Maybe I'm missing something... Or maybe my Optoma HD65 doesn't have good blacks to start with... I don't know but I'll be glad if others could share how to get good blacks from HP or do we have to live with washed out blacks....?




1) That's why the HP is so popular!


2) The brightness of the HP 2.4 does fall off as you move off-axis from the light source but it still has positive gain out to about 45 degrees. My viewing distance is 11'. FLBoy's calculator shows that I get a gain of about 1.9 when I sit under the lens versus a gain of 1.6 if I'm two feet over. The worst seat on my couch is still getting a brighter image than a matte white could provide. I'm not sure why you're seeing such a large drop in brightness.


3) If a projector has poor black levels this can be more apparent on the HP. It's usually not an issue however because your eyes adapt to the brighter overall image so the slight rise in absolute black levels is overwhelmed by the brighter whites and colors. It's hard to judge this effect viewing a sample.


The additional gain the HP provides will be even more appreciated if you decide to upgrade to a 3D projector at some point. 3D glasses reduce image brightness by over 50% so going with the HP will "future-proof" your screen investment.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *henrich3* /forum/post/19987839
> 
> 
> 1)
> 
> I'm not sure why you're seeing such a large drop in brightness.



He is seeing this because the 2.4 is only really bright dead on axis.. the drop off may be smoother than the 2.8 as you move off to the sides but the initial cliff is steep on the 2.4, or at least that is what my eye saw. Since the 2.8 is gone, what it did is of no consequence... 2.4 is as good as it gets and it has it's compromises. Less bright and faster initial drop off than 2.8 but brighter off axis and better perceived blacks.. trade offs.. oh and it is not all that expensive...


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mntwister* /forum/post/19987666
> 
> 
> Also, what is the calculated error angle (degrees)??



It is the angle between the projector's line of sight to a point on the screen (e.g., screen center) and a viewer's line of sight to the same point on the screen. The smaller the error angle, the higher the gain. This is discussed in more detail in post #6 of the All Screen Gain Calculator thread linked below.


ETA: You have described your center recliner as being to the left of your projector and screen center. Thus, where you entered "4" you should have entered "-4" (minus four).


Generally speaking, the HP works best if you keep the PJ close to your head. I wouldn't recommend moving it further back unless you have an audible noise issue with the fan.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rana_kirti* /forum/post/19987543
> 
> 
> How many degrees would be 2 feet left or right at 15 feet viewing distance...?



for 2 feet ATAN(2/15) = 7.6 degrees (roughly) from the screen normal. The total 4 feet viewing cone you're discussing would be about 15 degrees.


----------



## mntwister




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/19988364
> 
> 
> It is the angle between the projector's line of sight to a point on the screen (e.g., screen center) and a viewer's line of sight to the same point on the screen. The smaller the error angle, the higher the gain. This is discussed in more detail in post #6 of the All Screen Gain Calculator thread linked below.
> 
> 
> ETA: You have described your center recliner as being to the left of your projector and screen center. Thus, where you entered "4" you should have entered "-4" (minus four).
> 
> 
> Generally speaking, the HP works best if you keep the PJ close to your head. I wouldn't recommend moving it further back unless you have an audible noise issue with the fan.



My mistake, it is to the right 4 inches from the lens.

I made the leap today and ordered the 78 x 139 (159") 2.4 HP Model C Da-Lite manual screen. 9" diag. increase for me too...I am very excited. Everyone here has been of great help, and I really want to thank you all. I am excited to see the brightness I am seeing on my 12 x 12 sample on the entire screen. My Elite maxwhite 1.1 gain looks so dull next to it!


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mntwister* /forum/post/19991151
> 
> I made the leap today



Congrats! I know you're gonna LOVE it.


----------



## mntwister




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/19991513
> 
> 
> Congrats! I know you're gonna LOVE it.



Thanks FLboy, and thanks to everyone for all the info in helping me take the HP leap.


----------



## repomambo

I can't seem to find a link to buy a Da-lite 106 model b HP screen. Is it possible for someone to post a link or to PM one?


Great thread and very simple to identify needs for novices like myself.


Thanks in advance.


----------



## henrich3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *repomambo* /forum/post/19994216
> 
> 
> I can't seem to find a link to buy a Da-lite 106 model b HP screen. Is it possible for someone to post a link or to PM one?



You can contact the AVSForum sponsors for a price quote:

https://shop.avscience.com/crm.asp?action=contactus


----------



## monstosity12

I have a question about the high power screen and its blacks.


I was originally going to get a Stewart Studiotek 130 G3 (1.3 gain). But since I would need more lumens for 3d [JVC rs40 - soon to purchase from AVS].


Question: Will I still be able to get dark blacks like I would on the stewart? I would more than likely have the Aperture set to -13 as it is a very high gain for 2D.


I really enjoy the blackness of plasmas; wondering if I can still get better lower blacks in 2d with the high power.


Sorry im a newb to all of this.

_screen size I would get [ 130" Wide in 2.40 AR or 130" Wide in 16:9 AR. I really havent decided as of yet]_


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *monstosity12* /forum/post/19999653
> 
> 
> I have a question about the high power screen and its blacks.
> 
> 
> I was originally going to get a Stewart Studiotek 130 G3 (1.3 gain). But since I would need more lumens for 3d [JVC rs40 - soon to purchase from AVS].
> 
> 
> Question: Will I still be able to get dark blacks like I would on the stewart? I would more than likely have the Aperture set to -13 as it is a very high gain for 2D.
> 
> 
> I really enjoy the blackness of plasmas; wondering if I can still get better lower blacks in 2d with the high power.
> 
> 
> Sorry im a newb to all of this.
> 
> _screen size I would get [ 130" Wide in 2.40 AR or 130" Wide in 16:9 AR. I really havent decided as of yet]_



Here is what an owner of both has to say.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post19960416


----------



## henrich3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *monstosity12* /forum/post/19999653
> 
> 
> Question: Will I still be able to get dark blacks like I would on the stewart?



The RS40 has a low lamp mode and an iris that can significantly lower the light output. You could also use a neutral density filter to cut more light. Moving the projector towards the far end of its throw distance will lower the black level. You can make blacks as dark as you like with either screen although it's a balancing act since these techniques also lower white. If you want blacker blacks without compromising white you'll need to buy a projector with a higher contrast ratio (RS50/RS60).


The StudioTek 130 and the High Power are both excellent screens. If one wants to view a very large screen or 3D (or both) using a projector with modest light output then screen gain becomes an important consideration. In these situations the HP would be a better choice than the StudioTek.


----------



## logain2000

Well I have a 2.8 HP that is 7 years old and lived through my 3 kids and wife(she helped me clean the screen once..uhhh) I am needing to replace the screen. I love my HP with my Panny 3000.


I have read about the new HP is now 2.4. Is this truly a major to minor down grade as people are making it.


I looked for a while and it seemed alot of people are knocking the 2.4 without any real test except for test patches or opinions. Sorry if I am missing some posts or info. Any help would be great as I am looking to buy a new screen.


Has anyone had both in the same enviroment?


If not I maybe the first...lol


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *logain2000* /forum/post/20006312
> 
> 
> Well I have a 2.8 HP that is 7 years old and lived through my 3 kids and wife(she helped me clean the screen once..uhhh) I am needing to replace the screen. I love my HP with my Panny 3000.
> 
> 
> I have read about the new HP is now 2.4. Is this truly a major to minor down grade as people are making it.
> 
> 
> I looked for a while and it seemed alot of people are knocking the 2.4 without any real test except for test patches or opinions. Sorry if I am missing some posts or info. Any help would be great as I am looking to buy a new screen.
> 
> 
> Has anyone had both in the same enviroment?
> 
> 
> If not I maybe the first...lol



I was the first to find out they were making and selling the 2.4, even Dalite did not know. Read the first post. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1213577 

But it is all moot, there is no more 2.8 unless you can find used, 2.4 is the only game in town, so buy and enjoy it.


----------



## logain2000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/20006480
> 
> 
> I was the first to find out they were making and selling the 2.4, even Dalite did not know. Read the first post. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1213577
> 
> But it is all moot, there is no more 2.8 unless you can find used, 2.4 is the only game in town, so buy and enjoy it.



Thanks Doug...missed that thread. Guess I have some reading todo. I have been so happy with my HP that I havent been in the screen section in years. I am a out of the screen game.


----------



## Laserfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *logain2000* /forum/post/20006312
> 
> 
> Well I have a 2.8 HP that is 7 years old...I am looking to buy a new screen.



Why, what happened to your HP screen.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Laserfan* /forum/post/20007506
> 
> 
> Why, what happened to your HP screen.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *logain2000* /forum/post/20006312
> 
> 
> Well I have a 2.8 HP that is 7 years old and lived through my 3 kids and wife(she helped me clean the screen once..uhhh)



This?


----------



## svalley




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *logain2000* /forum/post/20006312
> 
> 
> Well I have a 2.8 HP that is 7 years old and lived through my 3 kids and wife(she helped me clean the screen once..uhhh) I am needing to replace the screen. I love my HP with my Panny 3000.
> 
> 
> I have read about the new HP is now 2.4. Is this truly a major to minor down grade as people are making it.
> 
> 
> I looked for a while and it seemed alot of people are knocking the 2.4 without any real test except for test patches or opinions. Sorry if I am missing some posts or info. Any help would be great as I am looking to buy a new screen.
> 
> 
> Has anyone had both in the same enviroment?
> 
> 
> If not I maybe the first...lol




I just up sized my screen from 106" to 120", from HP 2.8 to HP 2.4.


Even with the size increase, I didn't feel that I lost any brightness (in

light controlled basement). The only down side for bigger screen is

now I have little screen door effect from sitting 13ft away. LOL.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *svalley* /forum/post/20008536
> 
> 
> The only down side for bigger screen is
> 
> now I have little screen door effect from sitting 13ft away. LOL.



Time to upgrade your projector. (big LOL)


----------



## Pultzar

I have a 6' x 14' high power screen sitting in my basement that needs a good home.


It missing fitting in my new house by only 6 inches


----------



## Pultzar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pultzar* /forum/post/20008901
> 
> 
> I have a 6' x 14' high power screen sitting in my basement that needs a good home.
> 
> 
> It missing fitting in my new house by only 6 inches



P.S. It is 2.8 gain of course


----------



## svalley




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/20008834
> 
> 
> Time to upgrade your projector. (big LOL)



I have a Benq w5000 1080p projector.

I think I will see screen door effect on any 1080p projector, right?


Other than the black level, I don't think there is anything I can

upgrade from my w5000.


My next upgrade is 4K, passive 3D, DLP LED, with native 2.35









may be in 5 yrs, I can dream.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *svalley* /forum/post/20009334
> 
> 
> I have a Benq w5000 1080p projector.
> 
> I think I will see screen door effect on any 1080p projector, right?



DLP, yes. DILA, not so much, but if you like the DLP look a JVC probably isn't going to cut it for you. I view 2.35 movies on my 10' wide screen from 10' back and see no screen door with my JVC RS20.


----------



## poster

I ordered a HP Model C 110" diagonal from AVS. I tried searching online and can't seem to find the answer to this. Does anyone know the exact height of the casing that the screen rolls into?


I have a short ceiling in my basement, and will be ceiling mounting it. Trying to measure so I know how much height I have underneath the screen for a hand built entertainment center for my components (if I have enough room).


Thanks if anyone can help out!


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *poster* /forum/post/20013598
> 
> 
> I ordered a HP Model C 110" diagonal from AVS. I tried searching online and can't seem to find the answer to this. Does anyone know the exact height of the casing that the screen rolls into?
> 
> 
> I have a short ceiling in my basement, and will be ceiling mounting it. Trying to measure so I know how much height I have underneath the screen for a hand built entertainment center for my components (if I have enough room).
> 
> 
> Thanks if anyone can help out!



Have you looked at the PDF files for installing and specs at dalite.com? Not sure that measurement is there but it should be. If not call or chat with a Dalite rep.


----------



## poster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/20013612
> 
> 
> Have you looked at the PDF files for installing and specs at dalite.com? Not sure that measurement is there but it should be. If not call or chat with a Dalite rep.



I have taken a look, but the measurements only seem to display horizontal values of the casing. Perhaps I am missing it, but talking to a sales rep is a good idea. Thanks for your reply.


----------



## DrMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by *rana_kirti* 
Guys i need some honest and expert opinions on this....


I found was a adjustable column which had 3'-5' extension but keeping it at 3 feet level from ceiling means its 6 feet from ground and it's has the in-convinience of people walking into it all the time. More-over everytime it has to be brought down to 5 feet extension down you have to unscrew and re screw the adjustable column. Just not practical.
I had the same problem with my room. I wanted to get my ceiling mounted projector as low as possible, but no lower. I found the extension column options very frustrating. Then I found out that the extension columns (at least the ones for my Peerless universal projector mount) use a standard pipe thread. I bought one of the standard lengths and took it to the local Home Depot and had them take the pipe cutter to it. They cut it and put new threads on it. And, get this, they did it for *free*!

Quote:

Originally Posted by *rana_kirti* 
I'd request the experts and HP owners to please come forward and give me honest replies on this as i have put in a lot of research into this and i need closure on this so i can finally order my screen which i've been wanting to do since very long.....


Thanks


( a special request to people who are using the HP with a ceiling mounted projector... How high is your projector lens from the ground ? Are you still getting good enough Gain as compared to what it would have been if you had table mounted it ? )
My projector is mounted 84 inches above the floor, the center of the screen is 53" above the floor, and my eyes are 42" above the floor. I get a 1.52 center screen gain. I love it. It works very well for me.


--Mark


----------



## DrMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by *rana_kirti* 
airscapes, henrich, edpowers,


i want to go HP because of all the advantages you mentioned...... so just trying to see which is the lowest i can keep my projector from the ceiling and not have people walk into it and get the max gain i can ( in my situation )....
In order to solve the problem you have, I mounted my projector directly above the back of the second row seating.


My second row (on a riser) is a sofa. If you imagine looking at a sofa from the side, the part your back leans against is quite thick (about a foot for mine). I mounted the projector directly above that position. Since the sofa is there, nobody can walk under the projector, and it is far enough back that nobody will hit the projector when sitting down.


--Mark


----------



## erkq

Quote:

Originally Posted by *DrMark* 
My projector is mounted 84 inches above the floor, the center of the screen is 53" above the floor, and my eyes are 42" above the floor. I get a 1.52 center screen gain. I love it. It works very well for me.


--Mark
The missing info to completely replicate the situation you describe is the throw and the viewing distance. Without those you can't figure the angles at which you get 1.52 gain.


----------



## DrMark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mntwister* /forum/post/19987666
> 
> 
> Here are the values I used in the screen gain calculator:
> 
> 
> What type of screen: R
> 
> Manufacturer on-axis centerscreen gain: 2.40
> 
> Published max viewing angle: 30
> 
> centerscreen gain at published max viewing angle: 1.20
> 
> Minimum gain of screen: .9
> 
> Horizontal width of screen: 139
> 
> How high above floor is center of screen: 55
> 
> How high above floor is center of lens: 55
> 
> distance from front of screen to lens: 190 (at full zoom per JVC's chart)
> 
> How far back is viewing position: 138
> 
> How far to left or right is viewing position: 4 (my center recliner)
> 
> How high above floor are viewer's eyes: 35" when reclined
> 
> 
> So I get a screen center gain of 2.06, left of 1.97, right of 2.03



I found that FLBoy's calculator isn't all that accurate for the high-power material. See this post. 

I plugged your numbers into my updated spreadsheet, and I get an estimated screen gain of: 1.76, 1.94, 1.88.


--Mark


----------



## DrMark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/20022084
> 
> 
> The missing info to completely replicate the situation you describe is the throw and the viewing distance. Without those you can't figure the angles at which you get 1.52 gain.



True, but he didn't ask for those










The full details:


Which high-power screen? (specify 2.4 or 2.8) 2.4

What is the horizontal width of the viewing area of your screen? 120

How high above the room floor is the center of your screen? 53

How high above the room floor is the center of your projector's lens? 84

What is the distance from the front of the lens to the screen? (Measure perpendicular to the screen.) 178

How far back from the screen is the viewing position? (Measure perpendicular to the screen.) 120

How far to the right or left of the screen center is the viewing position? (Use positive distance for right; negative distance for left.) 0

How high above the floor are the viewer's eyes when seated at the viewing position? 42


--Mark


----------



## newfmp3

I took my 12" sample of a M2500 Draper material last night and just stuck it up with my HP 2.4. Keep in mind I'm using a ceiling mounted PJ. With my head literall next to PJ lens, sure there is a difference and HP is better, but I tell ya, the little M2500 held its own when I sat down. It's not invisible like the HP 2.4 is, there is a touch of sheen, but colors were good, and blacks a touch better. My PJ is about 28" from my head right now when sitting, i have a telescopic mount so as time goes I can lower it. But i was surprised how at how well the m2500 held its own. This is the newer 1.5 M2500 material.


----------



## Hyrax




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *svalley* /forum/post/20008536
> 
> 
> The only down side for bigger screen is
> 
> now I have little screen door effect from sitting 13ft away. LOL.



I will be getting a larger screen soon and wonder what you mean when you say you're seeing a screen door effect. Do you mean that you're seeing the dark lines between the DMD mirrors (pixels)? Or is it something related to the screen material? If it is the dark lines between the mirrors, you could try softening the focus ever so lightly and it should go away. By ever so slightly, I mean use a very light touch. You should be able to see the pixel structure when standing right next to the screen.


If you're still aware of screen door after softening the focus, what you're seeing may be related to the screen material (some people talk about seeing a sheen from this screen).


----------



## svalley




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hyrax* /forum/post/20031175
> 
> 
> I will be getting a larger screen soon and wonder what you mean when you say you're seeing a screen door effect. Do you mean that you're seeing the dark lines between the DMD mirrors (pixels)? Or is it something related to the screen material? If it is the dark lines between the mirrors, you could try softening the focus ever so lightly and it should go away. By ever so slightly, I mean use a very light touch. You should be able to see the pixel structure when standing right next to the screen.
> 
> 
> If you're still aware of screen door after softening the focus, what you're seeing may be related to the screen material (some people talk about seeing a sheen from this screen).



>Do you mean that you're seeing the dark lines between the DMD mirrors (pixels)?

Yes, it is what I mean. I only notice it when on the text (warning, subtitle, etc...) I guess I can soften the picture by loosing the focus, but I probably stuck with the sharp focus.


----------



## Hyrax

Drat! I was thinking of going to a large 2.37:1 screen, but I don't want to see the pixel structure. Thanks for mentioning this.


----------



## newfmp3

the 2.4 material is invisible. Now with your nose less then an inch from it, and no light projected onto it, you'll see the weave of the material. But as for seeing sheen, or textures on the material itself while viewing movies and stuff.....ain't happeneing. It's as much of an invisible material as you can get. The older 2.8 gain material has a slight paisley effect to it during bright scenes, and even then it depends on the individual screen and how it was painted, manufacturing differences and so on. But you can not get the 2.8 material anymore so it's irrelevant.


----------



## rana_kirti

Is the new HP 2.4 as less prone to waves as the 2.8 was ?


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rana_kirti* /forum/post/20043229
> 
> 
> Is the new HP 2.4 as less prone to waves as the 2.8 was ?



Only time is going to tell ... the material of the 2.4 is thinner and lighter in weight than the 2.8. So if the wave is caused buy the roller sagging, less weight would be helpful to prevent this.. Neither fabric stretches so in that respect they are the same.. Owners of 2.4 what are you seeing.. it's been a year for some of you?


----------



## henrich3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rana_kirti* /forum/post/20043229
> 
> 
> Is the new HP 2.4 as less prone to waves as the 2.8 was ?



My 110" Contour Electrol HP 2.4 is quite flat.


----------



## Pultzar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *newfmp3* /forum/post/20035560
> 
> 
> the 2.4 material is invisible. Now with your nose less then an inch from it, and no light projected onto it, you'll see the weave of the material. But as for seeing sheen, or textures on the material itself while viewing movies and stuff.....ain't happeneing. It's as much of an invisible material as you can get. The older 2.8 gain material has a slight paisley effect to it during bright scenes, and even then it depends on the individual screen and how it was painted, manufacturing differences and so on. But you can not get the 2.8 material anymore so it's irrelevant.



Have you compared them side-by-side in regards to the sheen/paisley effect? If you normalized the brightness between them I wonder if they would start to look similar.


Some 2.8 material is available on the used market. Not sure if it will become a cult classic or not though


----------



## sb1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sb1* /forum/post/18968666
> 
> 
> The issue is the HP material's lack of flexibility. There simply is none. The BOC cloth had a small measure of stretch to it that allowed it to be stretched taut and stapled. I made the frame, laid the HP material over it like normal, then stapled it starting with one staple at each point of the compass (one in the middle of each piece of wood). Probably the wrong way, but that's what I did. From there I just worked my way around. The good thing is that even if you do have wrinkles or sag in it, it won't show when a movie is playing unless it's really bad and/or you get a pan across the screen in the wrinkled area.
> 
> 
> One very helpful thing is to make sure the frame and material is square (of course). Especially the cut in the material. If the HP material is cut square it's _way_ helpful in getting it stapled without sag anywhere (I learned that on the first attempt).
> 
> *The next time I do it I may try using glued Velcro instead of staples.*



For anyone who may be buying a pulldown HP to cut out of the housing and put in a DIY frame, I finally got around to doing what's underlined above.


I've stapled an HP to a DIY frame several times with a nail gun (the cheapest way) but always ended up with waves in it to varying degrees. I finally bought some Velcro and it worked like a charm. Tight screen and easy to apply/reapply to get it right. Highly recommended over stapling.


----------



## GoCaboNow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sb1* /forum/post/20046546
> 
> 
> For anyone who may be buying a pulldown HP to cut out of the housing and put in a DIY frame, I finally got around to doing what's underlined above.
> 
> 
> I've stapled an HP to a DIY frame several times with a nail gun (the cheapest way) but always ended up with waves in it to varying degrees. I finally bought some Velcro and it worked like a charm. Tight screen and easy to apply/reapply to get it right. Highly recommended over stapling.



Congrats! The hp screen material is a bear to work with. What type of glue did you use to apply the velcro to the screen?


----------



## jholzbauer

Yeah, I'd love to hear some more details on attaching the HP material to a DIY screen. Did you glue velcro to the back of the screen and to the front of the frame? Or, did you glue the velcro to the perimeter on the front of the screen and velcro to the back of the frame? Did you use anything to stretch the material? What materials did you use for the DIY frame? Thanks, I'm about to jump on board with the cheap Model B and hopefully create my own fixed frame.


----------



## Gotchaa

So I received a 122.5" wide scope HP screen contour electoral w/black case for ceiling mount. The box was damaged in shipping, and the end cap had some small crack which HP sent out right away. Got the screen hung, wired and rolled it down only to find some spots in the picture attached along the bottom 1" of the screen in 5-6 spots along the screen.


Not sure what could have caused this, but I was told not to clean it and Da-Lite is air shipping a replacement. Glad they are so good to work with.


I am however still enjoying the screen mounted. I have noticed a few things you HP experts can help with. I have this paired with an RS50, hanging about 24" from a 9ft" ceiling (not ideal but no choice), I am about 32" eye level from the floor, and the screen is about 17'ft. away.


The spots are visible only in bright scenes if you are looking for them. I have noticed waves however and I am wondering if this is usual for a new screen and if it settles down over time? It is distracting only in pan scenes thus far I can tell.


Hopefully the new screen has none of the above issues, but I am wondering if anyone else has the wave issues.


Calibration:

I am waiting for UMR to come out here in April, but until them I attempted to use the Spears and Munsil disc to calibrate the RS50 in Cinema mode. I found it impossible to get black/white levels accurate without turning on "Super White" in the projector and enhanced HDMI on in the BDP-93. Once I enabled these settings it looked good with test patterns. Is this what others are finding with this screen material? Is it the combination of components?


Basically a $100 Elite screen I had from Fry's temporarily was easier to calibrate than the HP, that's not what I was expecting.


Of course I know UMR will likely calibrate the biases out but just curious what others have experienced.


Overall I am looking forward to CIH w/HP screen even if my viewing angle is less than ideal, just hoping the waves are not an issue with the new screen (and there are no spots


----------



## GoCaboNow

^ Those black spots are where the beads inside the screen have come loose from the screen material. Nothing to clean or fix. It is broken there. If the fabric gets torqued or creased the beads come loose. Good thing you have a new screen coming.


I have 116" wide Cosmopolitan HP and works great with my two year old RS10.


----------



## mntwister

Well, the trucking company just delivered my 159" HP Da-Lite 2.4 gain. Major excitement, I am hoping to have some help to put it up tomorrow. Old screen-Elite 150" Maxwhite 1.1 gain bye bye!


I have read alot on the forums here and I am hoping I can still retain the "film" look for movies. I am aware that this can be very similar to the smaller Plasma look (or DLP) but I hope it also is good for retaining the look of film.


I'll post after I use it a few hours with some test blu's on my JVC RS50, some reg. and I'll try some 3D.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mntwister* /forum/post/20063303
> 
> 
> Well, the trucking company just delivered my 159" HP Da-Lite 2.4 gain. Major excitement, I am hoping to have some help to put it up tomorrow. Old screen-Elite 150" Maxwhite 1.1 gain bye bye!
> 
> 
> I have read alot on the forums here and I am hoping I can still retain the "film" look for movies. I am aware that this can be very similar to the smaller Plasma look (or DLP) but I hope it also is good for retaining the look of film.
> 
> 
> I'll post after I use it a few hours with some test blu's on my JVC RS50, some reg. and I'll try some 3D.



I don't know about plasma look at 159" unless you have some high end 3DLP projector... But it will look way better than that old screen if you have your projector mounted in the proper location..


----------



## mntwister




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/20063423
> 
> 
> I don't know about plasma look at 159" unless you have some high end 3DLP projector... But it will look way better than that old screen if you have your projector mounted in the proper location..



No I have the new JVC D-ila RS50 3D model not a DLP, just got it 2-3 months ago. My situation, as mentioned previously is perfect for HP. Projector is on a dresser directly behind the center recliner, only 11" or less above head level, and I will be able to use JVC's recommended throw distance. The projector will be straight back from the very center of the screen. No tilt or angle. Using the screen gain calculator I got a gain of 2.2 from the center chair. I was amazed when I put up the HP sample (12" x 12") that Da-Lite sent onto my old Elite and viewed a few discs. I thought I was viewing white on my old screen, next to the HP white looked like a beige/gray. I can't wait to get this thing up.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mntwister* /forum/post/20063634
> 
> 
> I can't wait to get this thing up.



Well TAKE YOUR TIME! Get it right the first time and get it level and square! I would guess that is going to be a 3 man job for sure!


----------



## mntwister




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/20064131
> 
> 
> Well TAKE YOUR TIME! Get it right the first time and get it level and square! I would guess that is going to be a 3 man job for sure!



Thanks airscapes. Yeah, I figured about 3 of us, so I have 2 friends coming over tomorrow. Funny, I've been saving all my new movies on Blu-ray, I've just watching Dish HD stuff lately, saving all the new Blu's for the new screen hehe.


Man this box is LONG.


----------



## Gotchaa




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mntwister* /forum/post/20063303
> 
> 
> Well, the trucking company just delivered my 159" HP Da-Lite 2.4 gain. Major excitement, I am hoping to have some help to put it up tomorrow. Old screen-Elite 150" Maxwhite 1.1 gain bye bye!
> 
> 
> I have read alot on the forums here and I am hoping I can still retain the "film" look for movies. I am aware that this can be very similar to the smaller Plasma look (or DLP) but I hope it also is good for retaining the look of film.
> 
> 
> I'll post after I use it a few hours with some test blu's on my JVC RS50, some reg. and I'll try some 3D.



I have the same setup with a 133" scope, just got my replacement HP today, shipped overnight by Dalite







Got it up and watched 3:10 to Yuma. I am waiting on a lens, but so far with zoom it looks sweet.


I am hanging from a ceiling 24" and I tried standing up at eye level and sitting down and the drop in brightness is barely noticeable.


I think it looks sweet even if my gain is under 2.0. I just find it very hard to calibrate with the JVC without turning on superwhite and setting the screen type.


----------



## Gotchaa

Does anyone have the SCB-200 and the Net-200 adapter with their HP? If so what can you do to control the screen over IP, what commands are available?


----------



## Warbie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jholzbauer* /forum/post/20050976
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'd love to hear some more details on attaching the HP material to a DIY screen. Did you glue velcro to the back of the screen and to the front of the frame? Or, did you glue the velcro to the perimeter on the front of the screen and velcro to the back of the frame? Did you use anything to stretch the material? What materials did you use for the DIY frame? Thanks, I'm about to jump on board with the cheap Model B and hopefully create my own fixed frame.



I'd be interested in this too. My pulldown is going to be converted into a fixed screen too and any help/suggestions would be much appreciated.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Warbie* /forum/post/20065752
> 
> 
> I'd be interested in this too. My pulldown is going to be converted into a fixed screen too and any help/suggestions would be much appreciated.



I started a thread for just this purpose, please post all info related to HP DIY fixed frame here -> Master HP Fabric on DIY Frame


----------



## sb1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Warbie* /forum/post/20065752
> 
> 
> I'd be interested in this too. My pulldown is going to be converted into a fixed screen too and any help/suggestions would be much appreciated.



On the Velcro, all I did was stick it to the back of the frame, then stuck the other part to the front of the screen that would make contact with the frame. No glue, nails, or anything else to help it stick. Laid the frame down and stuck the material to it.


Looking back, it would have been easier to just lay the material down on the floor and set the frame on top of it, but I did it the other way. I did it by myself since my wife was in bed, so I know it'd be easy with another person.


Once hung, the screen rests flat against the wall so that keeps the Velcro from either pulling off its other half or from the screen itself.


----------



## rana_kirti

was all set to place an order for a HP. I spoke to a friend who has 30 yrs of experience in audio video.


He said... "the HP picture might look good compared to a Matt white but you may find over a period if time that it is just "too bright" to see comfortably for a long period of time like a 2 hr movie.


He also said it's like walking to a audio video store and comparing a plasma to a LCD. He said the LCD might look brighter than the plasma but you realize with time tat the Plasma colors are are natural and easy on the eyes.


He said the Matt white us like a plasma and the HP is like a LCD.


Does any user of the HP feel that it is just way "too bright"....?


----------



## Pultzar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rana_kirti* /forum/post/20073884
> 
> 
> was all set to place an order for a HP. I spoke to a friend who has 30 yrs of experience in audio video.
> 
> 
> He said... "the HP picture might look good compared to a Matt white but you may find over a period if time that it is just "too bright" to see comfortably for a long period of time like a 2 hr movie.
> 
> 
> He also said it's like walking to a audio video store and comparing a plasma to a LCD. He said the LCD might look brighter than the plasma but you realize with time tat the Plasma colors are are natural and easy on the eyes.
> 
> 
> He said the Matt white us like a plasma and the HP is like a LCD.
> 
> 
> Does any user of the HP feel that it is just way "too bright"....?



I never found it to be too bright or tiring on the eyes. Then again I was using it on a 14' wide screen.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rana_kirti* /forum/post/20073884
> 
> 
> was all set to place an order for a HP. I spoke to a friend who has 30 yrs of experience in audio video.
> 
> 
> He said... "the HP picture might look good compared to a Matt white but you may find over a period if time that it is just "too bright" to see comfortably for a long period of time like a 2 hr movie.
> 
> 
> He also said it's like walking to a audio video store and comparing a plasma to a LCD. He said the LCD might look brighter than the plasma but you realize with time tat the Plasma colors are are natural and easy on the eyes.
> 
> 
> He said the Matt white us like a plasma and the HP is like a LCD.
> 
> 
> Does any user of the HP feel that it is just way "too bright"....?



And on the other end of the spectrum, I have a portable which is only 65" wide.. AND I have the 2.8 gain.. No, not to bright.. projector is on eco mode with iris closed.

To get the gain as you may or may not have read in this and other threads, the projector needs to be fairly close to seated eye level. If the image is to bright the projector can be moved up, away from eye level reducing the brightness. But I assure you, as the person on AVS that discovered Dalite had stated selling 2.4 in place of 2.8 over a year go.. the 2.4 WILL NOT be to bright..


----------



## tigerfan33




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rana_kirti* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> was all set to place an order for a HP. I spoke to a friend who has 30 yrs of experience in audio video.
> 
> 
> He said... "the HP picture might look good compared to a Matt white but you may find over a period if time that it is just "too bright" to see comfortably for a long period of time like a 2 hr movie.
> 
> 
> He also said it's like walking to a audio video store and comparing a plasma to a LCD. He said the LCD might look brighter than the plasma but you realize with time tat the Plasma colors are are natural and easy on the eyes.
> 
> 
> He said the Matt white us like a plasma and the HP is like a LCD.
> 
> 
> Does any user of the HP feel that it is just way "too bright"....?



Once you go to a HP screen you will never want a matte again. The matte will be dull and dim. You can always lower your projector settings on a HP screen for your liking but you can't raise the settings on a matte if you want the same good picture.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rana_kirti* /forum/post/20073884
> 
> 
> was all set to place an order for a HP. I spoke to a friend who has 30 yrs of experience in audio video.
> 
> 
> He said... "the HP picture might look good compared to a Matt white but you may find over a period if time that it is just "too bright" to see comfortably for a long period of time like a 2 hr movie.
> 
> 
> He also said it's like walking to a audio video store and comparing a plasma to a LCD. He said the LCD might look brighter than the plasma but you realize with time tat the Plasma colors are are natural and easy on the eyes.
> 
> 
> He said the Matt white us like a plasma and the HP is like a LCD.
> 
> 
> Does any user of the HP feel that it is just way "too bright"....?



He sounds somewhat ignorant of several issues related to front projection and especially the HP. I could enumerate, but suffice it to say I wouldn't take his advice.


----------



## rana_kirti

i just spoke to da-lite customer service .... i asked him what kind of customer the HP was designed for....


he said it's made for "The High Power is for a projector on the same eye level as those viewing the screen. It is good with a low lumen output projector.


now i understand the retro-reflective properties and the need for the projector as close to the eye level as possible.


but when i asked him if someone has a medium or high lumen output projector then can he use the High Power still...?


He said... "You will run the risk of hot spotting and wash out."


He told me that Matt White would be a good choice for me.....


i'm supremely confused now.... :-(


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rana_kirti* /forum/post/20074813
> 
> 
> i just spoke to da-lite customer service .... i asked him what kind of customer the HP was designed for....
> 
> 
> he said it's made for "The High Power is for a projector on the same eye level as those viewing the screen. It is good with a low lumen output projector.
> 
> 
> now i understand the retro-reflective properties and the need for the projector as close to the eye level as possible.
> 
> 
> but when i asked him if someone has a medium or high lumen output projector then can he use the High Power still...?
> 
> 
> He said... "You will run the risk of hot spotting and wash out."
> 
> 
> He told me that Matt White would be a good choice for me.....
> 
> 
> i'm supremely confused now.... :-(



Again... I've never heard of anyone who has actually SEEN one in operation complain of either malady.


Also, his statement suggests the screen does not behave in a linear manner, a complete impossibility for any screen.


----------



## NNate

@mntwister - Any first impressions?


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rana_kirti* /forum/post/20074813
> 
> 
> i just spoke to da-lite customer service .... i asked him what kind of customer the HP was designed for....
> 
> 
> he said it's made for "The High Power is for a projector on the same eye level as those viewing the screen. It is good with a low lumen output projector.
> 
> 
> now i understand the retro-reflective properties and the need for the projector as close to the eye level as possible.
> 
> 
> but when i asked him if someone has a medium or high lumen output projector then can he use the High Power still...?
> 
> 
> He said... "You will run the risk of hot spotting and wash out."
> 
> 
> He told me that Matt White would be a good choice for me.....
> 
> 
> i'm supremely confused now.... :-(




Unfortunately dalite customer service reps are not very knowledgeable, or at least the one you just talked to.. I would guess you could have a problem using a 4000lum projector, but we are in a Home Theater forum..


Trust your guy and the Dalite rep or the several hundred happy forum members that post in this and other treads.. It is not for everyone.. matte white will work and you can ceiling mount your projector and have a wide viewing angle..


----------



## mntwister




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rana_kirti* /forum/post/20074813
> 
> 
> i just spoke to da-lite customer service .... i asked him what kind of customer the HP was designed for....
> 
> 
> he said it's made for "The High Power is for a projector on the same eye level as those viewing the screen. It is good with a low lumen output projector.
> 
> 
> (



I guess I don't understand the theory behind "same eye level." If you have a screen at the same eye level behind you, it will not project without you seeing your head on the screen, and if it is in front of you it will be in the way, so I have never understood that theory.


I just got my high power 159" Elite 2.4 gain put up today. I spent the day watching. It was fantastic. I saw whites for the first time. My old Elite Maxwhite seemed light beige in white areas compared to this. Brightness is astounding.


I have my projector (had to move it further back, because I had 150" and this one is 159") at just above 15 feet from the screen. It is right behind the seating area, on a 5-drawer bedroom dresser which is about 12" above my head. Any lower and heads would show on the large screen. Luckily I have the projector directly back from the very center of the screen.


I did try the seats to the right and left of my center seat and noticed a slight loss of brightness but it was still much brighter than the old Elite. 2 seats away from the center chair it looked like my old Elite. So everyone has a decent view and the 3 people (center, left 1 and right 1) get the boosted brightness.


I love it! Can't believe the crispness and the 3D was so much better as well with the JVC RS50!!!! I tested my favorite 3D disc Polar Express (someone is borrowing my Avatar disc). The scene when they stop the train and the angled front of the tran comes out into the room was very dim before, now the front of the train that's in your face seems much brighter. All around everything just looks better. I tried some of the programming of of my Dish external hard drives (older and newer movies, previous Academy Awards and Tony Awards shows, ect) and everything to me looks much better. I am also dealing with 9 extra inches so I am sure that has some positive effect on the overall experience, but as far as picture quality, everything I tried looked better. In my opinion it was not only brightness but detail as well.


The first movie I chose to break the screen in tonight was The Sound of Music (Blu-ray)my all-time favorite. It was truly an amazing experience and looked much better than my old Elite 1.1 gain which was taken down this morning.


Thanks everyone for all your comments which made me go for this one. I love it!


----------



## mntwister




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NNate* /forum/post/20075016
> 
> 
> @mntwister - Any first impressions?



Sorry, see my post above this one


----------



## NNate

Good to hear that you're loving your new screen. I've spent too much time reading screen threads and I think I've decided that it's the screen for me. Now, just need to see if I can find an RS40 in stock (or somewhere without too much wait).


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mntwister* /forum/post/20079061
> 
> 
> I guess I don't understand the theory behind "same eye level." If you have a screen at the same eye level behind you, it will not project without you seeing your head on the screen, and if it is in front of you it will be in the way, so I have never understood that theory.



Of course you are correct. Luckily, one only has to place the PJ as close as possible to seated eye level while avoiding the blocking issues you have pointed out. Incidentally, those same blocking issues are the reason you will never achieve 2.4 gain with the so-called 2.4 gain HP. You can come close (e.g., by wearing the PJ as a hat), but to approach 2.4 gain the lens would have to be right between your eyes, which I'm told is quite uncomfortable.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mntwister* /forum/post/20079061
> 
> 
> I guess I don't understand the theory behind "same eye level." If you have a screen at the same eye level behind you, it will not project without you seeing your head on the screen, and if it is in front of you it will be in the way, so I have never understood that theory.



You left out the setup where it sits beside you, AND in that situation it can be a foot or 2 back. Sounds weird to me too, but some on these forums do this and with quiet projectors they love the setup.


----------



## logain2000

Well as I said earlier, I am looking at replacing my 133 " 16:9 2.8 HP as after 7 years of raising little kids it has a little wear plus my wife damaged a sections.


Anyways I just got a sample of the 2.4. My setup is a Panny 3000 that is ceiling mounted that hangs down maybe one to two feet. Just eyeing it the projector lens is maybe a foot or more below the top of the screen. Is it ideal for HP, no. But it still throws up a great picture.


So the interesting thing was placing the sample on the screen didn't seem to loose as much pop as others have said or shown in pictures. On whites or bright scenes it looked a bit more dim then the surrounding 2.8. Maybe 5 to 10 percent. But on colored or dark scenes the 2.4 would disappear and my wife asked were it was.


I tried it with lights on and off. I also tried some day viewing with isn't great in my room but still not bad for Xbox. So with my ceiling setup the 2.4, isn't a big loss in brightness as I was worried. Maybe the material makes up for the loss of gain with handling ceiling projectors better. I feel ok buying the 2.4. Still going to test.


I am far from a videofile like the rest of you so be kind







. Also typed this from my iPad so excuse the mistakes.


----------



## cpc

Gotta a link to within this thread or elsewhere that compares the HP with the Silverstar a bit more in depth? Does the Silverstar have a wider viewing angle in terms of brightness drop off?


----------



## airscapes

Please keep in mind that 99% of this thread and 99% of all HP threads are about HP 2.8 Gain which is no longer available. The new 2.4 is better in some ways and not as good in others and has only been on the market since 1-2010.

Make sure any comparisons are between readily available products.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cpc* /forum/post/20091617
> 
> 
> Gotta a link to within this thread or elsewhere that compares the HP with the Silverstar a bit more in depth? Does the Silverstar have a wider viewing angle in terms of brightness drop off?



You'll probably have to change the geometry of your theater to change between those screens.


----------



## cpc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/20092305
> 
> 
> You'll probably have to change the geometry of your theater to change between those screens.



My projector will be mounted within the area of the screen, aiming at the screen not far from centre. Not sure which will work for that setup.


----------



## avswilier

Have a PT-ae4000 on a trolley just below seated eye level. Pj is 8 inches below the bottom of the target screen and 12 feet away. Will the reflexive nature of the hp therefore work well in this situation? I will pull the trigger this week


----------



## airscapes

Sounds like it should but please plug your numbers into the screen gain calculator to see how much gain you will get.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=966057


----------



## newfmp3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *avswilier* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Have a PT-ae4000 on a trolley just below seated eye level. Pj is 8 inches below the bottom of the target screen and 12 feet away. Will the reflexive nature of the hp therefore work well in this situation? I will pull the trigger this week



Do not buy any screen without seeing samples


----------



## avswilier




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *newfmp3* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Do not buy any screen without seeing samples



Thanks, but I am in Hk and don't have much time to play with samples etc. Probably buy the cheapest Hp model b manual screen so the risk is not too big


----------



## FLCAVS

I am considering buying an HP screen cut to size.

I use today a JVC 750 and a 2.35 147"x63" gain 1 screen with a projecting distance of 19’ and a seating distance of 17.5’.

I do understand how the HP fabric works and have calculated that I will get in my configuration respective gains of 2 for my two centred seats and 1.8 for my two other seats for the present 2.4 gain fabric.


I need some feedback from peoples using the HP screen to determine a convenient screen size for my future JVC X projector.

I will be pleased to keep a similar size to my present screen but I am perplexed relating to the capacity of the projector to deliver enough light in 3D for this size.

I have no clear opinion on this subject even after reading posts on this thread.

By the way I have not been able to see such screen in action locally (Paris, France) and I have only been able to play with small 2.4 gain samples.

I should be pleased to get answers to the following questions (in particular from Zombie who appears to have a large HP screen).

1. What are the maximum 16/9 and 2.35 picture sizes to be considered in 3D for an HP screen and a new JVC projector? (I do know that this is subjective)

2. Are you zooming in the picture when going from 2D to 3D?


Many thanks in advance


----------



## zombie10k




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLCAVS* /forum/post/20110210
> 
> 
> I am considering buying an HP screen cut to size.
> 
> I use today a JVC 750 and a 2.35 147’x63’ gain 1 screen with a projecting distance of 19’ and a seating distance of 17.5’.
> 
> I do understand how the HP fabric works and have calculated that I will get in my configuration respective gains of 2 for my two centred seats and 1.8 for my two other seats for the present 2.4 gain fabric.
> 
> 
> I need some feedback from peoples using the HP screen to determine a convenient screen size for my future JVC X projector.
> 
> I will be pleased to keep a similar size to my present screen but I am perplexed relating to the capacity of the projector to deliver enough light in 3D for this size.
> 
> I have no clear opinion on this subject even after reading posts on this thread.
> 
> By the way I have not been able to see such screen in action locally (Paris, France) and I have only been able to play with small 2.4 gain samples.
> 
> I should be pleased to get answers to the following questions (in particular from Zombie who appears to have a large HP screen).
> 
> 1. What are the maximum 16/9 and 2.35 picture sizes to be considered in 3D for an HP screen and a new JVC projector? (I do know that this is subjective)
> 
> 2. Are you zooming in the picture when going from 2D to 3D?
> 
> 
> Many thanks in advance



I had the RS40 (X3) and now the RS50 (X7). My screen is the older 2.8 material and is 142" 16:9. My 2:35:1 viewing area ends up being 133" diagonal. I am not zooming for 2:35:1, I use masks on my screen which is a fixed frame Cinema Contour model.


My room is light controlled and the projector is 17 feet from the projector. I have the projector just inches above eye level for maximum gain. I am a brightness fanatic and for me, there is no such thing as too bright (within reason).


Like all UHP lamps, the new JVC's are going to lose their out of the box brightness after a few hundred hours. I am at 200 hours and it's definitely not as bright as it was when I first received it. I have a light meter and currently tracking the lumen output, but I can tell you it's nowhere near JVC's advertised 1300 lumens so you can't judge by any of the projector calculators unless you use a realistic (D65 calibrated) light output which is going to be in the 500-600 lumen range at the shortest throw. Some reports are coming in from previous owners stating the older models had higher calibrated lumen output than the new series.


The brightness in 2D and 3D are nice with the 2.8 @ 142" for now, but I'll have to wait and see how much more the lamp dims. I personally wouldn't use the new JVC RS/X series with a screen this large without a considerable amount of gain. For this combo, I think the 142" is as large as I would go with the new JVC's. That's a pretty big 2:35:1 screen you have there!


----------



## FLCAVS

Quote:

Originally Posted by *zombie10k* 
I had the RS40 (X3) and now the RS50 (X7). My screen is the older 2.8 material and is 142" 16:9. My 2:35:1 viewing area ends up being 133" diagonal. I am not zooming for 2:35:1, I use masks on my screen which is a fixed frame Cinema Contour model.


My room is light controlled and the projector is 17 feet from the projector. I have the projector just inches above eye level for maximum gain. I am a brightness fanatic and for me, there is no such thing as too bright (within reason).


Like all UHP lamps, the new JVC's are going to lose their out of the box brightness after a few hundred hours. I am at 200 hours and it's definitely not as bright as it was when I first received it. I have a light meter and currently tracking the lumen output, but I can tell you it's nowhere near JVC's advertised 1300 lumens so you can't judge by any of the projector calculators unless you use a realistic (D65 calibrated) light output which is going to be in the 500-600 lumen range at the shortest throw. Some reports are coming in from previous owners stating the older models had higher calibrated lumen output than the new series.


The brightness in 2D and 3D are nice with the 2.8 @ 142" for now, but I'll have to wait and see how much more the lamp dims. I personally wouldn't use the new JVC RS/X series with a screen this large without a considerable amount of gain. For this combo, I think the 142" is as large as I would go with the new JVC's. That's a pretty big 2:35:1 screen you have there!


Jason,


Many thanks for your information. This helps me a lot.

Sorry for the typo: my screen size should naturally read 147"x63".

My room is completely dark and light issued of the screen in direction of all room surfaces is blocked by absorbing masks (black fabric acting as field stop) so that the picture is seen through a kind of window in a completely dark surrounding.


----------



## Wizziwig

I've had my 106" model b pulldown (using 2.8 HP fabric) in storage for a few years. When I put it back up recently, I noticed some slight horizontal lines running through the image. They appear to be folds or wrinkles in the fabric. They run the entire height of the screen with spacing increasing as you get further down the screen (probably since the roller radius increases towards the bottom).


The issue is only slightly noticeable on very bright scenes or 100% full screen IRE test patterns.


To make it visible in photographs, I shined a flashlight parallel to the screen from the bottom or side edges. Projector is off and room is dark.


Can someone test their 2.8 pulldown to see if this issue was there originally or was caused by the prolonged storage? Thanks.


----------



## airscapes

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Wizziwig* 
I've had my 106" model b pulldown (using 2.8 HP fabric) in storage for a few years. When I put it back up recently, I noticed some slight horizontal lines running through the image. They appear to be folds or wrinkles in the fabric. They run the entire height of the screen with spacing increasing as you get further down the screen (probably since the roller radius increases towards the bottom).


The issue is only slightly noticeable on very bright scenes or 100% full screen IRE test patterns.


To make it visible in photographs, I shined a flashlight parallel to the screen from the bottom or side edges. Projector is off and room is dark.


Can someone test their 2.8 pulldown to see if this issue was there originally or was caused by the prolonged storage? Thanks.
When I opened up my tripod screen to full height (normally only half open for 16:9) I can see a line between the area that is normally open, which is darker than the part not normally exposed. When cleaning a bug off the screen that was in the not normally open part, I found that the dark part (line) was lessened by the cleaning. You may want to try wiping very lightly with some denatured alcohol to see if it will remove the darkness. Do a spot near the edge or bottom to test and if it helps, a full screen cleaning may help. Good luck and be careful.


----------



## agasarang

I had posted this on the JVC RS40 thread, but hope it's okay to cross-post a bit










Basically I now have to ceiling mount the RS40 about 2' above the eye level. We do like a "pop" in our image, although our living room is light-controlled.


The seating area is about 12-13" from the 133" screen.


We were fairly set on the HP when eye-level, shelf-mounting was an option. Now that's no longer the case, is HP still the way to go?


I've read about the relatively narrow cone, and also how the HP requires project being as close to eye-level as possible, so a bit concerned.


Thanks everyone!


----------



## domingos1965

how do u mount the projector at eye level ?

thats pretty low .


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> how do u mount the projector at eye level ?
> 
> thats pretty low .




At eye level is for MAX gain. If you are withing 12-15" you will get most of the gain. Table mount or shelf mount with lens shift just above the seated head level. Long pole mounts with lens shift work to.

Most inexpensive DLP projectors have a fixed offset so table mount is about the only option when there is no lens shift.


----------



## rana_kirti

Ordered my HP 110" model c today


----------



## coderguy

Can someone re-post the NEW 2.4 HP screen gain EXCEL calculator, I seem to have lost it.


----------



## Almost60

Finally i bought a Contour Electrol 110" with HP 2.4 , but after only a month , i have a problem.

When the projector is on with brith image , i can see horizontal stripes darker.

on the back of screen , there is a bit of white dust that , according to me , is the removed emulsion of HP.

When the projector is turned off, the surface is perfectly white, so I think that the strips depend on lack of uniformity of the emulsion , created by the friction when roll up on itself.

someone has the same problem? How did you solve it?


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Almost60* /forum/post/20212363
> 
> 
> Finally i bought a Contour Electrol 110" with HP 2.4 , but after only a month , i have a problem.
> 
> When the projector is on with brith image , i can see horizontal stripes darker.
> 
> on the back of screen , there is a bit of white dust that , according to me , is the removed emulsion of HP.
> 
> When the projector is turned off, the surface is perfectly white, so I think that the strips depend on lack of uniformity of the emulsion , created by the friction when roll up on itself.
> 
> someone has the same problem? How did you solve it?



I would attempt to take pictures of the issue. If the beads have indeed come off, the strips will probably show up if you take a flash picture of the screen from across the room.. If not then try and take the picture of the projected image as well.

Lets have a look see.

If it is defective, I would contact your dealer and Dalite customer servers individually (dealer first) and sending the same detailed email with pictures to both of them. Hopefully you purchased from AVS and they will take good care of you.


----------



## Almost60

This is the photo with flash.


----------



## maxum66

Is there a reason one wouldn't buy a HP screen on comparison to a normal matte 1.0 gain screen? I have seen blurbs about te 2.4 gain not be helpful in some situations. I have a Epson 8100 ceiling mount 11 ft away.


----------



## erkq

Quote:

Originally Posted by *maxum66* 
Is there a reason one wouldn't buy a HP screen on comparison to a normal matte 1.0 gain screen? I have seen blurbs about te 2.4 gain not be helpful in some situations. I have a Epson 8100 ceiling mount 11 ft away.
That ceiling mount may well be a good reason not to buy an HP, depending. The projector should be as close to eye level as possible. Ceiling mounts often place the projector too high.


----------



## newfmp3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Almost60* /forum/post/20213856
> 
> 
> This is the photo with flash.



send that sucker back.


----------



## repomambo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *newfmp3* /forum/post/20218266
> 
> 
> send that sucker back.



+1


----------



## Almost60

I bought it from AudioGeneral. Da Lite said that they have never seen anything like that.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Almost60* /forum/post/20223351
> 
> 
> I bought it from AudioGeneral. Da Lite said that they have never seen anything like that.



Then they need to send you a new one and get that one back to figure out what they did wrong!


----------



## Almost60

In your opinion, who should pay the cost of shipping from Italy?


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Almost60* /forum/post/20224564
> 
> 
> In your opinion, who should pay the cost of shipping from Italy?



Dalite or the vendor. you didn't cause the problem!!


----------



## Almost60

Ok , thanks... I'm waiting for answer from AudioGeneral.


----------



## RobertR

Quote:

Originally Posted by *jholzbauer* 
Yeah, I'd love to hear some more details on attaching the HP material to a DIY screen. Did you glue velcro to the back of the screen and to the front of the frame? Or, did you glue the velcro to the perimeter on the front of the screen and velcro to the back of the frame? Did you use anything to stretch the material? What materials did you use for the DIY frame? Thanks, I'm about to jump on board with the cheap Model B and hopefully create my own fixed frame.
I took a different approach. I built a steel frame, and used magnets to attach the screen. No mess, no glue, easy to adjust for flatness, holds the material very tight


----------



## Blue Rain

First thing that came to my mind was....


It looks like a return where someone tried some kind of

homemade 2:35 masking that went wrong.










You shouldn't pay anything as far as I'm concerned...if they don't make good let them know you will post about

them refusing to make good. Give them a chance before blasting them on the net.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Almost60* /forum/post/20213856
> 
> 
> This is the photo with flash.


----------



## Almost60

I have not accused anyone.

I just wanted to see if someone else had huge success.

I've always rolled out the screen completely, and I've never tried a masking system.

Sorry for my English.


----------



## airscapes

So what have they told you they will do? Are they willing to replace the screen?


----------



## Almost60

I was asked (as Blue Rain) if I ever rolled out partially the screen or if I clean.

I said no, but I do not have more than answered.


----------



## logain2000

Well I replaced my 2.8 133" HP with a 2.4 133" HP. My projector is ceiling mounted so it is not ideal. I have had the 2.8 for seven years so I was familiar with the picture.


I was scared that there would be a noticeable loss of brightness. I am happy to report that the 2.4 seems to handle my setup really well and looks amazing with no real noticeable drop in brightness . In fact the picture seems more uniform with ambient light.


It also gives a sightly different picture which I think gives better color. Over all I love it and feel no regret.


----------



## erkq

Quote:

Originally Posted by *logain2000* 
Well I replaced my 2.8 133" HP with a 2.4 133" HP. My projector is ceiling mounted so it is not ideal. I have had the 2.8 for seven years so I was familiar with the picture.


I was scared that there would be a noticeable loss of brightness. I am happy to report that the 2.4 seems to handle my setup really well and looks amazing with no real noticeable drop in brightness . In fact the picture seems more uniform with ambient light.


It also gives a sightly different picture which I think gives better color. Over all I love it and feel no regret.
Makes sense. The 2.4 theoretically works better of-axis, as your ceiling mount setup is. So you should have as good or even a little better performance.


----------



## Blue Rain

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Almost60* 
I have not accused anyone.

I just wanted to see if someone else had huge success.

I've always rolled out the screen completely, and I've never tried a masking system.

Sorry for my English.
Sorry..I never accused you..I said it looked like a return meaning someone else not you might have tried some kind of masking for 2:35.


----------



## rana_kirti

guys after paying 1/2 money advance 2 weeks ago to my dealer he called me today to tell me that my model c 110" has reached him from usa.










I told him i'll go over to his office to inspect the screen before paying the rest of the money and only then will i take the delivery.


1. Can some of the owners share with me what kind of general defects can be there in the screen that i should look out for ? I want to be sure the screen is trouble free before taking delivery and installing it.....


2. So what are the most common things to look out for ?


Thanks


----------



## Mystify

Duplicate post


----------



## Mystify




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Almost60* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> This is the photo with flash.



I am not trying to blame you for the damage to your screen, but I have to ask. Do you ever pull the screen down in a non-vertical manner ie in more of a horizontal direction?


The reason I ask, is because my HP has the exact same problem as yours. Maybe not as noticeable and I only have the dark horizontal line at the top of my screen instead of top and bottom.


I scrutinized the screen when I first installed it and the anomaly definitely was not there.


One time I caught my wife attempting to roll up the screen and it got stock. She then proceeded to "jiggle" the screen up and down to unlock it. However, she was pulling it more towards her instead of straight down.


I never thought much about it at the time, however shortly after I noticed the anomaly on the screen. I just assumed the horizontal pulling somehow damaged the beads on the screen. I remember reading somewhere in the dalite literature that you should always pull the screen straight down.


Edit - sorry I just noticed that you have an electric screen. Needless to say you probably don't have anyone pulling on the screen. Weird because my issue looks so similar to yours when I take a flash photo.


----------



## monstosity12

Well I just purchased a 130" wide custom high power screen. Recieved it about a week ago.


Figured I would punch in the numbers in FLboys calculator http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...213577&page=19 post #566 and I get this for the screen uniformity.


1.68 1.68 1.68 [very top of screen]

1.82 1.87 1.82 [middle of screen]

2.01 2.12 2.01 [very bottom of screen]

Difference from top and bottom of .33 gain


Im assuming I will notice this sort of hotspotting correct? I cant check as Im still awaitin on my projector to be delievered.


Here were my inputs...


2.4 [gain]

130 [screen width]

38 [room floor to middle of screen]

72 [projector lens to floor]

200 [throw distance]

156 [viewing distance]

0 [projector centered]

39 [viewers eyes to floor]


What do I need to do? Build a riser? Lower projector, closer or farther throw distance? Or maybe this is not all that accurate, but im sure its pretty accurate.

*UPDATE:* well, then I tried the other "all screen gain calculator". which gives me much better results. Which one is the best and more accurate calculator to use.


1.94 1.93 1.94

2.01 2.02 2.01

2.10 2.13 2.10

Bottom and top difference on by .16 gain


----------



## Almost60




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mystify* /forum/post/20260883
> 
> 
> ...I just noticed that you have an electric screen...



Yes , and i never touch the surface.


----------



## Fat Dave




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *monstosity12* /forum/post/20264131
> 
> 
> Well I just purchased a 130" wide custom high power screen. Recieved it about a week ago.
> 
> 
> Figured I would punch in the numbers in FLboys calculator http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...213577&page=19 post #566 and I get this for the screen uniformity.
> 
> 
> 1.68 1.68 1.68 [very top of screen]
> 
> 1.82 1.87 1.82 [middle of screen]
> 
> 2.01 2.12 2.01 [very bottom of screen]
> 
> Difference from top and bottom of .33 gain
> 
> 
> Im assuming I will notice this sort of hotspotting correct? I cant check as Im still awaitin on my projector to be delievered.
> 
> 
> Here were my inputs...
> 
> 
> 2.4 [gain]
> 
> 130 [screen width]
> 
> 38 [room floor to middle of screen]
> 
> 72 [projector lens to floor]
> 
> 200 [throw distance]
> 
> 156 [viewing distance]
> 
> 0 [projector centered]
> 
> 39 [viewers eyes to floor]
> 
> 
> What do I need to do? Build a riser? Lower projector, closer or farther throw distance? Or maybe this is not all that accurate, but im sure its pretty accurate.
> 
> *UPDATE:* well, then I tried the other "all screen gain calculator". which gives me much better results. Which one is the best and more accurate calculator to use.
> 
> 
> 1.94 1.93 1.94
> 
> 2.01 2.02 2.01
> 
> 2.10 2.13 2.10
> 
> Bottom and top difference on by .16 gain



If your projector is at 72" off the floor, and your viewers eyes to floor is only 39", you will probably notice the bottom of the screen being brighter than the top, particularly showing solid colour backgrounds.


Either lowering the projector or raising the seats (and screen with it) will help provide more uniform gain. Lowering the projector is obviously the easiest solution if that can be practically done. The closer you can get the projector height to viewers' eye level, the more uniform the gain will be.


----------



## monstosity12




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fat Dave* /forum/post/20265284
> 
> 
> If your projector is at 72" off the floor, and your viewers eyes to floor is only 39", you will probably notice the bottom of the screen being brighter than the top, particularly showing solid colour backgrounds.
> 
> 
> Either lowering the projector or raising the seats (and screen with it) will help provide more uniform gain. Lowering the projector is obviously the easiest solution if that can be practically done. The closer you can get the projector height to viewers' eye level, the more uniform the gain will be.



Thanks Fat Dave -


I could lower the projector about a foot more and thats it. So to 60". But this only helps by .06 gain [so instead of .33 offset top and bottom, I would get .27].


I just cant seem to get them to be uniform using the calculator. The only way this gets uniform, via the calcualtor at least, is to be directly under the projector. just typing in 60" alone does not show the results of uniform. But I guess nobodys setup is perfect.


I could move my projectors throw a foot closer but I dont like to have the projectors zoom maxed out.


Do you mind me asking your viewing distance and throw range, etc so I can get pluck this into the calculator and get an idea. The high power is such beautiful screen mounted, dont want to have to comprimise.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fat Dave* /forum/post/20265284
> 
> 
> If your projector is at 72" off the floor, and your viewers eyes to floor is only 39", you will probably notice the bottom of the screen being brighter than the top, particularly showing solid colour backgrounds.
> 
> 
> Either lowering the projector or raising the seats (and screen with it) will help provide more uniform gain. Lowering the projector is obviously the easiest solution if that can be practically done. The closer you can get the projector height to viewers' eye level, the more uniform the gain will be.



Um.. you guys may want to read the first couple pages of this post to understand how the HP works .. you will see a uniform image from any location, you will not see hot spots or bright areas at all... You just won't get the gain if you are out of the cone..

If anyone who has a big giant HP can see a non uniform image do to changes in gain when seated at the sides please post that fact, because I have never seen it on my tiny screen and I have never heard anyone post that they have seen a non uniform image, after all the is one of the major benefits of the retroreflective surfaces...


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/20265481
> 
> 
> Um.. you guys may want to read the first couple pages of this post to understand how the HP works .. you will see a uniform image from any location, you will not see hot spots or bright areas at all... You just won't get the gain if you are out of the cone..
> 
> If anyone who has a big giant HP can see a non uniform image do to changes in gain when seated at the sides please post that fact, because I have never seen it on my tiny screen and I have never heard anyone post that they have seen a non uniform image, after all the is one of the major benefits of the retroreflective surfaces...



What he said. If you're like the vast majority of HP owners, you will never perceive a uniformity problem. I never have. Can't say the same for my Stewart Firehawk.


----------



## monstosity12




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/20265481
> 
> 
> Um.. you guys may want to read the first couple pages of this post to understand how the HP works .. you will see a uniform image from any location, you will not see hot spots or bright areas at all... You just won't get the gain if you are out of the cone..
> 
> If anyone who has a big giant HP can see a non uniform image do to changes in gain when seated at the sides please post that fact, because I have never seen it on my tiny screen and I have never heard anyone post that they have seen a non uniform image, after all the is one of the major benefits of the retroreflective surfaces...





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/20265536
> 
> 
> What he said. If you're like the vast majority of HP owners, you will never perceive a uniformity problem. I never have. Can't say the same for my Stewart Firehawk.



Thank you so very much guys. I was looking at the calculator, and I saw what it said for top right, top center, compared to the bottom right and so forth, and it just spooked me as I dont have the projector near screen center [error margin from top and bottom says .33 gain. And I wasnt able to test, as Im still awaiting projector.







thanks for the comfort.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *monstosity12* /forum/post/20265414
> 
> 
> Thanks Fat Dave -
> 
> 
> I could lower the projector about a foot more and thats it. So to 60". But this only helps by .06 gain [so instead of .33 offset top and bottom, I would get .27].
> 
> 
> I just cant seem to get them to be uniform using the calculator. The only way this gets uniform, via the calcualtor at least, is to be directly under the projector. just typing in 60" alone does not show the results of uniform. But I guess nobodys setup is perfect.
> 
> 
> I could move my projectors throw a foot closer but I dont like to have the projectors zoom maxed out.
> 
> 
> Do you mind me asking your viewing distance and throw range, etc so I can get pluck this into the calculator and get an idea. The high power is such beautiful screen mounted, dont want to have to comprimise.



FWIW, my pj (RS20) is on a stand just behind and above viewers heads (eyes ~ 36" above floor, pj ~ 45"). Screen (110"x62" 16x9 HP2.8) center is ~ 49" (31 + 18) above floor. Works great, even with over 1300 hrs on the lamp.


----------



## Fat Dave




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/20265481
> 
> 
> Um.. you guys may want to read the first couple pages of this post to understand how the HP works .. you will see a uniform image from any location, you will not see hot spots or bright areas at all... You just won't get the gain if you are out of the cone..



I understand perfectly how it works, and use one every day. The image is not "uniform" from any location - this is completely false. It may "appear" uniform, or be "more uniform" than with angular reflective material, but that's about as far as you can take the argument.


The gain varies with the angle between the incident light and the viewer, hence you will achieve different levels of gain at different points on the screen. There is no "hot spot", but it is entirely possible to have higher gain at the bottom of your screen than at the top (or if you or the projector is offset, from side to side). It is also entirely possible that you can see that difference. When my projector was ceiling mounted, it was visible. Put up a solid background using a ceiling-mounted projector with an HP screen and you will see it.


The closer the projector lens to the viewers eyes, the less variation in gain across the screen, and the more uniform the image will appear. The fact that it may not "look" unbalanced even when it is, well that's another matter. Not noticing something is not the same as something not being present.


It's simple optics. There's a reason that the gain calculators floating around don't just spit out one number.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/20265481
> 
> 
> If anyone who has a big giant HP can see a non uniform image do to changes in gain when seated at the sides please post that fact, because I have never seen it on my tiny screen and I have never heard anyone post that they have seen a non uniform image, after all the is one of the major benefits of the retroreflective surfaces...



We didn't even discuss being seated at the sides, so I'm not sure who this was meant for.


----------



## Fat Dave




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *monstosity12* /forum/post/20265414
> 
> 
> Thanks Fat Dave -
> 
> 
> I could lower the projector about a foot more and thats it. So to 60". But this only helps by .06 gain [so instead of .33 offset top and bottom, I would get .27].
> 
> 
> I just cant seem to get them to be uniform using the calculator. The only way this gets uniform, via the calcualtor at least, is to be directly under the projector. just typing in 60" alone does not show the results of uniform. But I guess nobodys setup is perfect.
> 
> 
> I could move my projectors throw a foot closer but I dont like to have the projectors zoom maxed out.
> 
> 
> Do you mind me asking your viewing distance and throw range, etc so I can get pluck this into the calculator and get an idea. The high power is such beautiful screen mounted, dont want to have to comprimise.



For others - most of this we discussed yesterday via PM, but I missed the last part in your message.


My setup is as follows:


2.8 gain material

155" wide, 65" high

Projector height about 53"

Distance projector to screen about 213"

Front Row viewers eye level about 40"

Front Row distance viewers to screen about 156"


You can see that even with the projector closer to eye level, the numbers still won't come out uniform. You'll never get it perfectly uniform, unless you have the worlds smallest screen... All you can do is strive to get closer, and it will get to a point where the differences in gain are so minor as to be nearly unnoticeable.


My biggest discrepancies right now come from the fact that the projector is so far behind the front row, so I get a bit of a delta in brightness towards one side of the screen from some seats when I'm using the full screen width.


It's slight, and probably I'm the only one that notices it, but it is there. It's still far less distracting to me than the light fall-off and edge contrast loss I had with my old HCCV screen. I won't be giving up this material any time soon.


I still think optimizing your setup is key to maximizing the value (and enjoyment) of this investment, and I think it's important for potential HP customers to know how best to take advantage of the material.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fat Dave* /forum/post/20268532
> 
> 
> For others - most of this we discussed yesterday via PM, but I missed the last part in your message.
> 
> 
> My setup is as follows:
> 
> 
> 2.8 gain material
> 
> 155" wide, 65" high
> 
> Projector height about 53"
> 
> Distance projector to screen about 213"
> 
> Front Row viewers eye level about 40"
> 
> Front Row distance viewers to screen about 156"
> 
> 
> You can see that even with the projector closer to eye level, the numbers still won't come out uniform. You'll never get it perfectly uniform, unless you have the worlds smallest screen... All you can do is strive to get closer, and it will get to a point where the differences in gain are so minor as to be nearly unnoticeable.



Don't totally agree with this, FD. The relevant angle (for a retro-reflective screen) is that between two lines going to a point on the screen, one from the pj and the other from your eye. If your eye is close to the pj, then this angle will be close to zero for ALL points on the screen, so that the gain will be essentially the same for all points on the screen.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fat Dave* /forum/post/20268433
> 
> 
> I understand perfectly how it works, and use one every day. The image is not uniform from any location - this is completely false.
> 
> 
> The gain varies with the angle between the incident light and the viewer, hence you will achieve different levels of gain at different points on the screen. There is no "hot spot", but it is entirely possible to have higher gain at the bottom of your screen than at the top (or if you or the projector is offset, from side to side). It is also entirely possible that you can see that difference. When my projector was ceiling mounted, it was visible. Put up a solid background using a ceiling-mounted projector with an HP screen and you will see it.
> 
> 
> The closer the projector lens to the viewers eyes, the less variation in gain across the screen, and the more uniform the image will appear. The fact that it may not "look" unbalanced even when it is, well that's another matter. Not noticing something is not the same as something not being present.
> 
> 
> It's simple optics. There's a reason that the gain calculators floating around don't just spit out one number.



True. One way to test it is to take a photo of a solid white field. Then use Photoshop or some other image editing software to cut and paste areas of one section of the screen into others. Depending on where you took the picture, you will see the unevenness. Another technique I've used to tell the difference is to take a small white "window" in Photoshop and move it quickly side to side across the screen. I can then see the change in brightness.


However, it is very difficult to pick up on those variances in any sort of normal viewing environment. Even when I'm working in Photoshop with large areas of light color, it's extremely difficult to pick up on the differences, because they're so gradual across the screen. The eye is easily fooled. For normal movies, it's a complete non-issue. OTOH, on my Firehawk the changes in brightness and color across the screen are clearly visible in many movies. There's also a snowy sheen that the HP does not have. I also saw a different sort of sheen while watching the sample of Silverstar screen that Vutec sent me. The HP has no sheen.


While there are numerical differences in brightness as demonstrated by the screen gain calculator, they do not impact my normal viewing in any meaningful way. I can't say the same for other screen materials I've seen, where screen artifacts are clearly visible (and distracting) in very typical viewing situations. If I can't see a problem, it's not a problem. I also like to think I have a fairly critical eye. For instance, while some people say they don't see much in the way of brightness changes outside the cone, I can see brightness changes on the HP as I shift from left to right in my chair. That might sound like a condemnation, but for all practical purposes (for me), it's meaningless.


The best way to know if the HP will be right for a particular individual is to send for samples. That told me all I needed to know. I drown pretty quickly in numbers. I trust my eyes - especially if I put the samples side by side and simply move around in the room.


----------



## Fat Dave




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/20268592
> 
> 
> Don't totally agree with this, FD. The relevant angle (for a retro-reflective screen) is that between two lines going to a point on the screen, one from the pj and the other from your eye. If your eye is close to the pj, then this angle will be close to zero for ALL points on the screen, so that the gain will be essentially the same for all points on the screen.



Yes, you are correct with what you've posted, so I must not have explained myself very clearly.


The quoted reference pertains in particular to my setup, having the projector so far behind the first row. Even though the projector is only 13" above eye level, having the projector so far behind the viewer creates greater angles between the two incident lines towards the sides of the screen versus a placement with the projector closer to the viewing point. Because of this, in my setup there is a greater disparity in the gain from screen center to the screen sides, and there is also a greater disparity in the gain from one side of my screen to another when seated off-centre.


I hope that clears things up a bit.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fat Dave* /forum/post/20268727
> 
> 
> Yes, you are correct with what you've posted, so I must not have explained myself very clearly.
> 
> 
> The quoted reference pertains in particular to my setup, having the projector so far behind the first row. Even though the projector is only 13" above eye level, having the projector so far behind the viewer creates greater angles between the two incident lines than would a placement with the projector closer to the viewing point. This is particularly notable at the sides of the screen in my setup.
> 
> 
> I hope that clears things up a bit.



No disagreement! In your case the 'relevant angle' does indeed vary significantly for different points on the screen. I was just wanting to make the point that IF the eyes were fairly close to the pj lens, then this variation would not exist for any point on the screen. But we all live with the practical limitations of our own configurations. Still, as JC says, even if there is some variation over the screen, it is often so gradual that it is not noticeable in practical viewing.


----------



## newfmp3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fat Dave* /forum/post/20268433
> 
> 
> I understand perfectly how it works, and use one every day. The image is not "uniform" from any location - this is completely false. It may "appear" uniform, or be "more uniform" than with angular reflective material, but that's about as far as you can take the argument.
> 
> 
> The gain varies with the angle between the incident light and the viewer, hence you will achieve different levels of gain at different points on the screen. There is no "hot spot", but it is entirely possible to have higher gain at the bottom of your screen than at the top (or if you or the projector is offset, from side to side). It is also entirely possible that you can see that difference. When my projector was ceiling mounted, it was visible. Put up a solid background using a ceiling-mounted projector with an HP screen and you will see it.
> 
> 
> The closer the projector lens to the viewers eyes, the less variation in gain across the screen, and the more uniform the image will appear. The fact that it may not "look" unbalanced even when it is, well that's another matter. Not noticing something is not the same as something not being present.
> 
> 
> It's simple optics. There's a reason that the gain calculators floating around don't just spit out one number.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We didn't even discuss being seated at the sides, so I'm not sure who this was meant for.



I actually agree with this. I can see it's not an equal gain across the entire screen. It does an amazing job of perceiving to be equal, but it most defintely is not. Now the further you sit back, the smaller the scree, the closer your sitting to the sweet spot, the less noticeable it will be. I can see it just by putting up a black screen, or and solid color really and move around. It's not a Hot spot, even though by definition it might seem like it. I have had screens that hot spot, it isn't the same.


I'm using a 2.4 gain.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *newfmp3* /forum/post/20270220
> 
> 
> I can see it just by putting up a black screen, or and solid color really and move around.



If you have to "move around" to see it, it's not a uniformity issue. What you are observing is different gain from different positions. Uniformity differences are visible from a single position; your viewing position.


----------



## airscapes

I got a silly question. If you can only see this if your projector is not placed within the confides of a proper setup, and you have to put up a solid color or black screen to see it, why talk about it as if it is something to consider when trying to decide if you want to buy the screen? There are enough issues to deal with when it comes to buying a screen, why add something that is a non issue to the mix?.. sorry that is 2 of the same question!










Just to reprint *tryg's conclusion* of the 2.8 gain from the beginning of this thread (not exactly the same as the current 2.4 but close enough to still hold true)


Conclusions


I’ve been reviewing screens now for a number of years. Every professional screen I look at is very good; and I’m a big fan of companies that have the technology to develop surfaces with optical coatings and that take it to the next level of reflective performance. I personally tend to like higher gain screens and the brightness advantages you can get from them. Of all the screens I’ve reviewed, there’s one screen material that has become my reference standard. That screen material is Da-Lite’s High Power. *If set up properly, this material can deliver the best images available. If you are able to set up your viewing situation properly you can expect to see an image that:*


Gives a robust high brightness image with real to life colors and whites

Provides greater perceived contrast

Has a clean uniform image so that the surface completely disappears

Has no hotspotting or visable waves

Has an amazing ability to shed ambient light


PLEASE NOTE: The original review that started this thread was of the 2.8 gain fabric that has been discontinued. However the current 2.4 is of the same technology and exhibits the same properties but is slightly different in how it is manufactured.


----------



## Fat Dave




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/20270756
> 
> 
> I got a silly question. If you can only see this if your projector is not placed within the confides of a proper setup, and you have to put up a solid color or black screen to see it, why talk about it as if it is something to consider when trying to decide if you want to buy the screen?...



The question lies in defining "proper setup", and that's rather ambiguous. Ideally with the HP, we all know that it should be placed as close to the viewers eyes as possible, but at what distance does it slip from "proper" to "improper"? There's no hard and fast rule, but rather just a gradual decline in gain and uniformity, and it's up to the individual if the results are within their requirements or not.


Ceiling-mounted setups are quite common, and there are many posts in this thread with users asking about what sort difference they'll see with a ceiling mount versus a mount closer to eye level with the HP.


Commonly, the answer is "less gain", but in reality that's only part of the answer.


Also, this effect is not something you can "only" see with a solid colour. It's just very easy to see it that way, as with testing any screen for uniformity. It's always visible, just not always distracting. The more it can be mitigated with careful placement, the more subtle the effect will be, and the more it will become a non-issue.


But by default, it's another of the variables one should consider when deciding on their individual "proper setup".


----------



## airscapes

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Fat Dave* 
The question lies in defining "proper setup", and that's rather ambiguous. Ideally with the HP, we all know that it should be placed as close to the viewers eyes as possible, but at what distance does it slip from "proper" to "improper"? There's no hard and fast rule, but rather just a gradual decline in gain and uniformity, and it's up to the individual if the results are within their requirements or not.


Ceiling-mounted setups are quite common, and there are many posts in this thread with users asking about what sort difference they'll see with a ceiling mount versus a mount closer to eye level with the HP.


Commonly, the answer is "less gain", but in reality that's only part of the answer.


Also, this effect is not something you can "only" see with a solid colour. It's just very easy to see it that way, as with testing any screen for uniformity. It's always visible, just not always distracting. The more it can be mitigated with careful placement, the more subtle the effect will be, and the more it will become a non-issue.


But by default, it's another of the variables one should consider when deciding on their individual "proper setup".
I have no idea why anyone would want an HP for off axis viewing with a high ceiling mount. Wrong tool for the job.. but to each his own!


----------



## edpowers




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fat Dave* /forum/post/20273584
> 
> 
> The question lies in defining "proper setup", and that's rather ambiguous. Ideally with the HP, we all know that it should be placed as close to the viewers eyes as possible, but at what distance does it slip from "proper" to "improper"? There's no hard and fast rule, but rather just a gradual decline in gain and uniformity, and it's up to the individual if the results are within their requirements or not.
> 
> 
> Ceiling-mounted setups are quite common, and there are many posts in this thread with users asking about what sort difference they'll see with a ceiling mount versus a mount closer to eye level with the HP.
> 
> 
> Commonly, the answer is "less gain", but in reality that's only part of the answer.
> 
> 
> Also, this effect is not something you can "only" see with a solid colour. It's just very easy to see it that way, as with testing any screen for uniformity. It's always visible, just not always distracting. The more it can be mitigated with careful placement, the more subtle the effect will be, and the more it will become a non-issue.
> 
> 
> But by default, it's another of the variables one should consider when deciding on their individual "proper setup".



I think the key is that slight uniformity issues could potentially be noticed when you have

a) An extremely wide screen (Is it safe to say that your 155" wide HP screen is wider than most?)

b) A long throw in relation to your seating distance



For other more common setups, most people are unable to perceive uniformity issues. For example, I have a much "smaller" 104" wide screen, but I actually have a much longer throw:seating distance ratio. I still don't perceive any uniformity issues from any angle.


----------



## rana_kirti




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rana_kirti* /forum/post/20254112
> 
> 
> guys after paying 1/2 money advance 2 weeks ago to my dealer he called me today to tell me that my model c 110" has reached him from usa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I told him i'll go over to his office to inspect the screen before paying the rest of the money and only then will i take the delivery.
> 
> 
> 1. Can some of the owners share with me what kind of general defects can be there in the screen that i should look out for ? I want to be sure the screen is trouble free before taking delivery and installing it.....
> 
> 
> 2. So what are the most common things to look out for ?
> 
> 
> Thanks



bump...


----------



## Almost60

Quote:

Originally Posted by *airscapes* 
So what have they told you they will do? Are they willing to replace the screen?
Da-Lite will ship only a new roller and fabric , whitout cost to me.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Almost60* /forum/post/20283109
> 
> 
> Da-Lite will ship only a new roller and fabric , whitout cost to me.



Once you get that new roller and fabric, but before you replace it, try cleaning the screen with denatured alcohol and a clean soft cloth. Fold the cloth to fit in your hand poor some on and wipe gently. Do this in the dark with the projector displaying a blank white screen. I had the same kind of line with my 2.8 when I opened it fully and after cleaning the entire screen with alcohol it is like new. Good luck with your project and installing the new roller!


----------



## Almost60

Ok, thanks for the advice.









But I believe that the area is ruined for the rub.

On the back, near the lines, there is a white powder.

However I will try to clean it , until now I've never touched.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Almost60* /forum/post/20283316
> 
> 
> Ok, thanks for the advice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I believe that the area is ruined for the rub.
> 
> On the back, near the lines, there is a white powder.
> 
> However I will try to clean it , until now I've never touched.



I would wait till you have the new one in hand!

2.4 is much different in the way the micro beads are applied to the surface, it looks to be painted on rather than impeded in the backing. It would not surprise me to hear of adhesion problems that would cause this type of issue.


----------



## Almost60

Clean the 2.4 will be more difficult, the surface is rougher than the 2.8.

I'll try to clean it only when i get the new roll.


----------



## sukumar

Before getting HP screen, I am trying to decide color of the paint. I read in the forums that black would be best for ceiling and screen side wall. However, I also read that for Dalite HP screen, the back wall is important.


Is it true? If so, is black paint the best color for back wall?


I am choosing Loyal blue and Tricorn black from Sherwin williams.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sukumar* /forum/post/20300207
> 
> 
> Before getting HP screen, I am trying to decide color of the paint. I read in the forums that black would be best for ceiling and screen side wall. However, I also read that for Dalite HP screen, the back wall is important.
> 
> 
> Is it true? If so, is black paint the best color for back wall?
> 
> 
> I am choosing Loyal blue and Tricorn black from Sherwin williams.



The colorist who helped me with my house told me paints have a light absorption index. Some blacks reflect more light than some burgundies, for example. See if you can find that rating for the colors you are interested in. I used a very dark deep blue on the ceiling and back wall with burgundy walls. It turns out the colors don't really matter in my case, because you never really see them, even with lights full on.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sukumar* /forum/post/20300207
> 
> 
> Before getting HP screen, I am trying to decide color of the paint. I read in the forums that black would be best for ceiling and screen side wall. However, I also read that for Dalite HP screen, the back wall is important.
> 
> 
> Is it true? If so, is black paint the best color for back wall?
> 
> 
> I am choosing Loyal blue and Tricorn black from Sherwin williams.



Yes, the back wall is very imp for the HP. My wife made some dark burgundy drapes for the back wall that work great. When I pull them to the side, revealing white sliding doors to a closet, the pic degrades enormously.


----------



## sukumar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/20300311
> 
> 
> The colorist who helped me with my house told me paints have a light absorption index. Some blacks reflect more light than some burgundies, for example. See if you can find that rating for the colors you are interested in. I used a very dark deep blue on the ceiling and back wall with burgundy walls. It turns out the colors don't really matter in my case, because you never really see them, even with lights full on.



I never knew there is light absorption index. I will ask Sherwin williams tomorrow. Where are colorists available?


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sukumar* /forum/post/20302029
> 
> 
> I never knew there is light absorption index. I will ask Sherwin williams tomorrow. Where are colorists available?



My contractor referred me to the colorist. He did the whole house. I'll see if I can scare up the paints used in the theater and let you know.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sukumar* /forum/post/20302029
> 
> 
> I never knew there is light absorption index. I will ask Sherwin williams tomorrow. Where are colorists available?



I used Sherwin-Williams 7082 "Stunning Shade" (Maroon) and 6054 "Canyon Clay" (Raw Umber, Maroon, Deep Gold)


----------



## Benito Joaquin

very good info erkq, i need to look into this as well!


Benito


----------



## sukumar

I enjoyed reading many pages of this thread. I liked all the feedback and no wonder why this thread has so many pages. Dalite support is also excellent patiently answering all my questions.


I have JVC RS40 projector and about to order 142 inch diagonal HP screen today. My wife complained that the light from the projector lense is falling on her eyes whenever she stands and she does not like that. She is not sure how harmful these rays are. She wanted to put the projector wherever possible without needing her to be careful whenever she stands.


I really wanted to try this screen. I told her that we can click hide button on the projector to prevent rays. She did not like the idea.


If I have to place projector higher and if screen behaves like standard screen, I don't have problem. I want to have an option at least to watch 2.4 if needed.


Appreciate any feedback on the placement. I can't wait to order to enjoy phase 2 of the my projector to use screen instead of wall.


----------



## airscapes

Quote:

Originally Posted by *sukumar* 
I enjoyed reading many pages of this thread. I liked all the feedback and no wonder why this thread has so many pages. Dalite support is also excellent patiently answering all my questions.


I have JVC RS40 projector and about to order 142 inch diagonal HP screen today. My wife complained that the light from the projector lense is falling on her eyes whenever she stands and she does not like that. She is not sure how harmful these rays are. She wanted to put the projector wherever possible without needing her to be careful whenever she stands.


I really wanted to try this screen. I told her that we can click hide button on the projector to prevent rays. She did not like the idea.


If I have to place projector higher and if screen behaves like standard screen, I don't have problem. I want to have an option at least to watch 2.4 if needed.


Appreciate any feedback on the placement. I can't wait to order to enjoy phase 2 of the my projector to use screen instead of wall.
The only harm that can be caused it if she can not see where she is walking and runs into something or tips over something. This issue can be solved just like you do when the sun is shining in your eye, put your hand up in front of your face!

If you end up raising the projector you screen will work and probably still be better than the wall. One option is to get the screen and let the wife see how it looks, explain it won't be anywhere as good if we move the projector, so can you find it in your heart to please live with the slight inconvenience of raising you hand to block the light when you stand up and face the projector?

Good luck and enjoy!


----------



## sukumar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/20300311
> 
> 
> The colorist who helped me with my house told me paints have a light absorption index. Some blacks reflect more light than some burgundies, for example. See if you can find that rating for the colors you are interested in. I used a very dark deep blue on the ceiling and back wall with burgundy walls. It turns out the colors don't really matter in my case, because you never really see them, even with lights full on.



What you said is right. I went to Sherwin Williams and found that each color has LRV value (Light Reflective value)


I found that Naval blue (SW 6244) has lowest LRV value 4 out of all blue colors. So for the best color for less reflection is Tricorn black SW 6258 with LRV 2.


I read in the forums that screen wall and ceiling are more important. I thought to put black on ceiling and sceen wall and put dark blue for three sides.


There is conflicting consensus that HP needs back wall to not to reflect. I do not know how it looks to have black everywhere except side walls. I will go for blue on all walls and black for ceiling for consistency.


I would have not known if there is index like LRV without reading this post. Again thanks.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sukumar* /forum/post/20310399
> 
> 
> What you said is right. I went to Sherwin Williams and found that each color has LRV value (Light Reflective value)
> 
> 
> I found that Naval blue (SW 6244) has lowest LRV value 4 out of all blue colors. So for the best color for less reflection is Tricorn black SW 6258 with LRV 2.
> 
> 
> I read in the forums that screen wall and ceiling are more important. I thought to put black on ceiling and sceen wall and put dark blue for three sides.
> 
> 
> There is conflicting consensus that HP needs back wall to not to reflect. I do not know how it looks to have black everywhere except side walls. I will go for blue on all walls and black for ceiling for consistency.
> 
> 
> I would have not known if there is index like LRV without reading this post. Again thanks.



I can certainly verify that minimizing reflection off the BACK wall is crucial for success with the HP screen. I have dark burgundy drapes (that my wife made) which pull across the back wall (covering up a wide closet with white doors). When the drapes are pulled back to expose the doors, the pq drops dramatically.


I also have black cloth (light wt cotton) tacked to the ceiling and side walls, and this also improves things greatly.


----------



## sukumar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/20310606
> 
> 
> I can certainly verify that minimizing reflection off the BACK wall is crucial for success with the HP screen. I have dark burgundy drapes (that my wife made) which pull across the back wall (covering up a wide closet with white doors). When the drapes are pulled back to expose the doors, the pq drops dramatically.
> 
> 
> I also have black cloth (light wt cotton) tacked to the ceiling and side walls, and this also improves things greatly.



Do you have any photos that you can share? I am thinking to go for naval blue on the walls and black on the ceiling. I prefer to put blue everywhere and then cover with black cloth where ever needed.


I heard that sound also good with more cloth. Where did you buy the black cotton cloth? I just read meaning of "tacked". I guess you put small nail.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sukumar* /forum/post/20316353
> 
> 
> Do you have any photos that you can share? I am thinking to go for naval blue on the walls and black on the ceiling. I prefer to put blue everywhere and then cover with black cloth where ever needed.
> 
> 
> I heard that sound also good with more cloth. Where did you buy the black cotton cloth? I just read meaning of "tacked". I guess you put small nail.



I'm not much of a photographer, but I think you get the idea. Yes, I think the cloth does do good for audio. I used black push pins; the reason was that I initially told my wife that I wanted to 'try it out', but she soon got used to it and did appreciate the increased pq. And the push pins worked so well that I've not be motivated to re-do it.


The black material was extremely inexpensive light-weight cotton; my wife picked it up for me. I have since bought some more expensive black velour that I plan to put up this summer; not sure that it will improve things even more, for the present 'temporary' job does so well.


----------



## sukumar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/20317018
> 
> 
> I'm not much of a photographer, but I think you get the idea. Yes, I think the cloth does do good for audio. I used black push pins; the reason was that I initially told my wife that I wanted to 'try it out', but she soon got used to it and did appreciate the increased pq. And the push pins worked so well that I've not be motivated to re-do it.
> 
> 
> The black material was extremely inexpensive light-weight cotton; my wife picked it up for me. I have since bought some more expensive black velour that I plan to put up this summer; not sure that it will improve things even more, for the present 'temporary' job does so well.



I will look in Joann fabric for black cloth next time. I guess it is difficult to put the cloth on the ceiling. I will at least put in the back.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sukumar* /forum/post/20317654
> 
> 
> I will look in Joann fabric for black cloth next time. I guess it is difficult to put the cloth on the ceiling. I will at least put in the back.



Yes, I started with the back wall, and it is the most imp for an HP screen. After that, it is the ceiling; for that, put the push pins into the left and right sides of the ceiling (into a wooden picture molding), pulling it as tight as possible, and then needed one or two in between to get rid of any sagging.


----------



## sukumar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/20318539
> 
> 
> Yes, I started with the back wall, and it is the most imp for an HP screen. After that, it is the ceiling; for that, put the push pins into the left and right sides of the ceiling (into a wooden picture molding), pulling it as tight as possible, and then needed one or two in between to get rid of any sagging.



Thanks for the idea. I am first planning to put nav blue on all sides. I will consider using cloth for next phase starting with back wall.


----------



## newfmp3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/20308163
> 
> 
> The only harm that can be caused it if she can not see where she is walking and runs into something or tips over something. This issue can be solved just like you do when the sun is shining in your eye, put your hand up in front of your face!
> 
> If you end up raising the projector you screen will work and probably still be better than the wall. One option is to get the screen and let the wife see how it looks, explain it won't be anywhere as good if we move the projector, so can you find it in your heart to please live with the slight inconvenience of raising you hand to block the light when you stand up and face the projector?
> 
> Good luck and enjoy!



Yeah I second this, complaing of a light in her eyes is a bit silly. I wouldn't be long setting her straight on this silliness.


----------



## sukumar

Installer is coming to fix screen and wiring next week. What are options that I have if I want to put projector just above eyes, but some times to move it up. For example, when kids comes and plays and it is annoying to see their shadows. I want them to have fun and compromise quality some times.


Exploring for mounts and ideas. I liked fixing projector to wall but it can't be moved. I may look for variable height stands or extendable mounts etc. I have to figure out soon to order online if it is not available in stores.


----------



## GoCaboNow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/20300893
> 
> 
> Yes, the back wall is very imp for the HP. My wife made some dark burgundy drapes for the back wall that work great. When I pull them to the side, revealing white sliding doors to a closet, the pic degrades enormously.



My entire back wall is drapes or black fabric panels as well. As a side note, I was watching Tron Legacy and the colored tracers on the bodies were amazing on the high power screen. Absolute neon.


----------



## sukumar

I saw this adjustable mount. I want to use it for jvc RS40 projector.

http://www.thefinalclick.com/Chief-K...e_p_88994.html 


It is adjustable for 3-5 foot. Since my ceiling is 9 feet high and my eyes at 4 feet heigh, I will set at 5 feet. Occasionally, I will move it up.


Do you think it is difficult to move? I guess I need to change lense shift and zoom every time I move. Any comments?


Is anybody using this mount?


----------



## ajreynol

hey guys, I'm considering a High Power and I thought I'd ask a few questions. I'm thinking about pairing a 150" screen with either a:


- Sharp XV-Z17000 3D projector (1600 lumens)

- BenQ W6000 projector (2500 lumens)


It will be a ceiling mount at 15'-17'. I have what might be a large amount of uncontrollable ambient light (windows) that may impact the brightness of the room depending on the time of day.


1.) Can the Sharp @ 1600 lumens + the High Power screen manage with a fair amount of ambient light?


2.) Is the High Power okay for 3D projectors? I see Da-Lite also sells "3D Virtural Grey", but am not sure if I should be looking at that instead since I'm interesting in setting this up with a 3D projector.


Thanks for any insight, guys.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajreynol* /forum/post/20347240
> 
> 
> hey guys, I'm considering a High Power and I thought I'd ask a few questions. I'm thinking about pairing a 150" screen with either a:
> 
> 
> - Sharp XV-Z17000 3D projector (1600 lumens)
> 
> - BenQ W6000 projector (2500 lumens)
> 
> 
> It will be a ceiling mount at 15'-17'. I have what might be a large amount of uncontrollable ambient light (windows) that may impact the brightness of the room depending on the time of day.
> 
> 
> 1.) Can the Sharp @ 1600 lumens + the High Power screen manage with a fair amount of ambient light?
> 
> 
> 2.) Is the High Power okay for 3D projectors? I see Da-Lite also sells "3D Virtural Grey", but am not sure if I should be looking at that instead since I'm interesting in setting this up with a 3D projector.
> 
> 
> Thanks for any insight, guys.



You are not going to get any benefit from the HP screen if you mount your projector on the ceiling. Please read the first post of this thread and keep in mind the new HP is not as bright as the old which was around when this tread was started.


----------



## ajreynol




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/20347436
> 
> 
> You are not going to get any benefit from the HP screen if you mount your projector on the ceiling. Please read the first post of this thread and keep in mind the new HP is not as bright as the old which was around when this tread was started.



understood. ty.


----------



## Drexler




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajreynol* /forum/post/20347240
> 
> 
> 1.) Can the Sharp @ 1600 lumens + the High Power screen manage with a fair amount of ambient light?
> 
> 
> 2.) Is the High Power okay for 3D projectors? I see Da-Lite also sells "3D Virtural Grey", but am not sure if I should be looking at that instead since I'm interesting in setting this up with a 3D projector.


*1)* In my experience - no. The HP does not reject ambient light any better than a normal white screen. It gets a bit brighter, but if you have any ambient light hitting the screen it will wash out the image to a large degree.


I can have an overhead light aimed at the sofa and still get a decent picture except in the darkest scenes (but that's also true for a normal white screen). However, any light that will be directed towards the screen, no matter the angle of incidence, will wash out the image making it more or less unwatchable.

*2)* Depends. Not for projectors using passive glasses and polarization to separate the left and right images. For shutter glasses - yes, it will work just fine and give you a welcomed boost in brightness. The sharp uses shutter glasses and with this projector it would be pointless to get the Virtual Grey screen. It will actually degrade picture quality with hotspotting (non uniformity), color shifts and sparklies. This screen is only recommended when retention of polarization is needed.


----------



## Joseph Clark

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Drexler* 
*1)* In my experience - no. The HP does not reject ambient light any better than a normal white screen. It gets a bit brighter, but if you have any ambient light hitting the screen it will wash out the image to a large degree.


I can have an overhead light aimed at the sofa and still get a decent picture except in the darkest scenes (but that's also true for a normal white screen). However, any light that will be directed towards the screen, no matter the angle of incidence, will wash out the image making it more or less unwatchable.

*2)* Depends. Not for projectors using passive glasses and polarization to separate the left and right images. For shutter glasses - yes, it will work just fine and give you a welcomed boost in brightness. The sharp uses shutter glasses and with this projector it would be pointless to get the Virtual Grey screen. It will actually degrade picture quality with hotspotting (non uniformity), color shifts and sparklies. This screen is only recommended when retention of polarization is needed.
While I agree that ambient light is a bad idea for a projection environment, to say that the HP is unwatchable with any light directed at the screen is not true in my experience. With halogen track lights aimed from the ceiling onto my HP, and the whole track lighting system up to a moderate level, the image in my theater is very "watchable." Not ideal, certainly, but not horrible, either. That's for things like baseball, news, or other shows where image quality might be secondary to the need to keep lights up a bit. I don't like to do it, but it's a lot better than "plain white" screens, which usually do wash out with any ambient light. As long as the light is not coming from behind the projector, I suspect many people would be happy with the HP image in a lighter room. That said, taking the time to make my home theater room dark was the single best step I've taken to improve it. However, some people just can't do that, and the HP can be a good choice for them, if they understand how it works. Rejecting ambient light is something it does better than a lot of screens.


----------



## Murilo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/20347436
> 
> 
> You are not going to get any benefit from the HP screen if you mount your projector on the ceiling. Please read the first post of this thread and keep in mind the new HP is not as bright as the old which was around when this tread was started.



I have mine ceiling mounted, but it was tough finding a peerless mount that dropped far enough down.


Its a little over a foot above eye level, i get quite a bit of gain off of it. The calculator i think gave me 2.2-2.3


At times i sometimes think its to bright but then as the bulb dims it works great.


----------



## Drexler




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/20403371
> 
> 
> While I agree that ambient light is a bad idea for a projection environment, to say that the HP is unwatchable with any light directed at the screen is not true in my experience. With halogen track lights aimed from the ceiling onto my HP, and the whole track lighting system up to a moderate level, the image in my theater is very "watchable." Not ideal, certainly, but not horrible, either. That's for things like baseball, news, or other shows where image quality might be secondary to the need to keep lights up a bit. I don't like to do it, but it's a lot better than "plain white" screens, which usually do wash out with any ambient light. As long as the light is not coming from behind the projector, I suspect many people would be happy with the HP image in a lighter room. That said, taking the time to make my home theater room dark was the single best step I've taken to improve it. However, some people just can't do that, and the HP can be a good choice for them, if they understand how it works. Rejecting ambient light is something it does better than a lot of screens.



I don't know if you have the 2.4 or 2.8 version but my experience doesn't mirror yours. My 2.4 HP doesn't reject ambient light at all no matter where the light is coming from. As can be seen by the pictures I have experimented putting a piece of paper on the screen with lights coming from the side (very far to the side) and the paper and the screen have virtually the same brightness from my seating position.


The first picture shows a flashlight directed towards the screen and paper in a dark environment, seen from my central seating position.


The second picture shows how the light us situated in comparison to the screen.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Drexler* /forum/post/20415138
> 
> 
> I don't know if you have the 2.4 or 2.8 version but my experience doesn't mirror yours. My 2.4 HP doesn't reject ambient light at all no matter where the light is coming from. As can be seen by the pictures I have experimented putting a piece of paper on the screen with lights coming from the side (very far to the side) and the paper and the screen have virtually the same brightness from my seating position.
> 
> 
> The first picture shows a flashlight directed towards the screen and paper in a dark environment, seen from my central seating position.
> 
> 
> The second picture shows how the light us situated in comparison to the screen.



I have the 2.8, but it should make little difference. A retro-reflective screen like the HP gets its gain by "collecting" light and returning more of it back toward the light source than off to the sides. That's why it dims as you walk out of the cone. A bright light hitting the screen at an angle (from the side or the ceiling) will reflect more of the light back toward that source, and therefore away from the viewer's eyes. The result is less washout.


It's easy enough to test. Take a flashlight off to the side and shine it on the HP as you stand there. See how much light is reflected back. Now leave the light there but move away from the flashlight. The further you move from the light source, the dimmer that light source will appear on screen. If the HP didn't work this way, it wouldn't give you any gain, and it wouldn't reject ambient light the way it does.


----------



## Fat Dave

I think your experiment does show how the "ambient light rejection" of the HP functions. Consider that the paper represents maybe just under 1.0 gain. If the HP has side-light gain of close to 1.0 gain and light from the projector providing a 2.2-2.6 gain, it's a huge improvement in the ratio of unwanted light to projector-provided light.


A 1.1-1.3 gain retroreflective screen would be lighting up a similar amount from side-lighting, but wouldn't be near as bright from the projected light, so you have the ability to have an improved contrast ratio with side-lighting using a retro-reflective material like the HP.


It's not a panacea of course, but try the same experiment while showing projected material, and take pics from your seating area. The HP may wash out the blacks to a similar amount to that of the paper, but the brighter parts of the image will be substantially brighter on the HP, which in effect preserves more of the contrast ratio.


So maybe "ambient light rejection" is not the proper term, but the ratio between the brightness of direct-reflected light versus side-reflected light is substantial with the HP material.


I still much prefer and strongly recommend that ANY projected material be used in a totally darkened environment.


----------



## Drexler

Joseph,


I agree that it sends more light back to the source from the side. However, it sends enough light toward the seating position that the difference compared to a 1.0 gain screen really is negligible to the naked eye. It might be slightly less bright, but you would only really see it in a direct comparison if then! The thing is the screen both acts as a retroreflector and as disperser of light. It has both a normal white substrate and retro reflective beads. It will disperse light from the sides very effectively.


Test it yourself with a piece of paper and you would see that your screen is not darker than the paper from your seat no matter where the light is coming from! There is in principle no ambient light rejection.


What I'm trying to say is what Dave wrote. You get a slightly higher contrast ratio than a normal white screen, but it's not from light rejection or lower black levels but from the increased brightness at your seating position due to the gain.


Compare it to a Firehawk and it's not even close. The Firehawk using the same test as I did with the HP would show as really dark grey in the light from the flashlight compared to the paper, whereas the image brightness from the projector would be more or less equal. Leading to a vastly superior contrast ratio.


----------



## airscapes

The fact is that the 2.4 does not do much better than matte white in a ambient light environment, that was the first clue I had not received the 2.8 way back when they first started shipping 2.4

2.8 does a great job in ambient light if you are within the viewing cone. 2.4 just can not do as good a job since the micro beads are fewer and of mixed size. Contrast is not good, but the screen is bright and sports or news can be watched just fine. I search craigs list every day for large 2.8 HP that I can put away for a future fixed frame DIY project when I get a bigger house.


----------



## newfmp3

The only advantage that the 2.4 seems to have is a touch better blacks and less visible texture. The larger viewing cone might help some, but I'm not sure it really does. I do like the screen. But, for rejecting ambient lights, well, it doesn't. I have pot lights, 3 across front of screen ( like the effect it gives when light hits the screen when not using PJ, adds an element to the room and makes the nice screen standout). But with my older m2500 I never found a need to turn off every light so bad. I have a rope light under my riser....I don't turn it on any more, washes out screen, I have a night light that comes on and it points away from screen but still I have to unplug it or blacks are washed out. Now, don't get me wrong, with even the pot lights on and especially now with a 8700 Epson, even on the lowest ECO mode I can watch the thing with the lights on full. But any light on in the room whatsoever kills contrast and image quality. My m2500 never had this issue. Now with the lights off - the 8700 looks fantastic.


----------



## edpowers

This thread is just way too confusing now that they've introduced an entirely different product and gave it the same name. I'm just very happy that I have two 2.8 screens and don't need to worry about how the 2.4 performs. All I can say is that my 2.8 does a remarkable job of rejecting ambient light from the sides. My old matte white screens would be entirely unwatchable with ambient light while my 2.8 HP screens are very watchable. Obviously there is contrast washout, but the rejection difference between matte white and the 2.8 are night and day to my eyes.


----------



## newfmp3

yeah I agree, this thread is a mess now. Not our fault, blame Dalite


----------



## airscapes

I asked the mods to close this thread since 2.8 is gone and the review is no longer valid.. I guess there are so many 2.8s out there they figure it should be left open..


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/20424029
> 
> 
> I asked the mods to close this thread since 2.8 is gone and the review is no longer valid.. I guess there are so many 2.8s out there they figure it should be left open..



Can't say I'd like to see that happen. Maybe DaLite will see the light and resurrect the 2.8 screen. And there are still a lot of them out there.


----------



## Amber Ale

Just leave this open and start a new thread "High power 2.4 owners etc. topic"


----------



## airscapes

What would be nice is if Dalite would send Tryg a new 2.4 and let him do a review comparing it to the old.. Na that would be counter productive for Dalite!


----------



## Hughman

Both versions of HP reject light hitting it at an angle. The 2.8 version gain signature provides less gain than a typical matte white it at angles greater than approximately 17 degrees, the 2.4 at about 20 degrees (top of my head).


Here's my one minute extremely complex test (please don't try this at home) with a few photos taken with my theater door open allowing daylight from the adjacent room to hit the screen. The light is approaching the screen at an angle of about 31.5 degrees. The screen is a matte white with a gain of about 1. Excuse the tape job of the 2.8 (top) and 2.4 screens as I quickly pulled them off a board and didn't change the tape.


It's clear that when viewing the screens straight on and from the the location opposite from the light source both screens are reflecting less light to those locations than the matte white screen. One photo is taken from the light entry point showing the relative max gains of screens.


----------



## avswilier

Seems like da-lite have a new High Contrast High Power screen which is More grey and has 2.4 gain. Dammit, just ordered the standard High Power 2.4 grrrrrr


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *avswilier* /forum/post/20425722
> 
> 
> Seems like da-lite have a new High Contrast High Power screen which is More grey and has 2.4 gain. Dammit, just ordered the standard High Power 2.4 grrrrrr



This is VERY interesting! Same gain as the (new) regular HP (2.4) but with an even narrower viewing cone (20 deg compared to 30).


We really do need for Tryg to put this through his evaluation procedure and let us all hear.


----------



## Drexler

Now THIS is interesting!


----------



## brianlun

new product?


----------



## millerwill

Quote:

Originally Posted by *brianlun* 
new product?
Yes!


PS Sounds like it might be the old 2.8 HP with a gray over layer


----------



## erkq

Quote:

Originally Posted by *millerwill* 
Yes!


PS Sounds like it might be the old 2.8 HP with a gray over layer
Hmmm... I wonder what the advantage of a gray over-layer might be? Surely they are not going back to the dis-proven "gray makes better cr" marketing spiel.


----------



## R Harkness

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erkq* 
Hmmm... I wonder what the advantage of a gray over-layer might be? Surely they are not going back to the dis-proven "gray makes better cr" marketing spiel.


Well, a gray screen substrate certainly can help in preserving contrast in non-batcave rooms, which means most rooms. (Not that there aren't trade offs of course).


----------



## newfmp3

Quote:

Originally Posted by *avswilier*
Seems like da-lite have a new High Contrast High Power screen which is More grey and has 2.4 gain. Dammit, just ordered the standard High Power 2.4 grrrrrr
Well don't I just feel shafted by Dalite once again. I specifically asked their manager if a new screen was on the way as I would have returned my 2.4 if so...and here we are.


----------



## millerwill

Seems like no one has yet seen this new HC/HP screen. Look forward to hearing from those that do see it.


----------



## Hughman

A gray screen can improve ansi contrast in a reflection prone room (most all) similar to making the room darker by reducing the amount of light bouncing around the room and back to the screen. By reducing the viewing cone of the HP to 40 degrees, possibly due to the gray substrate, the screen will be more effective at killing light hitting the screen from reflection originating from outside of this cone than the regular HP. My photos above show the screens ability to reduce the effects of ambient light coming from outside the viewing cone, I suspect this attribute will be improved substantially with a grey HP likely similar to the difference between the 2.8 and 2.4 perhaps more. Any method employed which reduces ambient light effects on ansi contrast will improve image fidelity.


A white screen effects on light bouncing around a room is similar to a racquet ball, a gray screen more akin to a squash ball.


----------



## erkq

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Hughman* 
A white screen effects on light bouncing around a room is similar to a racquet ball, a gray screen more akin to a squash ball.
A gray screen turns the projector into a squash ball too. Just sayin'.







This has been debated endlessly elsewhere. But I do believe a directional screen like the HP can help a lot. But gray just cuts everything equally. But what the heck do _*I*_ know? Da-Lite seems to be making the stuff!


----------



## R Harkness

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erkq* 
A gray screen turns the projector into a squash ball too. Just sayin'.







This has been debated endlessly elsewhere. But I do believe a directional screen like the HP can help a lot. But gray just cuts everything equally.
Gray screens tend to be used to achieve two things:


1. Lowering of black levels. They do this, obviously, but just dimming the entire image vs a white screen, so you are lowering the bright parts too.

With consumer digital projectors having much higher contrast/lower black levels these days, (as well as not being terribly bright) most people feel gray screens are no longer necessary for this purpose.


2. Preserving better contrast than a white screen, in more challenging room conditions (e.g. some ambient light and/or reflective room). If you could project an image on to two screens in the same room, and have the image the same brightness on each (for the gray screen you'd open up the iris in order to get more light on the screen, on a projector that can do so)...then the gray screen is going to preserve contrast better.


That is because while you still would have the same brightness of image as the white screen, any other light reflected back to the screen in the room will be dimmed more by the gray screen than the white screen. Hence shadows and dark areas of the image will be less washed out, retaining better contrast.


So...they do indeed work to preserve contrast, when used to do so.


----------



## Hughman

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erkq* 
A gray screen turns the projector into a squash ball too. Just sayin'.







This has been debated endlessly elsewhere. But I do believe a directional screen like the HP can help a lot. But gray just cuts everything equally. But what the heck do _*I*_ know? Da-Lite seems to be making the stuff!
Think about the 2nd reflection then the third and fourth, a screen of less gain kills them quicker. Lets say we have one screen with a gain of .9 and another with a gain of .5 and we increase lumens to maintain equal screen brightness on the .5 gain screen, lets' see how each potentially kills off reflections bouncing around the room.


(.5 screen).... (.9 screen)

360 lumens.... 200 lumens


180...............180

90.................162

45.................146

22.5...............131


What exactly was everyone debating in that thread. Only on AVS could this be debated endlessly. The racquetball vs squash ball analogy is a decent representation, even if you drive a squash ball harder to equal the speed of a racquetball off the first wall, the ball will still die much quicker after that.


----------



## millerwill

Quote:

Originally Posted by *erkq* 
A gray screen turns the projector into a squash ball too. Just sayin'.







This has been debated endlessly elsewhere. But I do believe a directional screen like the HP can help a lot. But gray just cuts everything equally. But what the heck do _*I*_ know? Da-Lite seems to be making the stuff!
A gray screen with 2.4 gain is amazing. Will really look forward to hearing from some knowledgeable people how well it performs.


----------



## millerwill

Quote:

Originally Posted by *R Harkness* 
Gray screens tend to be used to achieve two things:


1. Lowering of black levels. They do this, obviously, but just dimming the entire image vs a white screen, so you are lowering the bright parts too.

With consumer digital projectors having much higher contrast/lower black levels these days, (as well as not being terribly bright) most people feel gray screens are no longer necessary for this purpose.


2. Preserving better contrast than a white screen, in more challenging room conditions (e.g. some ambient light and/or reflective room). If you could project an image on to two screens in the same room, and have the image the same brightness on each (for the gray screen you'd open up the iris in order to get more light on the screen, on a projector that can do so)...then the gray screen is going to preserve contrast better.


That is because while you still would have the same brightness of image as the white screen, any other light reflected back to the screen in the room will be dimmed more by the gray screen than the white screen. Hence shadows and dark areas of the image will be less washed out, retaining better contrast.


So...they do indeed work to preserve contrast, when used to do so.
But if the white HP and gray HP both have gain 2.4, won't they both produce the same brightness (ftL) coming off the screen?


----------



## millerwill

This new gray HP screen really is one of the more exciting things to happen wrt screens in quite a while.


Where are you, Tryg?


----------



## Hughman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/20429347
> 
> 
> This new gray HP screen really is one of the more exciting things to happen wrt screens in quite a while.
> 
> 
> Where are you, Tryg?



Why do you need Tryg, his viewing it won't change how it performs. Order a sample and see how it works for you.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughman* /forum/post/20429414
> 
> 
> Why do you need Tryg, his viewing it won't change how it performs. Order a sample and see how it works for you.



I have the 2.8, sent the 2.4 back when it was sent to me as 2.8.... If we had a new pro style review for the current screen things for new buyers would be less confusing than reading this thread and finding out they can not buy what was reviewed..


----------



## brianlun

 http://www.da-lite.com/whats_hot/


----------



## brianlun

The material is available immediately on Da-Lite’s electric, manual and fixed frame screen lines.

nice!


----------



## brianlun

anyone got a price quote?


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughman* /forum/post/20429414
> 
> 
> Why do you need Tryg, his viewing it won't change how it performs. Order a sample and see how it works for you.



Only because of his experience. If I do get a new screen (a larger one, to replace my 100x62 2.8HP), will certainly do as you say and order some samples to see how they look.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughman* /forum/post/20429271
> 
> 
> Think about the 2nd reflection then the third and fourth, a screen of less gain kills them quicker. Lets say we have one screen with a gain of .9 and another with a gain of .5 and we increase lumens to maintain equal screen brightness on the .5 gain screen, lets' see how each potentially kills off reflections bouncing around the room.
> 
> 
> (.5 screen).... (.9 screen)
> 
> 360 lumens.... 200 lumens
> 
> 
> 180...............180
> 
> 90.................162
> 
> 45.................146
> 
> 22.5...............131
> 
> 
> What exactly was everyone debating in that thread. Only on AVS could this be debated endlessly. The racquetball vs squash ball analogy is a decent representation, even if you drive a squash ball harder to equal the speed of a racquetball off the first wall, the ball will still die much quicker after that.



Thank you all for your constructive responses.


The debate centered around whether a passive screen could have a non-linear response to lumen level. But this is a different and intriguing scenario. I've been crunching numbers a bit and it seems the benefit happens in the FIRST reflection. It seems a less than unity screen in effect boosts the room's ANSI cr performance.


Say a room's ANSI performance is 400:1 (a figure I've heard thrown around). A .5 gain screen will give an effective room performance of 800:1 and a .9 gain screen will result in a 444:1 performance. Yes, 800:1 is better! It does take projector power, but that is available.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/20429297
> 
> 
> But if the white HP and gray HP both have gain 2.4, won't they both produce the same brightness (ftL) coming off the screen?



Yes, essentially. But when erkq said a gray screen just "cuts everything equally" that implied he was talking about gray screens in general. And gray screens can help preserve contrast over a white screen.


Keep in mind that if both the Da Lite gray and white screen end up with the same gain, the gray screen is going to need more optical gain applied to make it as bright. Typically the more gain applied to a screen substrate the more likely you are to see it's effects in the picture - sparklies/specklies etc.


Though Da Lite seems to have come up with a very nice coating for their HP screen. Hopefully screen texture will remain subtle even if they have to put more on the gray screen.


----------



## Tryg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/20429347
> 
> 
> This new gray HP screen really is one of the more exciting things to happen wrt screens in quite a while.
> 
> 
> Where are you, Tryg?




I saw the post that they now have a gray screen. Lets see how the response goes then in the fall I'll probably contact da-lite to work something up. It's been five years...maybe it's time to whip something new up


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/20429800
> 
> 
> Yes, essentially. But when erkq said a gray screen just "cuts everything equally" that implied he was talking about gray screens in general. And gray screens can help preserve contrast over a white screen.
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that if both the Da Lite gray and white screen end up with the same gain, the gray screen is going to need more optical gain applied to make it as bright. Typically the more gain applied to a screen substrate the more likely you are to see it's effects in the picture - sparklies/specklies etc.
> 
> 
> Though Da Lite seems to have come up with a very nice coating for their HP screen. Hopefully screen texture will remain subtle even if they have to put more on the gray screen.



Yes, this is a concern: if the HC HP has the same gain as the white HP, then the optical coating must be generating more gain for the HC than for the white screen and thus has a greater chance of giving artifacts (hotspotting, etc.)


Another concern is that Dalite quotes the viewing angle as 20 deg for the HC HP and 30 deg for the white HP. I thought they quoted 30 deg for the old 2.8 HP, but am not sure. But is does seem that the new HC HP has an even narrower viewing cone.


And finally if the gains of the HC and white HP screens are the same, isn't their white level and black level the same? and thus their CR the same? The only difference would thus be in wall reflections, less for the HC because of its narrower viewing cone.


----------



## Drexler

Millerwill,


The HP doesn't hotspot due to its retroreflective nature. Though I imagine the new HC HP will have a real narrow viewing cone.


Regarding the use of a grey substrate. I'm trying to get my head around it, but as I see it it can't increase contrast, only lower the black level together with the white level. If shooting with the same projector on the same type of screen (the same directionality) but one with a white substrate and one with a grey - to me they would produce exactly the same contrast but the white one would be brighter.


Since brightness is a big asset in todays projector market (just read the JVC threads!







- you pay BIG money for a high performance projector that also is bright), I don't really see what the grey substrate brings to the table? Well, unless you have a small screen...


Or am I missing something?


----------



## Lawguy

I am seeking a review sample of the High Contrast High Power from Da-Lite. We will see how it stacks up against the Black Diamond, which I reviewed here .


I have been hoping for some time that Da-Lite would take the High Power and use a darker substrate. Sometimes dreams come true.


I am actually hoping that the stated gain of 2.4 is an exaggeration, meaning that WOULD be the gain if this was a white screen. I think that if the actual gain is closer to 1 or 1.5 that this screen may really be something special.


Let's see.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/20429844
> 
> 
> I saw the post that they now have a gray screen. Lets see how the response goes then in the fall I'll probably contact da-lite to work something up. It's been five years...maybe it's time to whip something new up



I was kind of hoping for a review of the 2.4 HP.. since the original 2.8 is only somewhat applicable to the current 2.4.

My bet is the "NEW" HCHP screen is just a 2.4 with some gray colorant added to the emulsifier that is now used to hold the micro beads on. I plan to order 2.4 and the new HC 2.4 samples to compare under a a microscope.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Drexler* /forum/post/20430128
> 
> 
> Millerwill,
> 
> 
> The HP doesn't hotspot due to its retroreflective nature. Though I imagine the new HC HP will have a real narrow viewing cone.
> 
> 
> Regarding the use of a grey substrate. I'm trying to get my head around it, but as I see it it can't increase contrast, only lower the black level together with the white level. If shooting with the same projector on the same type of screen (the same directionality) but one with a white substrate and one with a grey - to me they would produce exactly the same contrast but the white one would be brighter.
> 
> 
> Since brightness is a big asset in todays projector market (just read the JVC threads!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - you pay BIG money for a high performance projector that also is bright), I don't really see what the grey substrate brings to the table? Well, unless you have a small screen...
> 
> 
> Or am I missing something?



I know that the normal HP's don't hotspot (I have a 2.8HP), but was just wondering whether the higher reflective surface of the HCHP2.4 might. I hope you're right, that it doesn't.


But I still having trouble getting my mind around the brightness and CR of the HC HP vs. the white HP. If they both have 2.4 gain, then they MUST give the same brightness (ftL) with the same pj; i.e., ftL = gain*lumens/(screen area), there's nothing in the eqn about whether the screen is white or gray. So it seems that the two screens would perform EXACTLY THE SAME except for the higher rejection of reflected light by the HC version because of its narrower viewing cone.


All empty speculation, of course, so it will be good to hear from people that see these. (I've also ordered samples of the white and HC 2.4HP.)


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/20431190
> 
> 
> But I still having trouble getting my mind around the brightness and CR of the HC HP vs. the white HP. If they both have 2.4 gain, then they MUST give the same brightness (ftL) with the same pj; i.e., ftL = gain*lumens/(screen area), there's nothing in the eqn about whether the screen is white or gray. So it seems that the two screens would perform EXACTLY THE SAME except for the higher rejection of reflected light by the HC version because of its narrower viewing cone.



Did my discussion a few posts back (#3555) about how a lower gain screen effectively improves the contrast performance of the room make any sense?


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/20429926
> 
> 
> 
> Another concern is that Dalite quotes the viewing angle as 20 deg for the HC HP and 30 deg for the white HP. I thought they quoted 30 deg for the old 2.8 HP, but am not sure. But is does seem that the new HC HP has an even narrower viewing cone.



Which is quite predictable. The way gain works is by focusing light toward the desired viewing position. The more gain you apply, the more focusing of the light, the narrower the viewing angle. So even if the gray and white screen ultimately have the same gain rating, the gray screen needed more focusing of the light to get it to the same rating. Hence, narrower viewing angle.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/20429926
> 
> 
> And finally if the gains of the HC and white HP screens are the same, isn't their white level and black level the same? and thus their CR the same? The only difference would thus be in wall reflections, less for the HC because of its narrower viewing cone.



Yes. But since wall reflections can have effects on contrast, in a room with brighter walls the HC should do a better job preserving contrast.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/20431380
> 
> 
> Which is quite predictable. The way gain works is by focusing light toward the desired viewing position. The more gain you apply, the more focusing of the light, the narrower the viewing angle. So even if the gray and white screen ultimately have the same gain rating, the gray screen needed more focusing of the light to get it to the same rating. Hence, narrower viewing angle.
> 
> 
> Yes. But since wall reflections can have effects on contrast, in a room with brighter walls the HC should do a better job preserving contrast.



Good point, Rich. So maybe the optical coating (or whatever) of the HCHP is actually not more 'reflective', and thus susceptible to hotspotting, but simply focuses the light more narrowly, to make up for the light lost by the gray substrate. Makes sense.


Since I have black fabric on my side walls and ceiling (out about 8 ft from the screen wall), I'm not very susceptible to reflections. So the white HP might still be my best choice if I do replace my present HP2.8 for a larger screen. But for white walls/ceiling the HCHP could be much better if the narrower cone is no problem.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/20431330
> 
> 
> Did my discussion a few posts back (#3555) about how a lower gain screen effectively improves the contrast performance of the room make any sense?



The point is that the HCHP is NOT a lower gain screen than the white HP, at least according to Dalite's info (though we'll wait to hear from ones who see it); they are both listed as 2.4 gain. The only way I see that they could differ is how the HCHP reduces wall reflections because of its narrower viewing cone, as RichH pointed out.


But again, DarinP has noted that white walls do NOT effect o/f CR, because when the light is 'off' there are no reflections, and when it is 'on' (100% IRE) the reflections are swamped by the light from the screen. Refections thus effect only the effective ANSI CR.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/20431510
> 
> 
> The point is that the HCHP is NOT a lower gain screen than the white HP, at least according to Dalite's info (though we'll wait to hear from ones who see it); they are both listed as 2.4 gain. The only way I see that they could differ is how the HCHP reduces wall reflections because of its narrower viewing cone, as RichH pointed out.



Yes, sorry... I got lost in an epiphany Hughman, et. al. provided for me. Does not apply in this case.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/20431510
> 
> 
> But again, DarinP has noted that white walls do NOT effect o/f CR, because when the light is 'off' there are no reflections, and when it is 'on' (100% IRE) the reflections are swamped by the light from the screen. Refections thus effect only the effective ANSI CR.



Yes, ANSI CR would be the issue.


----------



## Hughman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/20431510
> 
> 
> The only way I see that they could differ is how the HCHP reduces wall reflections because of its narrower viewing cone, as RichH pointed out.



That how I see it as well for this screen. They've made this screen more directional which should reduce further the negative ansi contrast effects ambient light from the sides walls, ceiling, and floor. Back wall needs to be well treated though, as you know.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/20431510
> 
> 
> But again, DarinP has noted that white walls do NOT effect o/f CR, because when the light is 'off' there are no reflections, and when it is 'on' (100% IRE) the reflections are swamped by the light from the screen. Refections thus effect only the effective ANSI CR.



It was ansi contrast erkq and I were discussing.


----------



## Drexler




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/20431190
> 
> 
> I know that the normal HP's don't hotspot (I have a 2.8HP), but was just wondering whether the higher reflective surface of the HCHP2.4 might. I hope you're right, that it doesn't.



The new HP won't hotspot. It's pure physics.


Angular reflective screens with gain have aluminum particles that works like tiny diffuse mirrors. They reflect incoming light at an angle that is equal but opposite the incoming light. I.e. light falling in at a 15 degree angle from above will be reflected downward with a 15 degree angle (see illustration). Light that is hitting the sides of the screen will have a higher angle of incidence and will be directed outwards towards the walls to a higher degree compared to light hitting the center of the screen which will mostly be reflected straight back to the viewer. Thus the center will be brighter and hotspotting happens. The further back you can put the projector the smaller the difference in angle of incidence between the center and sides of the screen and the less hotspotting you will see.










The HP however gets its gain from microscopic glass beads that collects incoming light and sends it back to the source. Light coming in at 15 degrees from above will be sent back 15 degrees upwards. And light hitting the far sides of the screen will be directed back towards the projector the same way that like light hitting the center of the screen - thus you get the same gain at the center and the sides and equal brightness all over the screen. No hotspotting.











So no matter how much beads they will add to the substrate to increase the gain and directionality it will not hotspot. Of this I'm sure.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Drexler* /forum/post/20432449
> 
> 
> The new HP won't hotspot. It's pure physics.
> 
> 
> Angular reflective screens with gain have aluminum particles that works like tiny diffuse mirrors. They reflect incoming light at an angle that is equal but opposite the incoming light. I.e. light falling in at a 15 degree angle from above will be reflected downward with a 15 degree angle (see illustration). Light that is hitting the sides of the screen will have a higher angle of incidence and will be directed outwards towards the walls to a higher degree compared to light hitting the center of the screen which will mostly be reflected straight back to the viewer. Thus the center will be brighter and hotspotting happens. The further back you can put the projector the smaller the difference in angle of incidence between the center and sides of the screen and the less hotspotting you will see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The HP however gets its gain from microscopic glass beads that collects incoming light and sends it back to the source. Light coming in at 15 degrees from above will be sent back 15 degrees upwards. And light hitting the far sides of the screen will be directed back towards the projector the same way that like light hitting the center of the screen - thus you get the same gain at the center and the sides and equal brightness all over the screen. No hotspotting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So no matter how much beads they will add to the substrate to increase the gain and directionality it will not hotspot. Of this I'm sure.



Thanks--and great illustration!


----------



## avswilier

Just set up my new 88'' HP 2.4 with my panasonic AE4000 to replace my white wall and the difference is big. Much better contrast and just seems sharper and bolder. The black borders really add to frame the picture. V happy so far


----------



## sb1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *avswilier* /forum/post/20551379
> 
> 
> Just set up my new 88'' HP 2.4 with my panasonic AE4000 to replace my white wall and the difference is big. Much better contrast and just seems sharper and bolder. The black borders really add to frame the picture. V happy so far



Nice to hear. An HP screen vs a white wall should be quite the improvement.


----------



## jointdoc

Is the HP only available in 2.35:1 as a special order. I only see it listed on their website in 16:9. Thanks.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jointdoc* /forum/post/20653124
> 
> 
> Is the HP only available in 2.35:1 as a special order. I only see it listed on their website in 16:9. Thanks.



Call AVS and get a quote, you may be pleasantly surprised.


----------



## jhan1000

I am considering converting the manual pull down HP screen into a DIY fixed frame. How many inches off the height, width, or diagonal do you typically lose (if any) when making this conversion?


TIA.


----------



## javry

I can't see you loosing anything but the positioning of the screen will be critical. What size are you looking at, what is the throw, and what is the sitting distance?


----------



## Duane T




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jhan1000* /forum/post/20724165
> 
> 
> I am considering converting the manual pull down HP screen into a DIY fixed frame. How many inches off the height, width, or diagonal do you typically lose (if any) when making this conversion?
> 
> 
> TIA.



I'm considering this too and I'm planning on getting a 106" HP for my 100" screen frame. It'll give me a little wiggle room when it comes to attaching the screen.


----------



## jhan1000

Quote:

Originally Posted by *javry* 
I can't see you loosing anything but the positioning of the screen will be critical. What size are you looking at, what is the throw, and what is the sitting distance?
I haven't bought the screen yet. My initial plan was to get a Model C CSR and mount it. My toddlers getting their hands, markers, or whatever else on the screen is a always real possibility. With that said, I wanted the option of converting it over to a fixed frame if any noticeable waves developed that are obvious during movie watching. I was wondering how much of the screen material I would lose from making this conversion.


Ideally, I would like the screen diagonal to be 126 inches, but I'm wondering if I should go a little bigger to a 133" screen to account for any losses. My throw distance is about 17 feet and sitting distance is about 15.5 feet.


----------



## zhangyeus

I have a controlled light environment - dedicated HT with read wall and black ceiling. Do I really need HP screen? Will it be too bright to burn my (and my kid's) eyes? I envision most of time we are going to use it to watch movie with lights out so there should be no ambient light.


So far every "professional" AV store guy tells me I do not need anything more than 1.3 gain.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zhangyeus* /forum/post/20794273
> 
> 
> I have a controlled light environment - dedicated HT with read wall and black ceiling. Do I really need HP screen? Will it be too bright to burn my (and my kid's) eyes? I envision most of time we are going to use it to watch movie with lights out so there should be no ambient light.
> 
> 
> So far every "professional" AV store guy tells me I do not need anything more than 1.3 gain.



What size screen do you have, and how many lumens does your pj produce? Use the expression ftL = lumens*(screen gain)/(screen area in sq ft) to calculate the # of ftL you expect. The canonical value that one aims for is ~ 15 ftL, though many people like it up to twice as much.


----------



## zhangyeus

I plan to buy JVC RS40. room sise is 17x16 so I plan to use 119'' screen 16:9.


104''x58''=6032 sq ft


If my lumen is 10,000, then it is goign to be 24,000/6032=3.9. Looks too high to me if 1.5 is the norm.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/20794356
> 
> 
> What size screen do you have, and how many lumens does your pj produce? Use the expression ftL = lumens*(screen gain)/(screen area in sq ft) to calculate the # of ftL you expect. The canonical value that one aims for is ~ 15 ftL, though many people like it up to twice as much.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zhangyeus* /forum/post/20794541
> 
> 
> I plan to buy JVC RS40. room sise is 17x16 so I plan to use 119'' screen 16:9.
> 
> 
> 104''x58''=6032 sq ft
> 
> 
> If my lumen is 10,000, then it is goign to be 24,000/6032=3.9. Looks too high to me if 1.5 is the norm.



Lumen is 800 to 900... maybe. After lamp dimming and a position greater than min throw and iris stopped down some to get more cr, depend on 700 or so. Maybe.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zhangyeus* /forum/post/20794541
> 
> 
> I plan to buy JVC RS40. room sise is 17x16 so I plan to use 119'' screen 16:9.
> 
> 
> 104''x58''=6032 sq ft
> 
> 
> If my lumen is 10,000, then it is goign to be 24,000/6032=3.9. Looks too high to me if 1.5 is the norm.



Your screen size is 104x58/144 = ~42 sq ft, and let's say 500 lumens after some dimming. So if you could position the pj to take full advantage of the HP's gain, you would have 500*2.4/42 = 29 ftL, i.e., very bright. With 1.3 gain you would have ~ 15 ftL, still nice.


With the HP screen you would be able to step down the RS40's iris to get whatever brightness you like, and then have something 'in the bank' when the pj's lamp dims even further.


----------



## zhangyeus

sorry I somehow read as sq inch - this makes sense. I can always reduce the brightness from the pj...


----------



## whitetrash66

hey all, i just read pretty much all of this thread over the last few days, and have a couple questions...


I am looking at getting a 130" diagonal 2.35 screen, and want to get either a JVC X3 or Sony VW90. The problem is, the projector HAS to be ceiling mounted. I can hang the lens center as low as 6.5 feet.


My ceiling is white, and i cannot paint it. Will the HP screen wash out with my white ceiling? i have used the calculator for this screen, and my main seat will get 1.5 gain, and my side seats approx 1.2-1.3 gain, which is a lot less then 2.4, but still not bad. Should i consider another screen? i was VERY interested in the black diamond iii 1.4 or 2.7 gain screen, but a lot of people complain about the texture/sparklies. i want a higher gain screen so i can watch 3d. The top of my screen will be a foot lower than the ceiling.


I can mount the projector any distance from the screen, so i was hoping to go fairly close for max gain. I will be using the zoom method for 2.35 content, and so the screen will be a 103" 16x9 image when zoomed for 16x9 content.


Thanks


----------



## sac8d4

A lot of us that are in the market for a high gain screen, are looking at this http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1267206 . At the moment, very few details are known about the Microlite screen including the price as well as sceen size.


----------



## northern2020




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *whitetrash66* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> hey all, i just read pretty much all of this thread over the last few days, and have a couple questions...
> 
> 
> I am looking at getting a 130" diagonal 2.35 screen, and want to get either a JVC X3 or Sony VW90. The problem is, the projector HAS to be ceiling mounted. I can hang the lens center as low as 6.5 feet.
> 
> 
> My ceiling is white, and i cannot paint it. Will the HP screen wash out with my white ceiling? i have used the calculator for this screen, and my main seat will get 1.5 gain, and my side seats approx 1.2-1.3 gain, which is a lot less then 2.4, but still not bad. Should i consider another screen? i was VERY interested in the black diamond iii 1.4 or 2.7 gain screen, but a lot of people complain about the texture/sparklies. i want a higher gain screen so i can watch 3d. The top of my screen will be a foot lower than the ceiling.
> 
> 
> I can mount the projector any distance from the screen, so i was hoping to go fairly close for max gain. I will be using the zoom method for 2.35 content, and so the screen will be a 103" 16x9 image when zoomed for 16x9 content.
> 
> 
> Thanks



I'm in your boat (ceiling mounted, light walls) and got the HP 2.4 145" diagonal.


You can opt for the HCHP ( grey ) if worried about wash out from the walls.


Arrives Friday, and I will put it up in that night. Review after a few hours of viewing.


Do you have an adjustable pole for your ceiling mount? I just ordered one and will get max gain of ~ 1.8 when I drop it lower.


I know I am not maxing the screens gain with out a retro reflective set up but I achieve 16-17 lumens with this set up (empirically)


With the test sample I have it looks incredible and that was against the Stewart ultramatte 1.5 and 2.0 gain, and Stewart studiotek 1.3 and firehawk (grey)


After pricing from AV science it was a no brainer, plus I won't get hot spotting,etc from an angular reflective screen.


----------



## javry

congrads on your new purchase. I'm sure you'll like it.


----------



## whitetrash66




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *northern2020* /forum/post/20805250
> 
> 
> I'm in your boat (ceiling mounted, light walls) and got the HP 2.4 145" diagonal.
> 
> 
> You can opt for the HCHP ( grey ) if worried about wash out from the walls.
> 
> 
> Arrives Friday, and I will put it up in that night. Review after a few hours of viewing.
> 
> 
> Do you have an adjustable pole for your ceiling mount? I just ordered one and will get max gain of ~ 1.8 when I drop it lower.
> 
> 
> I know I am not maxing the screens gain with out a retro reflective set up but I achieve 16-17 lumens with this set up (empirically)
> 
> 
> With the test sample I have it looks incredible and that was against the Stewart ultramatte 1.5 and 2.0 gain, and Stewart studiotek 1.3 and firehawk (grey)
> 
> 
> After pricing from AV science it was a no brainer, plus I won't get hot spotting,etc from an angular reflective screen.



Definitely interested to hear how this screen works out for you.what height is the center of your projector lens? How wide is your seating area?


----------



## northern2020




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *whitetrash66* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Definitely interested to hear how this screen works out for you.what height is the center of your projector lens? How wide is your seating area?



Right now I'm set with my lens center 95" from the floor but with the new pole I van drop it 24" more.


I have a 7 foot wide seating area 20 feet from screen and projector lens center is 22 feet from the screen.


----------



## tbase1

anyone setup a HP in scope using a panasonic ae4000 projector?


----------



## northern2020




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *whitetrash66* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Definitely interested to hear how this screen works out for you.what height is the center of your projector lens? How wide is your seating area?



Image and quality are spectacular even with ceiling mounted set up.


I have slight barrel distortion or trapezoid image due to my projector keystoneing the image.


I'll square my projector then use the shif and zoom and post some pics.


Any tips for squaring projector on the horizontal and vertical plane?


----------



## Killroy

Man!!! I am so bummed!


Not only did Da-lite change the HP from 2.8 to 2.4 but they raised their prices on all the manual Model B's and C's that used to be so cheap to build DIY fixed screens. I could build a 106" diag for less than 3 Franklins now its costing twice that much.


I was thinking about building a 120" 2.35:1 screen (110" wide) and I couldn't believe how much the prices went up for both the old B/C and even the fabric alone almost tripled in price.


I guess they figured out that DIY trick.


----------



## smitty

I'm not sure if this is obvioius, or has been reported in this thread or another, but I had an amazing discovery today regarding my HP screen.


I've had the screen for about 3 1/2 years, and recently I noticed that there seemed to be some streaky lighter patches on it in certain scenes, particularly with blue sky or other very white scenes. I was worrying that the screen was deteriorating, but after further investigation, the screen appeared to have a very, very light coating of dust, which you could not really see with the naked eye under normal light. The streaks or patches seemed to be where the dust was lighter or perhaps had been rubbed off or something.


I contacted Da-Lite regarding how to clean a screen that had collected some dust, and they told me to use distilled water with a clean white cloth and to dry with a clean white cloth. So my wife and I cleaned it carefully today, and the streaks and patches are now gone. The amazing discovery is that the brightness of the screen and the perceived contrast increased noticeably. The screen is in a dedicated home theater room, typically used only a couple of times a week, and is not a basement or is not particularly dusty. Thus, I don't consider the environment to be particularly unusual. If anything, it might be less prone to dust than a lot of other rooms. But the effect of cleaning the screen of what little dust had collected on the screen was pretty astounding to me.


It kind of makes sense that a higher gain screen would be impacted more by dust than a lower gain screen. I mean, if the screen is relfecting light to a great extent, it makes sense (to me anyway) that even a little dust couuld really impact the amount of light reflected. In any event, whatever the technical explanation might be, this made it clear to me that regular dusting or cleaning of a high power screen is a good idea. I intend to clean mine once a year or so, if necessary.


I apologize if this has already been disussed before, but I just wanted to pass it along in case anyone else has a HP screen that has collected a little dust on it. Again, the difference was quite striking.


----------



## kabrumbs

Quick question: does Da Lite make custom sizes of countour high power? I need a 99 inches wide cinemascope....


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kabrumbs* /forum/post/20877732
> 
> 
> Quick question: does Da Lite make custom sizes of countour high power? I need a 99 inches wide cinemascope....



I think all their screens are custom. The listed sizes are just there to judge price vs. size.


----------



## Gotchaa

6 months old and I am seeing uneven aging on the HP. 122" wide scope, the top horizontal third of the screen has now become darker than the rest of the screen, it is so annoying.


Believe it or not I have the worst luck with Da Lite 3 screens since February


Screen 1 damaged in shipping, fiberglass


Screen 2 bad motor, excessive edge curling


Screen 3 horizontal top third of the screen aging unevenly.


I am at a loss of words for the amount of time spent on warranty replacements. I can't imagine this is normal.


----------



## Mystify

Gotcha, this might sound obvious but have you tried cleaning your screen with distilled water? A few of us have experienced the darker horizontal lines and have been able to get rid of it completely with a good cleaning.


----------



## Gotchaa




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mystify* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Gotcha, this might sound obvious but have you tried cleaning your screen with distilled water? A few of us have experienced the darker horizontal lines and have been able to get rid of it completely with a good cleaning.



I have not, Da Lite believes the uneven aging is due to the curing process and they want to send out a new roller and screen material.


I want to be clear this is the entire top 1/3 of the screen horizontally, not just a few lines. Has anyone else seen this?


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gotchaa* /forum/post/20880446
> 
> 
> I have not, Da Lite believes the uneven aging is due to the curing process and they want to send out a new roller and screen material.
> 
> 
> I want to be clear this is the entire top 1/3 of the screen horizontally, not just a few lines. Has anyone else seen this?



I think there was another post a few months ago with the same type of complaint about a 2.4 HP screen that was only a few weeks/months old. You may want to spend some time searching for that post and contact the person to see what the outcome was. I am not sure if it was in this thread or in a thread of it's own.. thinking it was stand alone...

Douglas Probst


----------



## Mystify




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gotchaa* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> I have not, Da Lite believes the uneven aging is due to the curing process and they want to send out a new roller and screen material.
> 
> 
> I want to be clear this is the entire top 1/3 of the screen horizontally, not just a few lines. Has anyone else seen this?



Well I had approx 1/5 of the top of my screen darker. Not lines, the entire screen area. It could be especially seen on a white projected image. I first noticed it watching hockey. Taking a flash photograph clearly showed it as well.


I initially thought it was the screen damaged maybe by the rollers as mine is a manual pulldown. Another poster suggested cleaning it.


After a careful cleaning the dark area was completely gone.


----------



## raminolta

I have just received my brand new high power screen but it does seem to me what I have received is not high power even though on the box it says so!


The screen I have received has jut a plastic fabric painted with a glossy white paint. There is nothing on the fabric other than the paint. This is different from the older 2.8 version I used to have a couple of years ago. It had that tiny particles glued into the fabric. It did have a rather rough and coarse surface. My Panoview Graywolf II screen material also has that coarse surface. These must be the glass beads glued to the surface. The new High Power screen I have received doesn't have that surface. Moreover, it does not have the bright punchy image I remember from memory my previous high power used to have.


I am wondering if this is about the new 2.4 version or, is it possible they have mistakenly put another type of screen in the box? This is not matte white I think. Maybe this is a video spectra screen?


Any idea where the problem could be?


Thanks in advance.


----------



## kanefsky




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *raminolta* /forum/post/20907053
> 
> 
> I have just received my brand new high power screen but it does seem to me what I have received is not high power even though on the box it says so!



Take a flash picture of the screen next to a white wall and it will be very obvious. The high power fabric will look like it's glowing in comparison.


Also, the high power screens come with a little tool to help stretch the fabric onto the snap studs because the fabric is a lot less stretchy than other fabrics and it's very difficult to snap the screen on without using the tool.


--

Steve


----------



## airscapes

Flash picture is one of the best ways to tell. You can hang a piece of printer paper on the screen and the flash should make the screen light up and paper look much darker. This photo and description can help identify the HP 2.4 but was originally to figure out if you got 2.4 or the now discontinued 2.8.
http://96.227.248.64:999/dalitehp/photos/Texture.html


----------



## raminolta

Hello,

This is the manual pull down version. I guess it is not supposed to have the little tool you mention.


Thanks, Ramin



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kanefsky* /forum/post/20907162
> 
> 
> Take a flash picture of the screen next to a white wall and it will be very obvious. The high power fabric will look like it's glowing in comparison.
> 
> 
> Also, the high power screens come with a little tool to help stretch the fabric onto the snap studs because the fabric is a lot less stretchy than other fabrics and it's very difficult to snap the screen on without using the tool.
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Steve


----------



## raminolta

So I understand the new one is quite different though from the sixth picture I could still infer they are essentially of the same texture though the new version has finer beads, right?

The one I have got does not seem having any beads on it. It looks like just a painted screen fabric.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/20907428
> 
> 
> Flash picture is one of the best ways to tell. You can hang a piece of printer paper on the screen and the flash should make the screen light up and paper look much darker. This photo and description can help identify the HP 2.4 but was originally to figure out if you got 2.4 or the now discontinued 2.8.
> http://96.227.248.64:999/dalitehp/photos/Texture.html


----------



## airscapes

Sounds like someone screwed up, time to call the people you purchased it from.


----------



## AVWERKS

Steve,you can put a light behind you and walk close to the axis of that and see the increase in gain as your eyes get close. There should be an immediate increase in gain.


The original 2.8 is smooth to the touch as well as the 2.4. There are big particle glass screens that are not washable and rough to the touch, but the 7 micron sized 2.8 gain was a completlely different animal and washable. You must have been mistaken here.


Regards

David


Regards

David


----------



## newfmp3

New material has sort of a grid pattern to it. Old is smooth.


----------



## kanefsky




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *raminolta* /forum/post/20907833
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> This is the manual pull down version. I guess it is not supposed to have the little tool you mention.



Right, I forgot there are other types of screens







Plus it would still be possible they included the right tool but the wrong screen fabric.


Here are some pictures I took when Da-lite sent me samples. The first one shows what they look like with light coming from the side, and the second one was taken with a flash, showing the magic of the high power fabric.

http://www.datamagic.com/da-lite/off-angle.jpg 

http://www.datamagic.com/da-lite/on-angle.jpg


----------



## Gotchaa




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mystify* /forum/post/20880629
> 
> 
> Well I had approx 1/5 of the top of my screen darker. Not lines, the entire screen area. It could be especially seen on a white projected image. I first noticed it watching hockey. Taking a flash photograph clearly showed it as well.
> 
> 
> I initially thought it was the screen damaged maybe by the rollers as mine is a manual pulldown. Another poster suggested cleaning it.
> 
> 
> After a careful cleaning the dark area was completely gone.



How did you clean it?


----------



## Mystify




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gotchaa* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> How did you clean it?



The official cleaning process can be found on the Dalite website.


I used a clean, white microfiber cloth that I dampened with the distilled water. I then lightly rubbed the screen going in one direction from the top - down. I did this process in "rows" all the way across the screen surface.


I then let it dry for about 2 hours and repeated this process twice more focusing more on the darkened area.


After that the screen looked brand new. The dark area was completely gone.


The main thing to remember is you want to cloth damp enough to clean but not soaked so water is dripping off it. Also don't use a lot of force when wiping.


Good luck.


----------



## whitetrash66

Quick question...


I have read that the High Power material is about the best to get for a manual screen, as apparently it doesn't warp over time like other materials... it apparently keeps its shape better. Is this true?


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *whitetrash66* /forum/post/20925749
> 
> 
> Quick question...
> 
> 
> I have read that the High Power material is about the best to get for a manual screen, as apparently it doesn't warp over time like other materials... it apparently keeps its shape better. Is this true?



Warp? You mean waves? It does often have waves but they are usually not visible. There are more important things to consider when selecting a High Power. For example, will it work in your setup? The geometry is pretty restrictive, eliminating many fixed offset DLP's from consideration, for example.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *whitetrash66* /forum/post/20925749
> 
> 
> Quick question...
> 
> 
> I have read that the High Power material is about the best to get for a manual screen, as apparently it doesn't warp over time like other materials... it apparently keeps its shape better. Is this true?



Yes and no.

There are 2 ways a screen wrinkles.. well probably more...

But for this discussion lets stick with 2.

First the screen material will stretch, the HP does not stretch so we are good there.

Second the roller will sag , the bigger the screen the longer the roller and the likely it is to sag.


In this case, the HP is better than most, the waves are not as likely to be seen when viewing content do to the nature of the micro beads. Under certain lighting you will see them but a lot less than other types of screens.


I am also not sure how well this holds true with the current HP2.4 since the fabric is not exactly the same as the 2.8.


Then the other type of wave is where they don't put the fabric on the roller straight to start with and it shows up with wave..


----------



## whitetrash66




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/20925794
> 
> 
> Warp? You mean waves? It does often have waves but they are usually not visible. There are more important things to consider when selecting a High Power. For example, will it work in your setup? The geometry is pretty restrictive, eliminating many fixed offset DLP's from consideration, for example.



I have a couple of samples from dalite, and even with the projector mounted about 6'6"(sony HW30ES), the samples are brighter than my current 1.4 gain black diamond screen when seated. Also, i like the retroreflective screen, as i'd imagine it would have less light scatter than a regular angular reflective screen.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *whitetrash66* /forum/post/20925838
> 
> 
> I have a couple of samples from dalite, and even with the projector mounted about 6'6"(sony HW30ES), the samples are brighter than my current 1.4 gain black diamond screen when seated. Also, i like the retroreflective screen, as i'd imagine it would have less light scatter than a regular angular reflective screen.



Well there you go! You've done the homework. Sorry, it just sounded like the warping was your primary concern.


BTW, airscapes response is a good one.


----------



## whitetrash66

so the pulldown High power screens do get waves? how noticeable would they be? i'm getting a fairly big screen, around 125" 16x9.


----------



## sb1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *whitetrash66* /forum/post/20925897
> 
> 
> so the pulldown High power screens do get waves? how noticeable would they be? i'm getting a fairly big screen, around 125" 16x9.



You won't see the wrinkles or waves since it will reflect the light back to the source. What you'll see is the slight distortion due to the wave.


Example: Open up a book. Put your hands on either side of the page and push inward making a "hump" in the middle of the page. See how the words look? That's what a panning shot on the screen will reveal. How bad it is simply depends on how bad the wave it.


----------



## jalton68

Great review!

[URL='http:/jie1.jpg%5B/img']http://www.************/jie1.jpg[/img[/URL] ]

[img] [URL='http:/jie2.jpg%5B/img']http://www.************/jie2.jpg[/img[/URL] ]

[img] [URL='http:/jie3.jpg%5B/img']http://www.************/jie3.jpg[/img[/URL] ]


----------



## Airion

It took a few days but I finally read through the entire thread. It was epic, filled with fantastic stories of cones of light, betrayal, a cat speaker, and fly poop!


I was most interested to hear what people thought about black levels, as that was a concern of mine. I'm now satisfied that I won't have anything to worry about. While technically the black level is raised, it's not a problem in the big picture. Here's my understanding:


Let's say you have a projector which measures:

white: 10 fL

black: 1 fL


This projector has a dismal contrast ratio of 10:1.


Now on a 2.0 gain screen, it measures:

white: 20 fL

black: 2 fL


Is this correct? (I think some people, when they hear high gain screens raises both blacks and whites equally think that would mean 20 fL white to 10 fL black, which would certainly mean a washed out image.)


This preserves the contrast ratio of 10:1, but the perceived contrast (actual contrast?) has greatly expanded. While the black level has raised, it is now 18 fL dimmer than white, rather than just 9. In a high contrast image, the 2.0 gain screen actually shows more contrast (though the ratio is the same), and the black would probably appear blacker.


How does that sound?


----------



## Gotchaa

So screen 4 looks good







to summarize, top portion across the screen developed a darker horizontal area. Some suggested cleaning, I opted on warranty replacement and the new screen material was delivered on the roller in a crate. Had to swap the motor in, deal with some minor creases, which I am sure will work itself out, otherwise this looks good so far. I pressed for an answer on what I could expect being different here, and this is what I was told:



> Quote:
> The black drop at the top of the replacement has a different formulation than the black drop on the previous screen which should not display banding like you experienced. We are working to alleviate this potential problem going forward by changing the drop material.


----------



## MCaugusto

Airion >>> That is my exact understanding as well and keep in mind the human vision sensitivity to brightness; When displaying a full black image onscreen from a projector with poor contrast ratio the "black" will look more like dark grey but displaying an image with areas of black and white suddenly that "black" looks a lot more like you expect it to look because of your vision acquiring areas of white highligts at the same time, which "fools" your vision into seeing a darker "black".

You can do your own test at home by using a test dvd/blu-ray disc displaying a full black pattern followed by an ANSI pattern, which consists of 16 squares of adjacent black/white patterns.


----------



## newfmp3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MCaugusto* /forum/post/20956978
> 
> 
> Airion >>> That is my exact understanding as well and keep in mind the human vision sensitivity to brightness; When displaying a full black image onscreen from a projector with poor contrast ratio the "black" will look more like dark grey but displaying an image with areas of black and white suddenly that "black" looks a lot more like you expect it to look because of your vision acquiring areas of white highligts at the same time, which "fools" your vision into seeing a darker "black".
> 
> You can do your own test at home by using a test dvd/blu-ray disc displaying a full black pattern followed by an ANSI pattern, which consists of 16 squares of adjacent black/white patterns.



this is mostly true. Although there are some of us that can't be "fooled". I can see bad blacks period. It doesn't matter if it's a solid black screen, or a mix of bright and dark, if there are bad blacks - I can see it regardless. This is why I was never happy with the Epson 8350 - a bright PJ with bad blacks.


----------



## Airion

I'm not sure if "fooled" is the right word. It's my understanding that the human eye, given the human iris, can only see a limited range of contrast at a single time. This is why CRTs look good despite low ANSI contrast due to reflections in the glass. If there is an image with very bright whites and even poor blacks, your eyes adjust to the whites, letting in less light. The whites are dimmed to a comfortable level and the blacks are dimmed to pure black in your eyes.


Perhaps the Epson 8350 suffered from poor ANSI contrast, elevating the blacks in a bright image? Was this a problem with the projector or a problem only when viewing it on a high gain screen?


----------



## WereWolf84

Any users of Da-Lite high power 2.8 gain screen can sharing some snapshots to show its performance under ambient light?


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WereWolf84* /forum/post/20961672
> 
> 
> Any users of Da-Lite high power 2.8 gain screen can sharing some snapshots to show its performance under ambient light?



Unfortunately there wouldn't be much point. The 2.8 fabric has been discontinued for a while now and the 2.4 replacement is manufactured differently. I can tell you from first hand experience that 2.8 was better in this area. The main reason was it is brighter in the sweet spot. Even with the 2.8, if I leave the viewing cone, the image quality will be that of a matte white screen with or without light hiting the screen.


----------



## Jack Gilvey

Sorry if this info is in here somewhere - is there a "best way" to DIY a fixed screen using HP material from my 92" model C? Looking to do an 80" wide 2.35:1.


Thanks!


----------



## blee0120

Do anyone know the lowest gain of this screen can be when you move out of the viewing cone? I'm using a 2.4 HP


----------



## millerwill

Quote:

Originally Posted by *blee0120* 
Do anyone know the lowest gain of this screen can be when you move out of the viewing cone? I'm using a 2.4 HP
See the graph in the attachment which shows the gain vs angle for the old 2.8 and new 2.4 HiPower. It shows that the gain of the 2.4 has fallen to ~ 1.5 by 15 deg off axis, and to ~ 1.0 at 45 deg.

 

Da-lite Hi Power New or Old what did you get.pdf 305.41015625k . file


----------



## xb1032

Does anyone know if anyone has any left over stock of model C screens with the 2.8 material?


Also, does the 2.4 material hold up ok when it comes to waves? I have very light waves in my 2.8 material but it's never seen in the pic. This screen is fantastic! I had been planning on getting a larger screen some time back and I really wish I would have bought the bigger screen earlier!


----------



## millerwill

Here is a post I made in another thread, but it is probably more relevant to put it here. Excuse the multiple post, but I think it may be useful for persons interested in an HP screen.



I had a 110x62 HP2.8 for ~ 4 yrs and liked it very much, but decided about 8-9 months ago that I wanted a larger screen (it does grow on one, doesn't it!); by the time I was ready the HP2.8 was no longer available. I got samples of the new HP2.4 and the HC HP2.4, and put them up along side old samples I had of the HP2.8 (by this time I had sold the old screen and was just showing on the wall).


Yes, the HP2.8 is brighter head-on than the HP2.4, but I actually liked the new HP2.4 better, primarily because the pic seemed smoother. I never had any complaints about this with my old HP2.8, but seeing the new one I felt it was better. The HC HP2.4 had such a narrow viewing angle that the sides of where my new large screen (144x72) would be were noticeably darker than the center. With the regular HP2.4 the brightness was quite uniform over the whole screen.


When at CEDIA recently I went by the Dalite booth to tell them how much I liked the new HP2.4 material, and the guy I talked to said that they had incorporated some of the JPK Affinity features in it, presumably accounting for my perception of the smoother pic.


I know many here lament the disappearance of the old HP2.8 material, and that was certainly my initial reaction because I had liked my old screen so much. But I now believe that the new material is actually an improvement, even though a bit less gain.


----------



## xb1032

Out of the 8 seats in my setup using the 6" square Dalite sent me months back I only have one seat where the picture looks as bright or possibly brighter. In the remaining 7 seats that I have the brightness difference is quite noticeable.


----------



## AVWERKS

xb

Thats the down side of having so much gain. But in its sweet spot it smokes all the expensive wide angle screens in their sweet spot. They become down right boring in comparison and less money to boot!

But its another matter entirely if you want the whole family or a group of friends to get the same picture equally. In that case the wide cone is a benefit.

Pick your poison!


regards

David


----------



## xb1032

If I didn't have the 2.8 gain I'd get the 2.4 in a heartbeat. I shoulda woulda coulda bought the bigger screen some time back when I had the chance. I'll probably wait and see how bright the RS45 is. If it's very bright then the 2.4 gain might work.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xb1032* /forum/post/20987669
> 
> 
> If I didn't have the 2.8 gain I'd get the 2.4 in a heartbeat. I shoulda woulda coulda bought the bigger screen some time back when I had the chance. I'll probably wait and see how bright the RS45 is. If it's very bright then the 2.4 gain might work.



My 144x72 HP2.4 is quite bright enough for me with a RS20 with ~ 2000 hrs on the lamp. (In 16x9 config is is 128x72,)


----------



## jhan1000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xb1032* /forum/post/20985124
> 
> 
> Out of the 8 seats in my setup using the 6" square Dalite sent me months back I only have one seat where the picture looks as bright or possibly brighter. In the remaining 7 seats that I have the brightness difference is quite noticeable.



Having experimented with the HP 2.4 samples, the dropoff seems to be more noticeable with smaller samples. I first got a 6" sample and then a 12" sample, and now I have a 122x66" HP screen now. The dropoff was less noticeable with each size increase.


----------



## xb1032




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/20987732
> 
> 
> My 144x72 HP2.4 is quite bright enough for me with a RS20 with ~ 2000 hrs on the lamp. (In 16x9 config is is 128x72,)



I will probably wait until I get the RS45 and see how much brighter it is over my RS2 clone. I didn't think I'd be saying this but I am interested in 3D and the brightness matters so I'll see how that goes as well. If I can spare a little then I may go for the 2.4.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jhan1000* /forum/post/20989051
> 
> 
> Having experimented with the HP 2.4 samples, the dropoff seems to be more noticeable with smaller samples. I first got a 6" sample and then a 12" sample, and now I have a 122x66" HP screen now. The dropoff was less noticeable with each size increase.



I was thinking about a calling and getting a 12" sample as the 6" sample really isn't enough. Now if only they would give my a 119" sample.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xb1032* /forum/post/20992569
> 
> 
> 
> I was thinking about a calling and getting a 12" sample as the 6" sample really isn't enough. Now if only they would give my a 119" sample.



Think about it this way.

If you do not have the projector in the optimum place or some of your seating is out of the viewing cone, you will get the same image as you do with a white screen that has a gain of 1.

What's to loose? You sit in the captain's seat which should be directly under the projector shooting just over your head, unless you give it up for an honored guest! You will always have a great picture and the seats next to you will also have a great picture. No one that I know of has ever complained about the full size screen looking darker on one side that then other from any seat. In fact the opposite is true, they say it has a very uniform brightness. Unfortunately I have a very small screen so my personal experience is not very useful when talking about a very large screen. You should get the bigger samples as you say and see if that helps any in your decision.


----------



## Murilo

I am really not looking forward to the day i want to upgrade my 2.35:1 highpower to something bigger.


I have a 94inch 16:9 in behind, and a second one just about the same size with masking on top and bottom da-lite did for me that drops down in front.


I had to go with this because my projector had no zoom method so calculations had to be done to work out the appropriate size.


Now looking at projectors I had hoped to buy one with a zoom method, so i could get a bigger picture for 2:35 and 2:40 movies and just zoom in manually, but now the screens wont match. They will have different gain. If i want to go bigger i would have the masked screen with less gain and for 16:9 content higher gain and brighter picture.


Or I buy a new 16:9 as well in the 2.4 but that would put a hole in my pocket, dalite charges crazy prices for the electric screens.


----------



## pottscb

Hi,

I'm running power in the attic this weekend for an electric hipower screen, and was wondering which side of the screen Dalite puts the power and 12v trigger. I called VA and PP and both are closed. The only pic I can find is a Designer Cinema Electrol and it's power is on the left, so this is how I have it for now. The Sheetrock guys come Tues so someone pls let me know if I need power on the other side. Thanks.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pottscb* /forum/post/21145240
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I'm running power in the attic this weekend for an electric hipower screen, and was wondering which side of the screen Dalite puts the power and 12v trigger. I called VA and PP and both are closed. The only pic I can find is a Designer Cinema Electrol and it's power is on the left, so this is how I have it for now. The Sheetrock guys come Tues so someone pls let me know if I need power on the other side. Thanks.



Go to the dalite website, choose the model screen you have and on the right and side of the page you will see pdf files including installation .. one of those pdfs will show you what you need to know


----------



## KMR

I think I may have a problem with my screen.


I just took delivery on a Cinema Contour screen and I'm assembling the frame now. However, none of the screw holes are matching up properly.


I know that the instructions say that they won't line up until all fasteners are attached, but the frame is together all the way and they're still mismatched.


Any ideas? Is there something I'm missing?


----------



## Pete

I think you're supposed to match up the holes and put in the screws (not tight) and then when all the screws are in you can tighten them. Then look at the frame and it should look fine.


----------



## millerwill

Also note that the 4 pieces are labeled 'top', 'bottom', 'left', and 'right', and the holds only line up correctly if you have these correctly positioned. (I think I once starting putting one of my HP's together and had the top and bottom switched.)


----------



## KMR

Yeah, you're right. I tried again last night and the screws went in far enough. I did this for all four corners and then tightened them. I just assumed that they would all line up after the screen was pieced together.


But all is fine now and the screen is fully assembled.


----------



## AV Science sales 1

good to hear KMR. We were about to have Da Lite just send you another one


----------



## KMR

Sorry... I have another 'issue'.


I've noticed during scenes of solid color--like a shot of the sky, or many scenes in an animated movie, where larges areas of solid color are prevalent--I can see the screen's texture. It's very distracting. Has anyone else noticed this sort of thing?


----------



## NNate

I just got my new Cinema Contour with High Power put together and on the wall. Wow, those snaps are a *****... Anyway, I noticed a part of the screen that isn't stretched out like the rest - it's like there's too much fabric and it makes a bubble. I was just wondering if this is normal/acceptable? Will it get worse over time since it's not properly stretched? It doesn't appear to be too noticeable from the front, but I haven't yet set up my projector.


Any opinions?


Hopefully my attachment works. It's not the best picture since it's from an iPhone, but it'll get the point across.


----------



## thrang




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NNate* /forum/post/21344748
> 
> 
> I just got my new Cinema Contour with High Power put together and on the wall. Wow, those snaps are a *****... Anyway, I noticed a part of the screen that isn't stretched out like the rest - it's like there's too much fabric and it makes a bubble. I was just wondering if this is normal/acceptable? Will it get worse over time since it's not properly stretched? It doesn't appear to be too noticeable from the front, but I haven't yet set up my projector.
> 
> 
> Any opinions?
> 
> 
> Hopefully my attachment works. It's not the best picture since it's from an iPhone, but it'll get the point across.



That's not normal. I don't recall, but I think there's a recommended sequence to snap the screen in to avoid puckering. Perhaps someone else here knows or you can call Da Lite. Maybe try snapping the center points and then working out to the corners, doing opposing sides as you go...


I wouldn't leave it like that.


----------



## NNate

All the snaps are snapped - you think undoing them would make a difference? You'd think that once it's completely snapped it'd be tight regardless of which order they were used.


The directions said to start with the 4 corners (which I did) and then do the rest. Hmmm... Anyone else have suggestions as to how I can remedy this? Or do I have a defective screen?


----------



## thrang




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NNate* /forum/post/21344926
> 
> 
> All the snaps are snapped - you think undoing them would make a difference? You'd think that once it's completely snapped it'd be tight regardless of which order they were used.
> 
> 
> The directions said to start with the 4 corners (which I did) and then do the rest. Hmmm... Anyone else have suggestions as to how I can remedy this? Or do I have a defective screen?



If you're following the directions, I would contact your reseller or DaLite - that appears substantial enough that it would effect image quality. If it doesn't, then its up to you if it bothers you or not...


----------



## NNate

Thanks thrang! I guess I'll contact AVS later today.


----------



## NNate

To update, Mike at AVS was very helpful. DaLite sent a replacement out overnight shipping and the new screen is tight as a drum.


The more I've been watching the screen, I've been noticing some darker horizontal lines that show up during bright scenes. It's especially evident when there's a camera pan or movement on a bright scene. The most noticeable one is about a third of the way down the screen - it spans from left-right but the left side is more pronounced. There are others toward the bottom of the screen as well, but those aren't as noticeable.


Could there just be lines of dirt on my screen? I'm nervous to try and clean the screen because I worry about causing streaking or other more annoying issues. Plus, why would a new screen from the factory come dirty?


I'm getting frustrated with these issues I've been having with the HP. DaLite was really helpful with the first problem, but at this point I'm hesitant to complain again as I may just be seen as a really picky customer... Plus, given my first experience, I'm nervous that any replacement with have other more glaring issues. I've tried to take pictures of what I'm seeing, but it wasn't working out so well with my cellphone camera.


----------



## NNate

OK, I took a picture with a normal camera+flash in a dark room, projector off. Hopefully this picture can better describe what I'm seeing (at least in the most pronounced location). Again, it's more noticeable with movement on the screen.


----------



## raymondeast

Had anyone tried the epson 5010 with the hp?


----------



## Dr. Spankenstein

NNate,


I have one of those on my HP Model C pull-down. It sits a bit lower than yours.


This was after I went though 4 (count em, 4) other HP screens from Da-Lite. One was the new (2.4) and others had a series of tightly aligned vertical stripes. I settled on this one as I was super tired of waiting and suffering the looks from my wife while swapping these on the wall for testing (133" diag), by myself!


It is quite evident/annoying on bright scenes, but I'll live. Sooo many other things to obsess over, know what I mean? Sorry if this is no help, but I wanted to express that this is not an obscure case.


----------



## NNate

Thanks for the response! I must say that's disheartening! But at least I know I'm not the only one who's experienced this. You said that one was the new 2.4 - the others were the 2.8? They all had striping of some kind - whether vertical or horizontal?


I called DaLite today and spoke with a representative. He made it sound like this was something he hadn't heard of before. I even sent over the picture I posted here after getting off the phone, but have yet to hear back about that. He told me they could send me a new screen and even offered to swap for another material (not something I want to do). I definitely can't complain about the support as it's been top-notch from both DaLite and AVS, but the QC problems are another thing entirely. I guess I have to mull over my choices.


Has anyone else experienced this with the 2.4 material?


----------



## talkingparrots

I know this might be a redundant question but is there really no plan on bringing back the classic high power of 2.8 gain? I have a 10 foot wide 2.35 130 inch diagonal that I'm absolutely in love with. I was thinking I'd go the biggest size they had without a seam.


Oh and one question- *how bad do seams look like on Da-Lite projector screens?* If I wanted to go 200 inches


----------



## srauly

Hello all, I'm a long-time owner of a Model B 92" 16:9 High Power screen (original 2.8 gain). I just got a new projector (Epson 8350, though I'm still debating whether I'll keep it or trade it for a different make/model), and I'm planning on moving up to a bigger screen. I may even go with a 2.4:1 ratio. I may go with a fixed 1.2 gain screen, but since I've been so happy with my High Power, and it doesn't look too bright now at night with this projector (and will dim more as the bulb breaks in and I move up in screen size), I'm thinking of possibly going with a Model C High Power 119" diagonal 16:9 screen (again, I may have them custom make it with extra black masking at top to give it a 2.4:1 ratio). At this screen size, and with the extra masking up top, and using the newer 2.4 gain material, am I likely to have more problems with waves than I currently have with my 2.8 gain 92" diagonal 16:9 screen? I've been very happy with the relative flatness of my current screen (and the fact that it doesn't accentuate the slight waves that are there).


Thanks!


----------



## chambers1517

I had a bad day yesterday. I have a 139x78 highpower mounted in my theater. i was pulling it down and one of the straps holding it up broke. The screen wadded up on the floor. Now I have spots all over the image. I will have to buy a new scree. I was going to mount the screen in a fixed frame. I still want to do this and remember when I bought this screen a model c was cheaper than just the fabric. Is this still the case and if it is, why? Yhe case has to add quite a bit to the cost. Is there any way to purchase the material cheaper?


----------



## nirvy111




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *talkingparrots* /forum/post/21495229
> 
> 
> I know this might be a redundant question but is there really no plan on bringing back the classic high power of 2.8 gain? I have a 10 foot wide 2.35 130 inch diagonal that I'm absolutely in love with. I was thinking I'd go the biggest size they had without a seam.
> 
> 
> Oh and one question- *how bad do seams look like on Da-Lite projector screens?* If I wanted to go 200 inches



My 2.8 HP is 7 foot tall and has seam 1 foot from the top. Yes it is visible on solid white but I rarely notice it during a movie. I think the important thing is where the seam is positioned, if it's out to the edge of the screen then it's not really a an issue but I would imagine if it was across the middle of the screen than it would be unacceptable.


----------



## Kilgore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chambers1517* /forum/post/21529961
> 
> 
> I had a bad day yesterday. I have a 139x78 highpower mounted in my theater. i was pulling it down and one of the straps holding it up broke. The screen wadded up on the floor. Now I have spots all over the image. I will have to buy a new scree. I was going to mount the screen in a fixed frame. I still want to do this and remember when I bought this screen a model c was cheaper than just the fabric. Is this still the case and if it is, why? Yhe case has to add quite a bit to the cost. Is there any way to purchase the material cheaper?



Buying the material in a pulldown model is the cheapest way. I looked into it recently and it's still the way it was years ago.


----------



## GoCaboNow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *srauly* /forum/post/21524437
> 
> 
> Hello all, I'm a long-time owner of a Model B 92" 16:9 High Power screen (original 2.8 gain). I just got a new projector (Epson 8350, though I'm still debating whether I'll keep it or trade it for a different make/model), and I'm planning on moving up to a bigger screen. I may even go with a 2.4:1 ratio. I may go with a fixed 1.2 gain screen, but since I've been so happy with my High Power, and it doesn't look too bright now at night with this projector (and will dim more as the bulb breaks in and I move up in screen size), I'm thinking of possibly going with a Model C High Power 119" diagonal 16:9 screen (again, I may have them custom make it with extra black masking at top to give it a 2.4:1 ratio). At this screen size, and with the extra masking up top, and using the newer 2.4 gain material, am I likely to have more problems with waves than I currently have with my 2.8 gain 92" diagonal 16:9 screen? I've been very happy with the relative flatness of my current screen (and the fact that it doesn't accentuate the slight waves that are there).
> 
> 
> Thanks!



I have a 133" electric Cosmopolitan. It has a few waves but nothing that affects pq. I imagine if it was a fixed screen it would bother me to see it, but during movie it is a non issue. Not sure if that helps you any...


----------



## srauly




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GoCaboNow* /forum/post/21542238
> 
> 
> I have a 133" electric Cosmopolitan. It has a few waves but nothing that affects pq. I imagine if it was a fixed screen it would bother me to see it, but during movie it is a non issue. Not sure if that helps you any...



Does that screen have extra masking at the top or is it just the normal couple of inches? Just asking because part of what I'm wondering is if having more of the lighter-weight masking material up top, with the heavier-weight screen material below might make things better/worse in terms of waves.


----------



## nirvy111




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NNate* /forum/post/21466701
> 
> 
> Thanks for the response! I must say that's disheartening! But at least I know I'm not the only one who's experienced this. You said that one was the new 2.4 - the others were the 2.8? They all had striping of some kind - whether vertical or horizontal?
> 
> 
> I called DaLite today and spoke with a representative. He made it sound like this was something he hadn't heard of before. I even sent over the picture I posted here after getting off the phone, but have yet to hear back about that. He told me they could send me a new screen and even offered to swap for another material (not something I want to do). I definitely can't complain about the support as it's been top-notch from both DaLite and AVS, but the QC problems are another thing entirely. I guess I have to mull over my choices.
> 
> 
> Has anyone else experienced this with the 2.4 material?



You could try washing the screen but it's not easy, it takes a bit work to get a streak free finish.


My 2.8 HP has a join at 6ft because it's 160" 16:9 and when it arrived it was immediately obvious that the top 1ft piece was brighter looking than the bottom 6ft piece. I couldn't send it back because of my location so I just put up with it, fortunately it wasn't that noticeable during normal viewing so I didn't worry too much.


Recently however a large bug mark turned up on the bottom half and had to use a mulitpurpose cleaner to get it off as it was very stubborn. I tried water and then soapy water which was recommended but neither worked. What I noticed later when watching a movie was that the section I cleaned was now brighter then the rest of the screen.


Of course the only solution now was to clean the whole thing from top to bottom with the same mulitpurpose cleaner and hope that it would all look uniform, fortunately after many goes it did. I no longer have a bright patch where the bug crap was and the top and bottom pieces are identical looking in gain and brightness.


My conclusion is that the bottom section of the screen and possibly to a lesser extent to top piece aswell had some kind of residue on it which reduced the gain of the surface. Cleaning it off increased gain but it also improved colour aswell and it reduced screen texture. I now find the screen texture on my High Power to be much harder to see and this has had a positive effect on the image. I think in general the picture is better.


The striping and smudges that some people report I suspect is that same residue although I'm not really sure.


So the way I cleaned the screen was to basically wet it from top to bottom in one go with the multipurpose cleaner(I used Ajax spray n wipe 5 in 1), then let it sit for a few mintues and then wipe down with a damp cloth, repeating this a second time. After the second go I had to wipe it down about 10 times with a bucket of warm tap water and a cloth to remove all of the soapy residue left by the multipurpose cleaner. If you don't do this you will have visible streaks. It's a pain to do and it took me awhile but I did eventually get a streak free screen.


There may be a better cleaner for this type of job, something less soapy perhaps but it was the only stuff I had that actually cleaned the screen without scrubbing and harming the screen fabric. You have to be careful you don't use a chemical that is too harsh or scrub the screen too hard as it could damage the facbric obviously. If you are going to try this you might want to use a test piece first to be safe.


----------



## airscapes

I have posted this in the past but things get lost in this thread.

The below was done several times on a classic 2.8 screen but not tested on the new 2.4 which is different. I see no reason why this would not work on 2.4 but you should test a sample or area of screen along the edge/bottom first if you can.


Denatured Alcohol on a NEW CLEAN micro fiber cloth will allow you to clean the screen, with no streaks and very little dry time. Apply and wipe with one cloth and wipe dry with another. A hair dryer on cold can aid in almost instant dry time. Work in small over lapping areas wiping in one direction helps to prevent missed spots.

When utilizing the above method, it is very helpful to turn on your projector and display a white screen from the setup menu if you have one. This way you can see what is clean and what is still streaky and or missed.


WARNING~ Denature Alcohol ,it is HIGHLY Flammable! Be very careful and have some ventilation and no smoking or open flames in the room!

If you have bug spots, hydrogen peroxide helps greatly as it acts as a bleaching of the bug gunk. Apply to the bug and let it sit for a few minutes, reapply if the area drys, then clean as above.


Water and other cleans work to but as you have read, it can be a pain to get all of the detergent off and then you must wait a few day of dry time before you know the final outcome.


----------



## nirvy111




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/21556410
> 
> 
> I have posted this in the past but things get lost in this thread.
> 
> The below was done several times on a classic 2.8 screen but not tested on the new 2.4 which is different. I see no reason why this would not work on 2.4 but you should test a sample or area of screen along the edge/bottom first if you can.
> 
> 
> Denatured Alcohol on a NEW CLEAN micro fiber cloth will allow you to clean the screen, with no streaks and very little dry time. Apply and wipe with one cloth and wipe dry with another. A hair dryer on cold can aid in almost instant dry time. Work in small over lapping areas wiping in one direction helps to prevent missed spots.
> 
> When utilizing the above method, it is very helpful to turn on your projector and display a white screen from the setup menu if you have one. This way you can see what is clean and what is still streaky and or missed.
> 
> 
> WARNING~ Denature Alcohol ,it is HIGHLY Flammable! Be very careful and have some ventilation and no smoking or open flames in the room!
> 
> If you have bug spots, hydrogen peroxide helps greatly as it acts as a bleaching of the bug gunk. Apply to the bug and let it sit for a few minutes, reapply if the area drys, then clean as above.
> 
> 
> Water and other cleans work to but as you have read, it can be a pain to get all of the detergent off and then you must wait a few day of dry time before you know the final outcome.



Yeah I probably did it the hard way although I'm not sure if one could safely clean an entire 160" screen with Alcohol, it's a very large surface area but I never tried it so I can't really say. Also you would have test it to see if it removed the screen residue I talked about. If it did and you could do it safely then using Alcohol sounds like a much better solution. Too bad I didn't know about that earlier.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nirvy111* /forum/post/21556518
> 
> 
> Yeah I probably did it the hard way although I'm not sure if one could safely clean an entire 160" screen with Alcohol, it's a very large surface area.



That sure would be a long and painful job.. you can only work about a square foot at a time with alcohol..


----------



## NNate

Thanks for all the input everyone!


My replacement screen (number 3) in nearly perfect. It looks much brighter as well. Probably because the reflective coating is applied more consistently or there's less dirt on the screen.


The only downside of this one is that there is a small spot (less than an inch square) near the middle of the screen, but is hard to notice during normal viewing - but is clearly visible with a bright white screen. Has anyone else tried cleaning a small spot on a 2.4? If so, what did you use. I'd hate to make it worse.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NNate* /forum/post/21561917
> 
> 
> Thanks for all the input everyone!
> 
> 
> My replacement screen (number 3) in nearly perfect. It looks much brighter as well. Probably because the reflective coating is applied more consistently or there's less dirt on the screen.
> 
> 
> The only downside of this one is that there is a small spot (less than an inch square) near the middle of the screen, but is hard to notice during normal viewing - but is clearly visible with a bright white screen. Has anyone else tried cleaning a small spot on a 2.4? If so, what did you use. I'd hate to make it worse.



Scroll back 3 posts or so.. If you have a sample test the whatever you use on it first.


----------



## NNate

Yeah, I saw that. I just wanted to hear if anyone had tried that procedure on the new 2.4 fabric. The directions on the dalite website say you can use denatured alcohol so I'm assuming its still okay.


I still have the screen that had the horizontal streaks so maybe I can test on it to make sure. Otherwise I'll request a sample to play with.


----------



## NNate

OK, just to make sure we're on the same page. Denatured alcohol being that stuff you find in the paint aisle used for cleaning brushes?


----------



## airscapes

Yes, used to thin shellac and make fire.. so be careful comes in quart cans in the paint aisle
http://www.sunnysidecorp.com/product...chemicals.html


----------



## NNate

To update with my experience trying to clean my 2.4 HP screen... I used the denatured alcohol and found no negative or positive difference. It looks like the mark I'm seeing on my screen isn't dirt, but instead an issue in the actual beads or coating. Since this is my best screen yet of the 3 I suppose I'm going to deal with this problem unless anyone had other ideas I can try.


Going forward Da-Lite really needs to address their quality issues with the HP screens. Their customer service is very helpful and willing to swap out the screens, but it's been such a huge pain and waste of a lot of time. Taking time off work to both accept the screens and return the old, snapping new screens in place, disassembling and boxing up old screens. Ugh.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NNate* /forum/post/21586053
> 
> 
> To update with my experience trying to clean my 2.4 HP screen... I used the denatured alcohol and found no negative or positive difference. It looks like the mark I'm seeing on my screen isn't dirt, but instead an issue in the actual beads or coating. Since this is my best screen yet of the 3 I suppose I'm going to deal with this problem unless anyone had other ideas I can try.
> 
> 
> Going forward Da-Lite really needs to address their quality issues with the HP screens. Their customer service is very helpful and willing to swap out the screens, but it's been such a huge pain and waste of a lot of time. Taking time off work to both accept the screens and return the old, snapping new screens in place, disassembling and boxing up old screens. Ugh.



I find it very interesting that there are all these quality issues.. When they replaced the old 2.8 they (sales manager) told me the new screen would correct a lot of quality issues they had with the 2.8.. looks like that was BS!


----------



## SiZMiK

I'm looking forward to getting my 100" diag (49x87) HP 2.4 screen. I'll be matching it up to the Optoma HD33 projector.


I take it AVS doesnt ship to the UK ? These screens are not cheap in the UK.


----------



## Gregory

Got a question on the "Updated Da-Lite HP Screen Gain Calculator".


I'm planning on a 115" wide 2.35 screen. I was thinking of the Stewart ST-130, but the sparklies make me nervous, so I'm looking at the HP 2.4.


I'm using the calculator for the HP 2.4 screen and the gains that I am getting are left = 1.30, center = 1.38, right = 1.54. My question is how noticeable is the brightness variation across the screen with the gains noted above and what differences in gain are noticeable? These numbers reflect someone located closer to one edge of the screen.


Thanks,


----------



## xb1032

Has anyone sold their Dalite HP screen?


I have a 106" 16:9 Dalite HP 2.8 gain Model C pulldown screen that I want to sell (bought a 119" HP screen) but I'm wondering where I can try to sell this. I would think this would sell since the 2.8 gain material is excellent and is no longer sold.


Shipping would require freight and I'm sure it would be expensive.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xb1032* /forum/post/21700287
> 
> 
> Has anyone sold their Dalite HP screen?
> 
> 
> I have a 106" 16:9 Dalite HP 2.8 gain Model C pulldown screen that I want to sell (bought a 119" HP screen) but I'm wondering where I can try to sell this. I would think this would sell since the 2.8 gain material is excellent and is no longer sold.
> 
> 
> Shipping would require freight and I'm sure it would be expensive.



I sold mine by listing in the AVS Classified's. Fortunately I had saved the original box and packing, and though it was a hassle shipping it, it made it just fine all the way across the country.


----------



## xb1032




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/21700444
> 
> 
> I sold mine by listing in the AVS Classified's. Fortunately I had saved the original box and packing, and though it was a hassle shipping it, it made it just fine all the way across the country.



Thanks! I think I still have the original box stored for this screen in the attic as well. I know the distance matters in shipping cost but if you don't mind me asking what a rough price was on shipping something of this size?


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xb1032* /forum/post/21712133
> 
> 
> Thanks! I think I still have the original box stored for this screen in the attic as well. I know the distance matters in shipping cost but if you don't mind me asking what a rough price was on shipping something of this size?



Don't remember explicitly, but I think ~ $200 (CA to GA).


----------



## mandarax




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gregory* /forum/post/21680535
> 
> 
> Got a question on the "Updated Da-Lite HP Screen Gain Calculator".
> 
> 
> I'm planning on a 115" wide 2.35 screen. I was thinking of the Stewart ST-130, but the sparklies make me nervous, so I'm looking at the HP 2.4.
> 
> 
> I'm using the calculator for the HP 2.4 screen and the gains that I am getting are left = 1.30, center = 1.38, right = 1.54. My question is how noticeable is the brightness variation across the screen with the gains noted above and what differences in gain are noticeable? These numbers reflect someone located closer to one edge of the screen.
> 
> 
> Thanks,



Have you tried a sample of the Stewart? I use a hp in the showroom because I have a lot of underpowered projectors come in but a Stewart130 would be my preference. I saw aa full 1.7 at ces in the jvc booth and it was also a good screen but did have some sparklies.


----------



## xb1032




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/21712151
> 
> 
> Don't remember explicitly, but I think ~ $200 (CA to GA).



Thanks! I figured it would be very costly to ship.


----------



## Gregory




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mandarax* /forum/post/21712783
> 
> 
> Have you tried a sample of the Stewart? I use a hp in the showroom because I have a lot of underpowered projectors come in but a Stewart130 would be my preference. I saw aa full 1.7 at ces in the jvc booth and it was also a good screen but did have some sparklies.



I don't have a projector yet........still investigating. The demos that I've seen show these sparklies on the ST-130. One place that I've gone has 4 theater show rooms and he exclusively uses 1.0 gain screens and I love the smoothness of the image. The problem is twofold: I don't have a bat cave, so it will light up the room (one thing that I noticed) and as the bulb ages I will be too dim (under 12 fL's).


That's why my question on the HP 2.4. Any experience with noticeable brightness non-uniformity across the screen from off-axis viewing (35°)?


Thanks,


----------



## mandarax




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gregory* /forum/post/21717714
> 
> 
> I don't have a projector yet........still investigating. The demos that I've seen show these sparklies on the ST-130. One place that I've gone has 4 theater show rooms and he exclusively uses 1.0 gain screens and I love the smoothness of the image. The problem is twofold: I don't have a bat cave, so it will light up the room (one thing that I noticed) and as the bulb ages I will be too dim (under 12 fL's).
> 
> 
> That's why my question on the HP 2.4. Any experience with noticeable brightness non-uniformity across the screen from off-axis viewing (35°)?
> 
> 
> Thanks,



The new HP 2.4 has a 20degree viewing cone. Do to being retroreflective you have to setup ideal to reap the benefits. No ceiling mount. You will find that everything is a compromise.


----------



## plasmaowner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mystify* /forum/post/20880629
> 
> 
> Well I had approx 1/5 of the top of my screen darker. Not lines, the entire screen area. It could be especially seen on a white projected image. I first noticed it watching hockey. Taking a flash photograph clearly showed it as well.
> 
> 
> I initially thought it was the screen damaged maybe by the rollers as mine is a manual pulldown. Another poster suggested cleaning it.
> 
> 
> After a careful cleaning the dark area was completely gone.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gotchaa* /forum/post/20909819
> 
> 
> How did you clean it?





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mystify* /forum/post/20911445
> 
> 
> The official cleaning process can be found on the Dalite website.
> 
> 
> I used a clean, white microfiber cloth that I dampened with the distilled water. I then lightly rubbed the screen going in one direction from the top - down. I did this process in "rows" all the way across the screen surface.
> 
> 
> I then let it dry for about 2 hours and repeated this process twice more focusing more on the darkened area.
> 
> 
> After that the screen looked brand new. The dark area was completely gone.
> 
> 
> The main thing to remember is you want to cloth damp enough to clean but not soaked so water is dripping off it. Also don't use a lot of force when wiping.
> 
> 
> Good luck.



I *had* the exact same problem with a Model C 2.8 159" screen that I just bought a few months ago. YES Da-Lite still have a few of them in stock. I got mine 5 months ago drop shipped directly from them. Well after about two weeks I started to notice that about 1/5 of the top of the screen had developed a dark shade stretching all the way across the screen horizontally. Man was unhappy and just thought that I had a defective screen and that I would just live with it then take it down, ship it back, install new one, blah blah blah. This thing is BIG and HEAVY and a pain in the neck to install.


Well yesterday I noticed that another dark shade (a few shades lighter then the first) developing about 2/5 down














! What in the world is going on here. There is no way I can live with this. I was just about to call Dalite but then I thought I should check here first! GOOD OLE AVS Forums to the rescue! After a quick search I found the quotes above.


Well I cleaned the top half of the screen just as described by Mystify and







WOW







what a difference!!! It looks a 1000 times better then before. It looked so good that I could see the dirt on the bottom half of the screen that I never noticed before. So I just cleaned the whole screen and I'm just speechless. The screen looks incredible. MUCH better then it was even brand new out of the box.


Just wanted to let you guys know to CLEAN your HP SCREEN!!!!!


----------



## mandarax




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kilgore* /forum/post/21539666
> 
> 
> Buying the material in a pulldown model is the cheapest way. I looked into it recently and it's still the way it was years ago.



I am a dealer in ontario. Kind of depends. If you get the fabric with the binding and snaps it still takes more time to make the a pulldown. You do not need the binding for a diy project.


The 2.8 high power is no longer a sku.


The new 2.4 high contrast and standard high power do not glass beads.


The case for a pulldown is just a stamped punched metal. If you are going to do a diy frame for the material I get my customers to order it with an extra black top they can just roll it out on a clean surface and cut it.


Dalite extruded aluminum screen frame with the velvet and snaps called the cinama contour is a bargain.


----------



## chambers1517

Talked to the dealer where I bought my first screen. She is really awesome. Told her I needed fabric but not the casing. She talked to Dalite and the model C is cheaper than the fabric. Shipping was going to be $114. She called and asked if they could cut the fabric out of the casing and just ship it to save shipping. The guy had to ask and call her back. Someone else at Dalite called her and this guy said I just needed to order a replacement fabric. They actually have a part number for the fabric only. I ended up getting a 139x78 Hi Power replacement screen for about half the price of the model C.


----------



## optoguy

Wondering if anyone has had any problems with keeping the manual screen rolled up most of the time. My wife wants to get a flatscreen in our TV room, which would be

watched most of the time, with a rare movie (1 or 2 per month). I was looking at a 119" diagonal model c manual pull down, but I'm concerned with waves (or other problems?) after being rolled up for so long. With 2 very young kids I don't get much of a chance to watch movies anymore!


Thanks,


Darren A.


----------



## badgerpilot

2 1/2 years and no waves. We pull it down about 3 times per week.


----------



## optoguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *badgerpilot* /forum/post/21872612
> 
> 
> 2 1/2 years and no waves. We pull it down about 3 times per week.



Thanks! It should work out well: my wife gets a TV for normal viewing

(it's in a bonus room with lots of windows), and I get a larger screen!


Darren A.


----------



## badgerpilot

You are going to love it!


----------



## siskiyous

I have had mine for a few weeks now, but have had not issues with it so far. It is not perfectly flat, but you can't see any issues with it while watching movies.

I picked mine up on the recommendation of a forum member as well as Mark Haflich of the AVS sales team.

I am so glad I finally took the plunge and went with a real big screen. Mine is right at 133 diag. Could not be happier. Give it a chance, I think you'll like it.


----------



## fperra

I've got a Dalite Hi Power screen (2.8) with my JVC-RS2. Its 106" diagonal with the projector mounted 16.5' from the screen, almost dead center with the screen (no offset). The seating area is about 14' from the screen and the viewing eye level is about 2' below the projector lens. I'm thinking of upgrading to the Epson 6010. Would the 6010 be too bright with this screen?


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fperra* /forum/post/21960876
> 
> 
> I've got a Dalite Hi Power screen (2.8) with my JVC-RS2. Its 106" diagonal with the projector mounted 16.5' from the screen, almost dead center with the screen (no offset). The seating area is about 14' from the screen and the viewing eye level is about 2' below the projector lens. I'm thinking of upgrading to the Epson 6010. Would the 6010 be too bright with this screen?



I have a very similar configuration (and Epson 6010), but with the projection beam only about a foot over my head. Especially for 3D, it's amazing. The lamp will dim, or you can filter it. Either way, "too bright" is not a problem.


----------



## raymondeast

I was going Yo get the epson 5010 and a 159" high power screen. First row is 15' from eyes to screen and second row is around 21 feet from eyes to screen. Do you think the 159" is to big? Or should I go with 133"


Will I lose picture quality if I go to 159"


----------



## keithkeith

Hi power screen is the way to go. Geez I miss my hp screen. I even had the 2.8 gain. Loved that screen till me and my son were goofing around and he knocked over a speaker and scratched the screen. Had black marks from it breaking the glass beads so now it just sits in my basement on the floor under stuff. Now I'm back to my matte white screen and everyday miss the hp screen


159" is not too big. Never such a ing as too big. I've moved up from a 106" to a 120" now I have a 140" motorized screen. It works but eh still miss that pop with the hp and now with all this talk in this thread about 159" it might be time to move on up Again. Gotta upgrade the Epson 8100 though. Thing is a dinosaur !


----------



## conan48

I'm siting 12' from my screen and the projector is ceiling mounted directly over my head and I have 8' ceilings. There is no way I can drop the projector to near eye level so I'm not really expecting much gain from the HP but I'm thinking of getting it because of the reports that the HP material is smooth and doesn't have waves.


Would this setup be okay? I'm concerned that I may get some of the gain effect but it won't be even over the whole screen. Does the gain drop off uniformly over the entire screen?


----------



## AVWERKS

Conan

You can,t bend all the things you want and expect the HP to conform. Your head needs to be very close to the light source. What you describe is thats not the case.

You need an angular reflective material to fill your requirements, simple really


Regards

David


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conan48* /forum/post/21989732
> 
> 
> I'm siting 12' from my screen and the projector is ceiling mounted directly over my head and I have 8' ceilings. There is no way I can drop the projector to near eye level so I'm not really expecting much gain from the HP but I'm thinking of getting it because of the reports that the HP material is smooth and doesn't have waves.
> 
> 
> Would this setup be okay? I'm concerned that I may get some of the gain effect but it won't be even over the whole screen. Does the gain drop off uniformly over the entire screen?



Not going to be any better than a 1 gain screen. You may see the waves since you will not be viewing the image on axis. The screen does get some waves and wrinkles but you do not see them do to the way the screen works when set up properly. Buying this screen with you setup is not a good idea.


----------



## conan48

OK thanks guys. Was hoping that the HP was a thicker material and less prone to waves or wrinkles. I'm actually not getting for the gain as I know I won't really benefit from it anyway. What pulldown screen would you recommend for having the least amount of waves/wrinkles.


----------



## srauly

Has anyone here ordered/using a Model C High Power w/extra black drop top/bottom? I have an Epson 8350 and was hoping to have them make me a custom 2.35:1 screen with extra black drop top/bottom (essentially giving me a 16:9 screen with a 2.35:1 "window") but when I had an online chat with the Da-Lite reps, they mentioned that this could result in a "ladder effect". Basically, they heat seam the black drop to the High Power material, and that seam creates a slight ridge which, when the screen is rolled up, can cause a slight indentation in the High Power material every 10" or so. This would presumably lessen when the screen is down for a few days, but mine won't be, as I'm looking to retract it when not in use.


So now I'm leaning towards giving up on that idea and just going with the standard 16:9 screen (same width as what I would have been doing above). This will mean that light leakage in the black bars will be more noticeable and TV viewing will be bigger than I want it to be (I'd prefer that to be smaller so as to maximize my projector brightness and minimize the obviousness of the over compression of my cable TV HDTV content).


Still, before I completely give up on the idea, I figured I'd post here to see if anyone else had a screen with a significant amount of extra black drop and could comment on this "ladder effect" issue/non-issue.


----------



## srauly

Sorry for the double-post, but I'm hoping someone can help me out. Here's the latest update on my saga...


So I just got finished chatting (again) with a Da-Lite rep. He told me that even the standard black borders are heat seamed onto the High Power material now. If accurate info, I'm assuming that this change coincided with the introduction of the newer 2.4 gain High Power material, as my older 92" diagonal 16:9 Model B w/High Power 2.8 gain material appears to have a painted-on black border.


As such, this would seem to indicate that the "ladder effect" would be a potential issue on any High Power roll-up screen, regardless of whether it has extra black drop, or just the standard black borders.


Again, if true, I suppose the "good" part of this news, is that I should be able to get many of you 2.4 gain High Power Model B/C owners to confirm this (you should be able to feel a ridge between the screen and the black border/masking) and for those of you who frequently roll your screens up when not in use, if you could tell me if you see any signs of this "ladder effect" I would greatly appreciate it.


----------



## Alan Winslow

I currently have a Sony VW85 using a 106" - 1.3 gain screen. I am looking for a brighter image.

Would the HP 2.4 screen be too bright for this projector? We watch movies in a light controlled room with all lights off.


----------



## badgerpilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Winslow* /forum/post/22047047
> 
> 
> I currently have a Sony VW85 using a 106" - 1.3 gain screen. I am looking for a brighter image.
> 
> Would the HP 2.4 screen be too bright for this projector? We watch movies in a light controlled room with all lights off.



I really don't think so, but I don't have that projector. I run an Epson 8100 in eco mode on a 106" High Power and it is not too bright. Just looks like a giant Plasma


----------



## sarangiman

Just adding a data point here. The 110" HCHP screen I recently received has quite a distracting texture. Hard to show in pictures, but it shows up as horizontal & vertical streaks:
 


Also, I snapped the material onto the frame exactly as the instructions describe (start at the corners, etc.), and yet I still have these ripples on the upper left & bottom right of the screen (yes, shows up in viewing):
 


Swapping out is such a ridiculous pain & waste of my time. Anyone have experience with Draper screens? They have a Contrast Radiant which is similar to the HCHP; wondering if it *doesn't* have texture/streaking issues. Also, Draper uses a tension rod that spans the entire length of the screen, so it seems better to me than this snap system that is creating these ripples for me.


----------



## NNate

I'm on my fourth HP 2.4 screen and every single one has had a different issue. I got so sick of swapping them out only for the replacement to have issues of its own.


The fourth screen that I'm on now had some sticky residue in the lower left corner when it arrived. I cleaned it off with denatured alcohol and I think some of the beads underneath are messed up as it's duller in that spot. It's also not tight light a drum in placed and sags a little in the bottom middle. I don't notice those things when I'm watching normal content as they are at the bottom of the screen, but for the price you pay (especially in the Cinema Contour frame) I'd expect much better.


I will definitely not buy another DaLite screen in the future when I move. Nothing by problems and a waste of my time and money. Buyer beware, for sure.


----------



## Pultzar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NNate*  /t/773065/high-power-a-review-part-1/3690#post_22812645
> 
> 
> I'm on my fourth HP 2.4 screen and every single one has had a different issue. I got so sick of swapping them out only for the replacement to have issues of its own.
> 
> 
> The fourth screen that I'm on now had some sticky residue in the lower left corner when it arrived. I cleaned it off with denatured alcohol and I think some of the beads underneath are messed up as it's duller in that spot. It's also not tight light a drum in placed and sags a little in the bottom middle. I don't notice those things when I'm watching normal content as they are at the bottom of the screen, but for the price you pay (especially in the Cinema Contour frame) I'd expect much better.
> 
> 
> I will definitely not buy another DaLite screen in the future when I move. Nothing by problems and a waste of my time and money. Buyer beware, for sure.



I believe that with this frame, there are mounting points at the bottom in which you stretch the frame (after it is hanging) and then screw it into the wall. This should help with the wrinkles at the bottom (although they are invisible during viewing due to the nature of the screen). Otherwise it is basically impossible to get the screen material attached, which is certainly a feet in itself as is.


With regards to the sticky residue, that is unacceptable and I would send the screen back... again.


----------



## sarangiman

Jeez NNate; seems you & I are in the same boat! Problems with our Sony projector AND our screen(s). Home theater setup is fun until you keep getting crappy products; then it's just a waste of time.


Researching projectors by features, quantitating contrast, selecting screens based on their material properties -- that was all cool & fun. But then you make a decision and then end up with the actual products you've decided on... you affirm that you made the right choice from a technical standpoint... except the product itself is out of spec b/c of poor/non-existent QC.


Makes me a sad panda.


----------



## sarangiman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pultzar*  /t/773065/high-power-a-review-part-1/3690#post_22812721
> 
> 
> I believe that with this frame, there are mounting points at the bottom in which you stretch the frame (after it is hanging) and then screw it into the wall. This should help with the wrinkles at the bottom (although they are invisible during viewing due to the nature of the screen). Otherwise it is basically impossible to get the screen material attached, which is certainly a feet in itself as is.
> 
> 
> With regards to the sticky residue, that is unacceptable and I would send the screen back... again.



The ripples I have on my Cinema Contour HCHP screen cannot be removed with any downward pressure whatsoever. Maybe sideways pressure. Yeah those last few snaps weren't fun. Actually the 4th snap was the worst, since they ask you to snap the 4 corners first. The others are relatively easy. But sometimes I think some of the snaps exert too much pressure, causing the rippling.


I can actually see the ripples in viewing when there's skies and featureless shots on screen.


----------



## airscapes

Aint it funny how a manufacture has something that everyone is happy with (mostly) and they gota go and change it.. A real shame..

I keep my eye on craigs list for a HP 2.8, don't care if it is to big or manual pull down.. will store it till I have a bigger house and will make my own fixed frame out of it. before I buy the 2.4.


----------



## millerwill


Sorry to hear the problems you guys have had.    I had to return my original (110x62) HP2.8 screen because my AVS salesman wrote down the wrong dimensions.    Then when I replaced it with a larger (144x72) HP2.4, it came without the light-absorbiing material on the frame; this was Dalite's mistake.    In both cases, though, Dalite airefreighted out the correct screen within a day.     

 

I never had any problems with the screen material itself, nor wrinkles after snapping the material to my DaSnap frame.     In both cases I was extremely pleased with the screen after the above corrections were made.


----------



## NNate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sarangiman*  /t/773065/high-power-a-review-part-1/3690#post_22812795
> 
> 
> Jeez NNate; seems you & I are in the same boat! Problems with our Sony projector AND our screen(s). Home theater setup is fun until you keep getting crappy products; then it's just a waste of time.
> 
> 
> Researching projectors by features, quantitating contrast, selecting screens based on their material properties -- that was all cool & fun. But then you make a decision and then end up with the actual products you've decided on... you affirm that you made the right choice from a technical standpoint... except the product itself is out of spec b/c of poor/non-existent QC.
> 
> 
> Makes me a sad panda.



I couldn't agree more. It's felt like one problem after another with this home theater experiment. On the other hand, if you can make yourself look past the flaws, it doesn't get any better than watching a nicely mastered Blu-ray on the big screen.


----------



## sarangiman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NNate*  /t/773065/high-power-a-review-part-1/3690#post_22813901
> 
> 
> I couldn't agree more. It's felt like one problem after another with this home theater experiment. On the other hand, if you can make yourself look past the flaws, it doesn't get any better than watching a nicely mastered Blu-ray on the big screen.



By which you mean 'The Dark Knight Rises'










Also, I can't un-see crap... therein lies the problem.


And seriously, no excuses for:

*(1) Really bad focus non-uniformity ( http://www.avsforum.com/t/1436740/sony-vpl-hw50es-focus-nonuniformity ):*
 

*(2) Dirty screen/texture in a new $1200 screen:*
 

*(3) Ripples in a permanently tensioned screen upon assembly:*
 

*(4) Lamp flicker (video)*:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJcbfPkaMlo 


The youtube transcoding made it hard to see the flicker in the latter 2 scenes, unfortunately. I personally uploaded a higher quality video for Sony to see.


I guess there's some solidarity in shared suffering here


----------



## DrZaus

Sorry to hear your issue, but thanks for posting these.. I will avoid Da Late and move on to Carada BW for my 1st screen..


----------



## sarangiman

Since it's related to this thread, here's my report on Draper's 'Contrast Radiant' screen, which is essentially the same exact (AFAIK) material as Da-Lite's 'High Contrast High Power (HCHP)':

*Issues with Draper's 'Contrast Radiant' surface*
 


All the issues above also apply to the previous Da-Lite HCHP screen I had.


Read a more detailed description of all these issues here:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/390#post_23021074 


Sadly, I don't know how to proceed. I want a retro-reflective screen with a very narrow viewing cone (to maintain projector's native contrast by avoiding side wall/ceiling reflections). Surely someone must offer an option without all these issues? Apparently the old HP 2.8 didn't have these problems-- isn't there some company out there still making a material like that? Why did Da-Lite *regress* so much?


----------



## Elix




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sarangiman*  /t/773065/high-power-a-review-part-1/3690#post_22814159
> 
> *(3) Ripples in a permanently tensioned screen upon assembly:*


Nice bokeh


----------



## sarangiman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Elix*  /t/773065/high-power-a-review-part-1/3690#post_23046336
> 
> 
> Nice bokeh



Haha. You should see the f/1.4 shot  Of course, only like half a ripple was in focus...


----------



## Stuntman_Mike

What does the texture of the HP 2.4 gain material feel like?


I ordered an HP 2.4 screen, and I was expecting the material to be gritty like sandpaper or something, but it's very smooth. I'm wondering if they shipped me a matte screen by mistake. It's my first screen so I have nothing to compare it to.


Would appreciate any guidance from those that have the screen.


Thanks


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Stuntman_Mike*  /t/773065/high-power-a-review-part-1/3700_100#post_23062786
> 
> 
> What does the texture of the HP 2.4 gain material feel like?
> 
> 
> I ordered an HP 2.4 screen, and I was expecting the material to be gritty like sandpaper or something, but it's very smooth. I'm wondering if they shipped me a matte screen by mistake. It's my first screen so I have nothing to compare it to.
> 
> 
> Would appreciate any guidance from those that have the screen.
> 
> 
> Thanks



The picture on the LEFT is 2.4 ignore the one on the right, that is 2.8


----------



## Stuntman_Mike




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes*  /t/773065/high-power-a-review-part-1/3720#post_23063018
> 
> 
> The picture on the LEFT is 2.4 ignore the one on the right, that is 2.8




Thanks for the reply. It's hard to tell from the pick, but I am pretty sure it's the same. It looks like little diamond patterns all across the screen.


I guess I was expecting them to be shiny since it's supposed to be glass beaded. It looks more like material. Basically looks like what I pictured a matte screen would look like in my head.


The image does get brighter if I stand and get closer to the projector. Likewise it gets brighter when I cross the room from the left edge and take my seat in the center, so I have to assume that this is the increased gain towards the sweet spot that I'm seeing, and therefore it is an HP screen. Were it matte, the brightness would be uniform, correct?


I guess my expectation of what it would look like, and what it actually does, just threw me off. Couple that with it being my first screen, and a pretty expensive one (to me anyway lol), and I just worried about being sent a cheaper material in a switcherooski.


Thanks for the reply, again.


----------



## airscapes

Take a flash picture of the screen standing across the room and in the center of the screen, should glow sort of like this.. however not a bright since this picture is 2.8
 



This is without flash


----------



## Stuntman_Mike




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes*  /t/773065/high-power-a-review-part-1/3720#post_23067655
> 
> 
> Take a flash picture of the screen standing across the room and in the center of the screen, should glow sort of like this.. however not a bright since this picture is 2.8
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is without flash



Thanks, I'll try that tonight.


----------



## Fabricator

yeah. my 2.8 can be hard to take a pic of. as it just GLOWS.


----------



## rak306




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sarangiman*  /t/773065/high-power-a-review-part-1/3690#post_22788341
> 
> 
> Just adding a data point here. The 110" HCHP screen I recently received has quite a distracting texture. Hard to show in pictures, but it shows up as horizontal & vertical streaks:
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> .



Are these streaks visible when when your projector is running - e.g. showing a uniform field - or only in ambient light?


I have an older 2.8 HP manual pull down screen that has a repeating vertical pattern on the left had side - perhaps due to something on the roller. It is obvious in ambient light - but completely disappears once the projector is switched on.


----------



## timhet

I'm looking at getting a HP 2.4 gain 133" Cinema contour 2.35:1 screen.


Here are some pics of my proposed setup. I'm just wondering if anyone has any suggestions, particularly regarding the projector placement and seating positions for the HP screen. 99.9% of the time my family will be watching from the back row.


The room is 5.5 meters (18') long, by 4.5 meters (15') wide with an 2.59 meter (8'6") ceiling. The back row's eye level is 15' feet from the screen. The front row is about 10' from the screen.


Side view showing projector placement and seating placement.
http://i807.photobucket.com/albums/yy359/timhet/133daliteside_zpsacd04fcd.jpg 


Back seat view of screen.
http://i807.photobucket.com/albums/yy359/timhet/133dalitebackrow_zps654aa2d2.jpg 


From the screen looking back:
http://i807.photobucket.com/albums/yy359/timhet/133dalitefromscreen_zps004ebe8a.jpg 


This shows the seating distance is 2-3 screen heights away.
http://i807.photobucket.com/albums/yy359/timhet/133dalitescreenheight_zps07749577.jpg 


Back row with masking for a 16:9 image. Equivalent to a 105" screen.
http://i807.photobucket.com/albums/yy359/timhet/133dalitebackrowmasked_zps0a361b22.jpg


----------



## rak306




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *timhet*  /t/773065/high-power-a-review-part-1/3720#post_23117996
> 
> 
> I'm looking at getting a HP 2.4 gain 133" Cinema contour 2.35:1 screen.
> 
> 
> Here are some pics of my proposed setup. I'm just wondering if anyone has any suggestions, particularly regarding the projector placement and seating positions for the HP screen. 99.9% of the time my family will be watching from the back row.
> 
> 
> The room is 5.5 meters (18') long, by 4.5 meters (15') wide with an 2.59 meter (8'6") ceiling. The back row's eye level is 15' feet from the screen. The front row is about 10' from the screen.
> 
> ...



The best placement for the projector (when using the HP screen) is eye level with the viewers - as this minimizes the angle difference between the viewer and the projector - resulting in the highest gain. This is impractical for most theaters. In your case - I would try for just over their heads - on the back wall.


----------



## timhet

I haven't seen a HP screen in action so I'm trying to work out all the theories.


I've filled out the spreadsheet and found that I should be getting about 2.1 gain (with the HP 2.4 gain screen) from my viewing position.


So based on the formula: FtL = lumens x screen gain / sq. feet of screen


JVC X35 / RS46 has about 700 calibrated lumens when brand new. The 133" scope screen is the equivalent to a 140" 16:9 screen in terms of width so that equals:


700 lumens x 2.1 gain / 60 sq. feet = 24.5 FtL.


If the standard is 12-16 FtL, then I would imagine this would be a fairly bright image.


However, If I control the manual Iris and use the low lamp mode and get say 500 lumens, then I get 17.5 FtL.


So my question is, given I will be shining a relatively low about of lumens on the screen, with FtL of 17.5 would I expect the colors and black levels to be fairly accurate? Over time, this will dip into that 12-16 FtL range and I can manage the Iris to keep things consistent.


----------



## airscapes

Any light output at video black will be amplified by the gain of the screen, just like all the rest of the light in the image, so black will be brighter on this screen than a low gain. No matter what the screen fabric, a projector needs to be calibrated off the screen in the actual viewing environment to produce the most accurate image. This will need to be done on a regular basis as the lamp ages. I tweak mine every 500 hours or so.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes*  /t/773065/high-power-a-review-part-1/3720#post_23135496
> 
> 
> Any light output at video black will be amplified by the gain of the screen, just like all the rest of the light in the image, so black will be brighter on this screen than a low gain. No matter what the screen fabric, a projector needs to be calibrated off the screen in the actual viewing environment to produce the most accurate image. This will need to be done on a regular basis as the lamp ages. I tweak mine every 500 hours or so.



Of course black will not be higher on the HP than it will on a lower gain screen if the projector output is adjusted so that both situations produce the same ftL off the screen.


----------



## airscapes

Yes, black level will be different between screens with gain and without and you can not adjust it away.

There is only 1 correct brightness setting, that being vidoe 17 visible and video 16 (black) not.

There is always some light even at video 16 and this will be amplified by the screen gain, there is no adjusting this away.

Max output (contrast) can be adjusted so both screen match.

Luck the guy we are talking about has a JVC which has really good black levels to start


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes*  /t/773065/high-power-a-review-part-1/3720#post_23135923
> 
> 
> Yes, black level will be different between screens with gain and without and you can not adjust it away.
> 
> There is only 1 correct brightness setting, that being vidoe 17 visible and video 16 (black) not.
> 
> There is always some light even at video 16 and this will be amplified by the screen gain, there is no adjusting this away.
> 
> Max output (contrast) can be adjusted so both screen match.
> 
> Luck the guy we are talking about has a JVC which has really good black levels to start



I'm not sure we are in disagreement, though we're stating things in a different way.


My point was to contradict the frequent statement that a higher gain screen raises the black level. This is true only if one keeps the lumen output of the pj the same when comparing the high and low gain screens. In this case the black level is raised by the higher gain screen, as is the white level; the o/f contrast is not changed. So if one adjusts the lumen output of the pj (e.g., by using a manual iris) so that the ftL coming off the two screens is the same, the the black level (and white level) from the two screens will be the same.


I.e., a increasing the gain of the screen is equivalent to increasing the lumen output of the projector (apart from issues of viewing angle, etc.).


PS Maybe I confused things by referring to the lumen output of the projector as its 'brightness'. Lumen output obviously has nothing to do with adjusting the 'Brightness' (or Contrast) setting, which should always of course be set as you you describe.


----------



## airscapes

The difference between the video 16 and video 235 (contrast ratio) can be made the same yes.

BUT when sitting in a black room and displaying video 16 which is a 0% pattern, the HP screen will glow brighter than a utility gain screen. This is not a problem for me, but people who buy JVCs live for this light free BLACK FLOOR. Personally I don't get it, if it is that important, turn off the projector and just look at the blackness, after all what does it matter "Oh I can see the black bars!" SO WHAT! I calibrated a JVC for a guy who was obsessed about this and those who are, might not be happy with the increase in gain at this level. Is this a reason not to go with an HP, HELL NO! especially when talking about a BIG screen and a light deprived projector!


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes*  /t/773065/high-power-a-review-part-1/3720#post_23136685
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> BUT when sitting in a black room and displaying video 16 which is a 0% pattern, the HP screen will glow brighter than a utility gain screen. ....



Not if the lumen output of the projector has been adjusted (e.g., with a manual iris) so that the ftL off the screen is the same for the two screens. If one keeps the lumen output of the projector the same when comparing the two screens, then yes, 'black' will be higher, as will 'white' (because the ratio of the two, the o/f CR, will be the same); o/f CR (the ratio of 'white' to 'black') is a property of the projector, not the screen.


Stated another way, if one had two projectors with the same o/f CR, using the dimmer projector (which outputs L lumens) with a 2.4 gain screen would be equivalent to using a projector that puts out 2.4*L lumens and with a 1.0 gain screen.


Using a high gain screen is thus a less expensive way (if its configuration works for you) of getting an effective higher lumen projector.


----------



## timhet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill*  /t/773065/high-power-a-review-part-1/3720#post_23136797
> 
> 
> 
> Using a high gain screen is thus a less expensive way (if its configuration works for you) of getting an effective higher lumen projector.



So I guess the crux of my decision about buying this screen is if I control the FtL using the combination of a big screen, low lamp mode and manual Iris, then the only downsides of the screen are:

- viewing cone (which is not a concern seeing my family sits in the center 99% of the time and my friends who come over can't even tell the difference if the aspect ratio is wrong so they won't notice light output issues.

- Projector placement being inconvenient. I would prefer to ceiling mount, but I can live with putting the projector on a shelf at the back of the room.


----------



## airscapes

One other thing you have to deal with is wanting to watch it ALL the time, and there is nothing but reruns on!


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *timhet*  /t/773065/high-power-a-review-part-1/3720#post_23138227
> 
> 
> So I guess the crux of my decision about buying this screen is if I control the FtL using the combination of a big screen, low lamp mode and manual Iris, then the only downsides of the screen are:
> 
> - viewing cone (which is not a concern seeing my family sits in the center 99% of the time and my friends who come over can't even tell the difference if the aspect ratio is wrong so they won't notice light output issues.
> 
> - Projector placement being inconvenient. I would prefer to ceiling mount, but I can live with putting the projector on a shelf at the back of the room.



Yes. IMHO, if you can configure your projector near optimal for the HP--on a shelf/stand not far above your heads, and the viewing cone is not a problem (as for me)--the HP cannot be beat.


----------



## Robinson ------

Whats the difference between the dalite high power screen & the high contrast high power screen (other than the 30% vs 20% viewcone). Thanks, eh.


----------



## kovyvok

Is the Da-lite HP an identical screen to the Draper Radiant CT2900E? And both suffering from the very poor QC with streaks, etc.?


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Robinson ------*  /t/773065/high-power-a-review-part-1/3700_100#post_23286846
> 
> 
> Whats the difference between the dalite high power screen & the high contrast high power screen (other than the 30% vs 20% viewcone). Thanks, eh.



HP is white, HCHP is gray

There are lots of newer threads on this subject just do a search in this forum for HP. The current HP screen is not the same material used when this thread was started.


----------



## thrang

For anyone interested, my original 2.8 HP screen is available - please see my signature...


----------



## thrang




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mac_hs10*  /t/773065/high-power-a-review-part-1/3720#post_23406929
> 
> 
> What are you replacing it with thrang?



2.35 2.4 High Power....


----------



## Robert Clark

Question for you 2.4 owners. How is the screen surface texture wise? The 2.8 has none. Is there any visible texture?


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Robert Clark*  /t/773065/high-power-a-review-part-1/3720#post_23566926
> 
> 
> Question for you 2.4 owners. How is the screen surface texture wise? The 2.8 has none. Is there any visible texture?



I think the HP 2.4 is even more texture-free than the 2.8 I had (which was also superb).


----------



## Robert Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill*  /t/773065/high-power-a-review-part-1/3720#post_23567043
> 
> 
> I think the HP 2.4 is even more texture-free than the 2.8 I had (which was also superb).


Great thanks. Think I will go up to the 159". I wish there were a size in between my 133" and the 159...


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Robert Clark*  /t/773065/high-power-a-review-part-1/3720#post_23569335
> 
> 
> Great thanks. Think I will go up to the 159". I wish there were a size in between my 133" and the 159...



You can get any size you want. My HP2.4 is a 'hybrid' size, 144x72. Talk to AVS about ordering it.


----------



## Robert Clark

Wow. Great!


----------



## noah katz

Yep; mine's 128X62 (splits the difference between 1.78 an 2.35.


Every screen is made to order; they just charge for the next biggest size.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill*  /t/773065/high-power-a-review-part-1/3720#post_23569359
> 
> 
> You can get any size you want. My HP2.4 is a 'hybrid' size, 144x72. Talk to AVS about ordering it.


----------



## millerwill

Noah is the person I visited 7-8 yrs ago, to see his HP screen, when I was just getting into projectors and HT. It convinced me that it would be a good choice for me, and I've never looked back. Thanks again, Noah!


----------



## noah katz

Yikes, it's been 7 yr?!


Anyway, you're most welcome, Bill.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz*  /t/773065/high-power-a-review-part-1/3750#post_23572332
> 
> 
> Yikes, it's been 7 yr?!
> 
> 
> Anyway, you're most welcome, Bill.



Yes, it was a JVC RS1, with a HP 2.8 screen, back then. Passed this on to my daughter and son-in-law after 2 yrs and got a RS20. Had it for several years, and have now had a Sony1000ES for a year, with a larger HP2.4 screen.


If you can locate the pj 'low', i.e., to project just over your head (as I can), I don't believe one can do any better for a screen.


----------



## dougri

In case there are any others lurking around looking for a large original (2.8) HP screen, and you happen to live in South Florida (or want to engage this guy about freight shipment)... 159" Model C HP (2.8), asking $250 (negotiable). Have not seen too many of these lately... unfortunately for me, west palm beach->mountain view, CA is a bit of a drive, and very costly freight









http://miami.craigslist.org/pbc/ele/4088797636.html


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dougri*  /t/773065/high-power-a-review-part-1/3750#post_23771173
> 
> 
> In case there are any others lurking around looking for a large original (2.8) HP screen, and you happen to live in South Florida (or want to engage this guy about freight shipment)... 159" Model C HP (2.8), asking $250 (negotiable). Have not seen too many of these lately... unfortunately for me, west palm beach->mountain view, CA is a bit of a drive, and very costly freight
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://miami.craigslist.org/pbc/ele/4088797636.html



We ship large R/C planes by Greyhound for very reasonable rates. The only downside for us R/C'ers is the insurance limit is $300, but that would be fine for this screen. But I gotta admit... I've never seen anything with a 159" wingspan shipped!


----------



## dougri




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq*  /t/773065/high-power-a-review-part-1/3750#post_23771235
> 
> 
> We ship large R/C planes by Greyhound for very reasonable rates. The only downside for us R/C'ers is the insurance limit is $300, but that would be fine for this screen. But I gotta admit... I've never seen anything with a 159" wingspan shipped!



82" length limit... about 6 ft too long


----------



## noah katz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dougri*  /t/773065/high-power-a-review-part-1/3750_50#post_23771173
> 
> 
> unfortunately for me, west palm beach->mountain view, CA is a bit of a drive, and very costly freight l



Try freightquote.com; I imagine it would cost no more than the asking price, so still a good value overall


----------



## dadayosang


me too,Great review and I couldn't agree more about the HP!! thank you


----------



## plissken99

I just moved to a house with a smaller home theater, so I had to get a smaller screen. I did have a 147" high power 2.8 screen, it would not fit on the wall in the room I'm now in, plus the surface had been damaged and after attempted cleaning, it never looked right again. So I opted for a 119" high power screen, the largest size I could squeeze in.


While it is better as there are no marks or uneven spots where my cleaning didn't work, I must say that Da-Lite has screwed up royally. After watching it for a few days I can easily spot what others complain about, almost grid like lines because of the texture(the original 2.8 had zero texture), the image seems generally softer. Why in Hells name do they not make the real stuff anymore?!? This looks like crap compared to the 2.8 material. They claim it was too expensive, so charge more, I'll pay it! The 2.8 screen material WAS perfection. I can't believe some other brand hasn't started producing it and charging Stewart rates, they easily could.


This screen is in a rent house which I'm in for a year or two, when I move I'm thinking seriously about bidding ado to brightness and anything bigger than 119" and going with a 1.3 gain material from Severtson perhaps, I had screen samples from them and Stewart, no difference I could detect and less than half the price. This texture business is godawful.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *plissken99*  /t/773065/high-power-a-review-part-1/3700_100#post_23853099
> 
> 
> I just moved to a house with a smaller home theater, so I had to get a smaller screen. I did have a 147" high power 2.8 screen, it would not fit on the wall in the room I'm now in, plus the surface had been damaged and after attempted cleaning, it never looked right again.



DId you consider making a frame and cutting down your old screen? I guess if the damage is dead center that wouldn't work.. but if you have not considered it, and the damage is to one side or the other from center, you may want to measure it out and see how much undamaged screen surface you have to reuse.

Also monitor craigs list and other local used marks as I was able to eventually pick up a 110" 2.8 for $300 (pull down).


----------



## plissken99

Sadly the damage was all over. The 1st of it the finish rubbed off in a horizontal dotted pattern across the center from when we moved it. Then I think my 4yr old nephew put a big greasy hand print on it, that's when I cleaned it, and cleaned 4 more times after that, just never got clean again.


Craigslist is a good idea, though a slim hope. Actually if I had $300 plus whatever the bulk shipping from Florida is, I'd buy that one guys screen just to have for the next house.


----------



## gtwizard

so guys are you all saying that hp 2.4 is no good?


----------



## plissken99

The 2.4 material is not as good as the old 2.8 material, not by a long shot. However if your looking for a high gain material, it's still the best, as every other high gain material screen sample I tried from other companies either sparkles like a gay pride parade or has a good deal more texture than the current high power material. Which thinking about it, the artifacts I'm seeing on the 2.4 is not unlike sparklies from other companies screens.


If I can't lay hands on a used 2.8 material, I'm pretty sure my next screen will be no higher gain than 1.3.


----------



## gain3

...also have a flawed 2.8+ screen that was quite hard to come by in europe to begin with, then It has permanent damage , and I do find this whole situation disheartening from A to Z (including the deceptive seller,the case handled by "paypal", & then the HP fabric supply anomalies with "da-lite & co" ).


----------



## sarangiman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *plissken99*  /t/773065/high-power-a-review-part-1/3750#post_23853099
> 
> 
> I just moved to a house with a smaller home theater, so I had to get a smaller screen. I did have a 147" high power 2.8 screen, it would not fit on the wall in the room I'm now in, plus the surface had been damaged and after attempted cleaning, it never looked right again. So I opted for a 119" high power screen, the largest size I could squeeze in.
> 
> 
> While it is better as there are no marks or uneven spots where my cleaning didn't work, I must say that Da-Lite has screwed up royally. After watching it for a few days I can easily spot what others complain about, almost grid like lines because of the texture(the original 2.8 had zero texture), the image seems generally softer. Why in Hells name do they not make the real stuff anymore?!? This looks like crap compared to the 2.8 material. They claim it was too expensive, so charge more, I'll pay it! The 2.8 screen material WAS perfection. I can't believe some other brand hasn't started producing it and charging Stewart rates, they easily could.
> 
> 
> This screen is in a rent house which I'm in for a year or two, when I move I'm thinking seriously about bidding ado to brightness and anything bigger than 119" and going with a 1.3 gain material from Severtson perhaps, I had screen samples from them and Stewart, no difference I could detect and less than half the price. This texture business is godawful.



Yup, I hear you brother. Here's some documentation on what I had to go through to get a good HCHP screen:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1449462/draper-contrast-radiant-vs-da-lite-high-contrast-high-power-hchp#post_23889109 


Like you said, they should make the old 2.8 available or, at the very least, implement some decent QC. I only got a decent screen (still not perfect) after asking a manager to explicitly QC before wasting my time/effort by shipping me some crappy screen. In the end, they had to go through a number of screens to find me a good one, saying 'we're having a hard time finding one that meets our standards'. Which, if you think about it, is kinda funny - b/c they still sell you that crap.


----------



## gain3

- "Why buy quality once when you can buy something crapty three times!!"


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gain3*  /t/773065/high-power-a-review-part-1/3700_100#post_23890633
> 
> 
> - "Why buy quality once when you can buy something crapty three times!!"



Profit?


----------



## webzeb

Hi guys!


Would you have some advice to get a DaLite/ProColor HP or HCHP at a good price in Europe?

(More exactly in France, but I guess somme seller could ship internationally...)


I want a 120" or 135" diagonal, ceiling mounted, manual or electrical (doesn't matter)


Thanks !


----------



## Soulnight

So nobody is happy with the 2.4 material?


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Soulnight*  /t/773065/high-power-a-review-part-1/3750#post_24544182
> 
> 
> So nobody is happy with the 2.4 material?



It's all relative. If you are comparing it to the original 2.8 material, it seems "no". If you are comparing it to other high gain materials, then it seems to still be better in a lot of respects.


----------



## millerwill

I came from a HP2.8--which I liked just fine, but wanted to go with a larger screen--and now have HP2.4, which I think it even better. E.g., I think it gives a slightly smoother pic than the older 2.8. Not a big diff, though. But I certainly don't feel that the 2.4 is less good than the 2.8. (I also tried samples of the High Contrast version of the 2.4, but did not like it at all; the viewing angle was too narrow, even though my projector is ideally located for the HP, i.e., just above and behind my head.)


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq*  /t/773065/high-power-a-review-part-1/3700_100#post_24544203
> 
> 
> It's all relative. If you are comparing it to the original 2.8 material, it seems "no". If you are comparing it to other high gain materials, then it seems to still be better in a lot of respects.



The 2 big differences are the 2.4 has less beads and multisized bead with a different means of attachment to the fiberglass substrate. This provides lower gain but a higher gain off axis since there is more white attachment emulsifier showing. The problems are more with quality control than the screen fabric design. We have seen many posts form dissatisfied customers who's screen has dark bands apparently caused by poor applications of the high gain surface. Seems to be a crap shoot on getting a good one. One AVSer went through 3 before getting one that was acceptable but not perfect if I recall.


----------



## Tryg

bump


----------



## airscapes

Tryg said:


> bump


Dude where you been!


----------



## Craig Peer

Tryg said:


> bump


Ya it's been awhile. Maybe you haven't heard - the High Power is unavailable. Hopefully by fall it will be back ( like you Tryg ) !!


----------



## plissken99

Think there's any chance they might go back to the real 2.8 high power material?


----------



## monstosity12

does anybody know what the minimum throw distance that is recommended on the high power 2.4 gain is. They took this off their website and I cant find it. In regards to screen width.

I am planning on getting a 150" wide 2:35 AR screen of the high power. My throw distance will be 18'.

Also, is the high power 4k comaptable.

Thanks


----------



## millerwill

monstosity12 said:


> does anybody know what the minimum throw distance that is recommended on the high power 2.4 gain is. They took this off their website and I cant find it. In regards to screen width.
> 
> I am planning on getting a 150" wide 2:35 AR screen of the high power. My throw distance will be 18'.
> 
> Also, is the high power 4k comaptable.
> 
> Thanks


The min throw distance is determined by your projector, not the screen (other than its size). The only important aspect of the projector's location with an HP screen is to have it projecting as low over your head as possible (to benefit from the retro-reflective character of the HP).


----------



## Mike Garrett

plissken99 said:


> Think there's any chance they might go back to the real 2.8 high power material?


According to this screen report the 2.4 gain material has slightly higher gain and less color shift. In other words, it was rated as a better screen than the 2.8.
http://www.accucalhd.com/documents/accucal_front_projection_screen_report.pdf


----------



## plissken99

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> According to this screen report the 2.4 gain material has slightly higher gain and less color shift. In other words, it was rated as a better screen than the 2.8.
> http://www.accucalhd.com/documents/accucal_front_projection_screen_report.pdf


In reality it adds texture to the image, giving the image a more artificial digital look. I spent 4-5 years with a 2.8 screen and nearly a year with the 2.4, I'll take the old 2.8 any day.


----------



## millerwill

plissken99 said:


> In reality it adds texture to the image, giving the image a more artificial digital look. I spent 4-5 years with a 2.8 screen and nearly a year with the 2.4, I'll take the old 2.8 any day.


Interesting. I had a 2.8 for a couple of yrs, and a 2.4 now for a couple. I liked the 2.8 just fine, but to me the 2.4 gives a smoother pic. Without a side-by-side, though, I would not testify to this under oath.


----------



## plissken99

millerwill said:


> Interesting. I had a 2.8 for a couple of yrs, and a 2.4 now for a couple. I liked the 2.8 just fine, but to me the 2.4 gives a smoother pic. Without a side-by-side, though, I would not testify to this under oath.


Right off the bat I noticed a sparkly effect in skies and solid colors, like you see on other high gain screens, which I'd never noticed on the old 2.8. It's not actually sparkles as in other screens, it's the grid texture causing it.

Of course I went from a 147in screen to a 120in, which could have something to do with it.


----------



## millerwill

plissken99 said:


> Right off the bat I noticed a sparkly effect in skies and solid colors, like you see on other high gain screens, which I'd never noticed on the old 2.8. It's not actually sparkles as in other screens, it's the grid texture causing it.
> 
> Of course I went from a 147in screen to a 120in, which could have something to do with it.


Also interesting. I went from a 110x62 2.8 screen to a 144x72 (128x72 for 16x9, and 144x61 for 2.35) 2.4 one.


----------



## scubasteve2365

I've had a 110" HP (2.8) for years now, about 6 years to be exact. It's been relocated once. I have a 4 year old and a 2 year old kiddos so the screen has a few smudges. Nothing really noticable when watching except for bright scenes with camera pan. Also there are a few specks, they seem to be about the size of a pixel, maybe a little smaller where light reflects really bright. Almost like a star in the sky.

Anyway, my wife opening a photography studio and she is taking our current projector (Epson 8700UB) and I am upgrading to an Epson 5030UB. Since we need to buy a new screen I was thinking of passing the HP (2.8) onto to her and buying something new for our theater.

Reading that the 2.8 material is no longer available is disheartening. I'd like to get something new for the theater because that's where we do our most critical viewing. My first thought is to buy the 2.4 material and then I'd have it, or staying with the 2.8 to choose from, but I'm concerned about not wanting the 2.4 in either location and wishing I'd gone with a more traditional lower gain matte screen. 

The theater in our home is the only "TV" in the house we use, save for the kids watching netflix on some iPads. So it gets a lot of use, so the brightness on an aging lamp is important. Do I have analysis paralysis??


----------



## airscapes

scubasteve2365 said:


> I've had a 110" HP (2.8) for years now, about 6 years to be exact. It's been relocated once. I have a 4 year old and a 2 year old kiddos so the screen has a few smudges. Nothing really noticable when watching except for bright scenes with camera pan. Also there are a few specks, they seem to be about the size of a pixel, maybe a little smaller where light reflects really bright. Almost like a star in the sky.
> 
> Anyway, my wife opening a photography studio and she is taking our current projector (Epson 8700UB) and I am upgrading to an Epson 5030UB. Since we need to buy a new screen I was thinking of passing the HP (2.8) onto to her and buying something new for our theater.
> 
> Reading that the 2.8 material is no longer available is disheartening. I'd like to get something new for the theater because that's where we do our most critical viewing. My first thought is to buy the 2.4 material and then I'd have it, or staying with the 2.8 to choose from, but I'm concerned about not wanting the 2.4 in either location and wishing I'd gone with a more traditional lower gain matte screen.
> 
> The theater in our home is the only "TV" in the house we use, save for the kids watching netflix on some iPads. So it gets a lot of use, so the brightness on an aging lamp is important. Do I have analysis paralysis??


Keep you HP where it is and clean it.. If done carefully with denatured alcohol and micro fiber rags, you will be thrilled. Those star spots may also go away, there are a micro bead that is lifted up and twisted. Sometimes just gently pushing on the spot with your finger will fix it. Keep this screen you will certainly miss it and want it back if you go back to the dull utility gain screen. I have posted details on cleaning in other threads.. do some searches of cleaning HP.


----------



## scubasteve2365

airscapes said:


> Keep you HP where it is and clean it.. If done carefully with denatured alcohol and micro fiber rags, you will be thrilled. Those star spots may also go away, there are a micro bead that is lifted up and twisted. Sometimes just gently pushing on the spot with your finger will fix it. Keep this screen you will certainly miss it and want it back if you go back to the dull utility gain screen. I have posted details on cleaning in other threads.. do some searches of cleaning HP.


I totally forgot I made this post.

OK, lets assume I kept the OG HP 2.8 where it is in my theater. Would you recommend the newer HP as a purchase anyway for my wife's studio. It's mostly photography stills and slideshows she will use to demo to clients, and some ambient light will be present. I guess the crux of my questions are is the new HP a poor choice in general or is it only poor where compared to the original 2.8? I've got to buy something.

As for cleaning, I did do that with denatured alcohol a few years back. I got the actual debris off but there is still a "spot" for lack of a better work. It's almost like the screen finish was rubbed off or reoriented as if it was velvet or another material where you can change the direction of the fibers, yet the gain is still there when on axis. The spots only show when you're sitting a little off axis and the screen content is bright. It's really hard to describe in a forum post.

I will try giving the microbead a small massage to see if it goes away.


----------



## Dave in Green

If you read ALL of the reviews, some actually think the 2.4 is superior to the 2.8. Some of that could be individual tastes and some could be specific application. But the message to me is that the 2.4 is not bad, but just different from the 2.8. In any case, Da-Lite has suspended sales of HP 2.4 pending correction of a supplier problem. Some believe it will be coming back and some believe it won't. You'll have to wait to find out. If you need another screen soon, the only HP screens available are used ones. If you need a new screen soon, you need to find an alternative to HP, and there's really nothing else out there quite like it at anywhere near the price.


----------



## millerwill

Dave in Green said:


> If you read ALL of the reviews, some actually think the 2.4 is superior to the 2.8. Some of that could be individual tastes and some could be specific application. But the message to me is that the 2.4 is not bad, but just different from the 2.8. In any case, Da-Lite has suspended sales of HP 2.4 pending correction of a supplier problem. Some believe it will be coming back and some believe it won't. You'll have to wait to find out. If you need another screen soon, the only HP screens available are used ones. If you need a new screen soon, you need to find an alternative to HP, and there's really nothing else out there quite like it at anywhere near the price.


Yes, I think the HP2.4 is somewhat better than the 2.8: a somewhat wider viewing cone, and also (to my eye) a smoother pic. I had a 2.8 for 2-3 yrs, and liked it very much, and now have had a 2.4 (only replaced it because I wanted a larger screen) for 2-3 yrs.


----------



## scubasteve2365

Dave in Green said:


> If you read ALL of the reviews, some actually think the 2.4 is superior to the 2.8. Some of that could be individual tastes and some could be specific application. But the message to me is that the 2.4 is not bad, but just different from the 2.8. In any case, Da-Lite has suspended sales of HP 2.4 pending correction of a supplier problem. Some believe it will be coming back and some believe it won't. You'll have to wait to find out. If you need another screen soon, the only HP screens available are used ones. If you need a new screen soon, you need to find an alternative to HP, and there's really nothing else out there quite like it at anywhere near the price.


How long has the sales of 2.4HP been suspended? I see a few vendors still selling screen options with HP?


----------



## Dave in Green

Vendors don't always update their websites. Some still show HCHP being available even though it was dropped by Da-Lite last year. You can track the HP 2.4 supply issue in the following thread:
*
High Power screen material supply issues?*

One person in that thread who ordered just around the time HP 2.4 was dropped from the Da-Lite website did receive his order, but it's unclear if anyone has had any luck since then. The only way to know for sure is to try to place an order.


----------



## Craig Peer

Dave in Green said:


> Vendors don't always update their websites. Some still show HCHP being available even though it was dropped by Da-Lite last year. You can track the HP 2.4 supply issue in the following thread:
> 
> *High Power screen material supply issues?*
> 
> One person in that thread who ordered just around the time HP 2.4 was dropped from the Da-Lite website did receive his order, but it's unclear if anyone has had any luck since then. The only way to know for sure is to try to place an order.


It's still not available as far as I know. I ask every few months. It has been removed from Da Lite's current price sheets for quite some time.


----------



## Frank714

Reading the last posts in this thread I'm now somewhat confused.

I had been under the impression that Da-Lite is "reformulating" its High Power 2.8 screen fabric, but the center of talk is the (glass-beaded?) 2.4 screen fabric.

Do I have to assume that the 2.8 High Power fabric has been discontinued without the realistic prospect of a comeback?


----------



## plissken99

Hmmm well if anyone's interested in a 119" HP 2.4 screen I'll have mine up for sale in a month or two.


----------



## airscapes

Frank714 said:


> Reading the last posts in this thread I'm now somewhat confused.
> 
> I had been under the impression that Da-Lite is "reformulating" its High Power 2.8 screen fabric, but the center of talk is the (glass-beaded?) 2.4 screen fabric.
> 
> Do I have to assume that the 2.8 High Power fabric has been discontinued without the realistic prospect of a comeback?


2.8 has been gone since 2010 and now 2.4 is no longer made and is not looking as if it will come back.


----------



## Frank714

airscapes said:


> 2.8 has been gone since 2010.


D'oh! I didn't know. So just when 3D home theater projection was about to get interesting, Da-Lite discarded what could have become a cash cow.


----------



## Craig Peer

Frank714 said:


> D'oh! I didn't know. So just when 3D home theater projection was about to get interesting, Da-Lite discarded what could have become a cash cow.



What's getting interesting in 3D ? There are plenty of existing screens and projectors that will work for 3D.


----------



## hotshu

Just in case I come across a used highpower for sale. Anyone with experience with a model C pull down with CSR (controlled screen return), can you stop the screen at any height without the CSR rolling it back up, or must you pull down the entire height to have the screen stop & not retract? I recall reading on Dalite's website a while back, wording that inferred CSR did not allow partial pull down of the total screen height?

I have multiple format ratio material to display, so the height of my screen needs to vary if I want maximum width displayed without black bands above & below the image. Ideally I want a 1:1 ratio screen (uncommon) as I have some analog still photography film slides to project in both landscape & portrait orientation (medium format 6x9cm), as well as digital video source.


----------



## millerwill

Craig Peer said:


> What's getting interesting in 3D ? There are plenty of existing screens and projectors that will work for 3D.


I think he's meaning that he wants the extra brightness for 3d that the HP provides.


----------



## airscapes

hotshu said:


> Just in case I come across a used highpower for sale. Anyone with experience with a model C pull down with CSR (controlled screen return), can you stop the screen at any height without the CSR rolling it back up, or must you pull down the entire height to have the screen stop & not retract? I recall reading on Dalite's website a while back, wording that inferred CSR did not allow partial pull down of the total screen height?
> 
> I have multiple format ratio material to display, so the height of my screen needs to vary if I want maximum width displayed without black bands above & below the image. Ideally I want a 1:1 ratio screen (uncommon) as I have some analog still photography film slides to project in both landscape & portrait orientation (medium format 6x9cm), as well as digital video source.


The manual pulldowns CSR or not have a stop about every 12". The CSR controls how fast the thing will fly back into the case if you loose control of it. No the stops are not adjustable


----------



## Craig Peer

millerwill said:


> I think he's meaning that he wants the extra brightness for 3d that the HP provides.



Ok. I don't find 3D all that interesting myself, and if UHD 4K Blu Ray isn't going to support it, I thought maybe I missed something. Carry on...........


----------



## millerwill

Craig Peer said:


> Ok. I don't find 3D all that interesting myself, and if UHD 4K Blu Ray isn't going to support it, I thought maybe I missed something. Carry on...........


I agree with you re 3d, Craig (not of interest to me), and like the HP for allowing a bright pic with a large screen.


----------



## Dave in Green

Where HP would really make sense today is with the slowly improving but still not quite bright enough for everyone LED projectors.


----------



## millerwill

Dave in Green said:


> Where HP would really make sense today is with the slowly improving but still not quite bright enough for everyone LED projectors.


I thing so (it would be me).


----------



## Frank714

Craig Peer said:


> What's getting interesting in 3D ? There are plenty of existing screens and projectors that will work for 3D.


But I doubt there are any that will project such a bright image from a table-mounted projector and without the speckle effect I'd get from a silver coated screen. The much smaller and coating protected glass beads of the HP 2.8 enhance the capabilities of a usual glass beaded screen but without the disadvantage of not being able to clean it. 

My problem had been that using the same 1.0 screen for "2D" and 3D always resulted in a uncomfortable and darker 3D images with my 3D RF glasses. I've solved the problem with my Da-Lite High Power Slimline Electrol which I utilize exclusively for 3D projection (and therefore have the same subjective image brightness I usually enjoy with my "2D" screen).



hotshu said:


> Just in case I come across a used highpower for sale. Anyone with experience with a model C pull down with CSR (controlled screen return), can you stop the screen at any height without the CSR rolling it back up, or must you pull down the entire height to have the screen stop & not retract? I recall reading on Dalite's website a while back, wording that inferred CSR did not allow partial pull down of the total screen height?


On my old manual Model B I have several stops. It's a 16:9 screen but if I wanted I could just stop it from retracting all the way and get a 21:9 projection area if I wanted.



hotshu said:


> I have multiple format ratio material to display, so the height of my screen needs to vary if I want maximum width displayed without black bands above & below the image. Ideally I want a 1:1 ratio screen (uncommon) as I have some analog still photography film slides to project in both landscape & portrait orientation (medium format 6x9cm), as well as digital video source.


I wish you the best of luck. The HP screen fabric was available in 1:1 configurations (actually my Slimline Electrol is 70" x 70" and I bought it for my original showroom for customers like yourself, but they never showed up - needless to say I'm happy I got it in the first place because otherwise my 3D projections would be far from perfect).


----------



## blazar

I have a 160" rolldown motorized vutec 1.0 screen and with my 2400 lumen proj. I simply don't find it bright enough.

would a 1.3 screen make any real world noticeable difference? I am pretty sure that perforated and high gain screens don't come in a roll down model. Is this the case with all brands or what?

Is my only option to basically get a brighter projector?


----------



## R Harkness

Apropos of nothing...


...say, whatever happened to Tryg?


----------



## erkq

blazar said:


> I have a 160" rolldown motorized vutec 1.0 screen and with my 2400 lumen proj. I simply don't find it bright enough.
> 
> would a 1.3 screen make any real world noticeable difference? I am pretty sure that perforated and high gain screens don't come in a roll down model. Is this the case with all brands or what?
> 
> Is my only option to basically get a brighter projector?


Also, high gain screens don't come perforated. And SMX could barely make 1x gain if that, so this thread isn't going to help you much. A projector brighter than 2400 lumen is going to be a presentation projector with very poor contrast and colors or it's going to be extremely expensive. That's even the case of your 2400 lumen projector. I can't imagine what you're using. I think you should try the $20k plus forum.


----------



## Kilgore

R Harkness said:


> Apropos of nothing...
> 
> 
> ...say, whatever happened to Tryg?


Very good question. I own a 2.8 gain 133" Da-Lite Hi-Power screen all because of Tryg and this thread.


----------



## Craig Peer

R Harkness said:


> Apropos of nothing...
> 
> 
> ...say, whatever happened to Tryg?



It's like Tryg and the High Power got sucked into a black hole, never to be seen again....


----------



## ToddBantigo

I still love my Silver Star Screen. 15 years later. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Wookii

Sorry to drag up an old thread. I am looking to try and get hold of a small sample of the DaLite High Power 2.8 material. I would be happy to pay a small fee + shipping to anyone in thanks for being prepared to send it out to me. PM me if you have something available.


----------



## airscapes

What do you need it for, as the HP is no longer available except in the used market.


----------



## Wookii

airscapes said:


> What do you need it for, as the HP is no longer available *except in the used market.*


Precisely that reason Doug, I am considering a second hand one, but want to try out a sample before committing.


----------



## airscapes

I will send you a PM with my phone number and we can chat about what you are doing.


----------



## Frank714

Wookii said:


> Sorry to drag up an old thread. I am looking to try and get hold of a small sample of the DaLite High Power 2.8 material.



I don't know if you've gotten your sample, if not let me know. In general I concur, looking for a second hand Da-Lite High Power 2.8 screen looks like the best option available to anyone who's interested in getting one of these (I'm seriously considering getting back in touch with some of my old customers to see if I they still have one, because I'd like to have a bigger one myself).


Although I'm in danger of beating a dead horse, just a friendly reminder to anyone interested in an HP 2.8 screen, because I saw it hardly mentioned:


*You will only enjoy the increased brightness return from an HP 2.8 screen if your projector is table, shelf or floor mounted (i.e. you are sitting rather close to the projection lens).*


Should your projector be ceiling mounted the HP 2.8 screen will do little or nothing compared to a 1.0 gain screen!













In the above illustration (couldn't find a better one) you'll see the HP 2.8 reflection behavior sort of represented in the center illustration. The microscopic glass beads or pearls are spherical and as such will reflect more light back to the center of origin.


Should your front projector be ceiling mounted, you'll only notice the increase of reflected brightness when you stand up and find yourself close to the projector lens.


Simply put:
If your front projector is table or floor mounted the picture will be considerably brighter with an HP 2.8.


If your front projector is ceiling mounted, you may consider selling your HP 2.8 screen for a good price and instead choose one that's really optimal for your own projection.


----------



## Wookii

Frank714 said:


> I don't know if you've gotten your sample . . .


I did, yes, thanks.

In the end though I couldn't source any of the actual material, and ended up buying some of the 2.4 material from a member of this forum, and to be honest I'm glad I did.

My projector is not in the perfect position for a retro-reflective screen, being sited at around 5ft high (rather than seated head height), so I was getting a gain of around 2.0 off the HP 2.8 sample. With the HP 2.4 screen now installed I get around 2.05 gain, so slightly higher, and with the added advantage of not having the slight 'sheen' I saw to bright areas when examining the HP 2.8 sample.


----------



## HCORE

Hello!!! There are ready-made of fabric -8803H,YSL 101,RS 822 and other properties to reflect light to the source.But in contrast to the white screens Da-lite HP ,grey fabric(not metal) and the projection as a black color-Black screen.-15$
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/110-diy-screen-section/1485908-diy-black-screen-tests-41.html


----------



## joel dickman

*good news (and bad news) for Da-Lite high power fans*

There has been a discussion in the DIY screen section recently of retroreflective fabric available from China. Go to the DIY screen area and find the thread titled *DIY black screen tests.* Read the last five pages or so. Warning: some of the thread contributors are not native English speakers. A few of the posts may be hard to interpret. *Pay special attention to post #1225 from ericglo.* This post contains links to the company selling the special fabric, Road-Star China.

Briefly: the fabric is dirt cheap and has striking affinities with the material used by Da-Lite for the now-unavailable High Power 2.8 screen. That is the good news. _The bad news is that the fabric gain drops off axis even more rapidly than the old 2.8 high power material._ The traditional criticism of Da-Lite high power screens is that they have an unacceptably narrow viewing cone for optimal high-gain. Unless you sit smack dab in the middle of the screen width, with your projector mounted pretty close to eye level, the special high gain property is lost. The Road-Star China fabric suffers from the same problem, but is worse than the Da-lite 2.8 screen.

I have been watching movies on a Da-Lite High Power 2.8 screen that is six feet tall and eight feet wide for about seven or eight years. My screen is 120" diagonal 4:3, 110" 16.9, and 104" in the 2.35:1 Cinemascope aspect ratio. I use an old Marantz VP-12S4 720p projector in a bat-cave basement room, with the projector mounted on a stand a few feet above my seated eyeball level and a few feet behind my seating position.

My screen is great for older 4:3 movies, very good for 16:9 material, but not big enough for 2.35:1 movies. I have tried to find a larger used 2.8 or 2.4 High Power screen for some time without any luck. Large used High Power screens are scarce. So I purchased a piece of the Road-Star fabric.

The fabric is ordinarily sold in a piece that is 56" tall by 118" wide for $58 plus $2 shipping. I corresponded with a Ms. Tina Wang of Road-Star, and asked for something larger. The 56" height was the maximum available, but Ms. Wang sent me a piece that was close to 133" wide instead of the ordinary 118" width. I asked that it be sent to me rolled up on a mailing tube instead of folded, so I was charged an extra $20. I now have a screen that is close to 144" diagonal in the 2.35 ratio. For $80 shipped. Shipping took a week or two.

I used thumbtacks to attach the fabric to my matte-black painted rear wall behind the area where my Da-Lite screen is mounted. So the Road-Star fabric was about two inches behind the Da-Lite. Then I rolled the Da-Lite screen up so that the projected image was Da-Lite upper half, and Road-Star lower half. With the room lights turned on, the Da-Lite looked white, and the Road-Star was silver gray. I did not attempt to stretch the Road-Star fabric taut. 

Some unscientific first impressions: from my usual viewing position, the Road-Star fabric seemed to have slightly higher gain than the Da-Lite. But they looked very similar. I have middle-aged eyes and wear glasses. I also have some color blindness. I am most definitely not a connoisseur of subtle differences between screens and projectors. So please take my impressions with more than a few grains of salt. 

*Having said that, the dirt cheap fabric quickly tacked to the wall looked GREAT!*

If you usually watch alone, the narrow viewing cone is no problem. Likewise if you watch with one other person. With three people, the reduction in gain for the two outlying viewers may not be acceptable. I don't know. 

Imagine a plasma television that is close to four and a half feet tall and eleven feet wide. That costs $80 plus the cost of your projector. _But a plasma television that is only suitable for one or two centrally seated viewers in a dark room with your projector mounted close to eye level._ In case I have not made it clear so far, I am extremely happy with my new screen, and look forward to re-watching many old favorite films. 

I just watched the Guillermo Del Toro movie *Pacific Rim* (merely 16:9 aspect ratio) on the new Road-Star China fabric screen. With the sound turned up loud enough to make my wife complain about things shaking upstairs. A movie made by people who love monsters and giant robots for people who love monsters and giant robots. 

I was in eye-candy hog heaven.

A* BIG THANKS to our Russian brother HCORE for having discovered this wonderful screen material!
*
Joel Dickman


----------



## Wookii

joel dickman said:


> There has been a discussion in the DIY screen section recently of retroreflective fabric available from China. . . .


Interesting detail their Joel.

A couple of questions, are there any visible artefacts on the projected image at all? e.g any sparklies, shimmer or sheen?

How to the black levels compare to your HP 2.8? Are they similar or do dark areas appear darker?


----------



## Frank714

HCORE said:


> Hello!!! There are ready-made of fabric -8803H,YSL 101,RS 822 and other properties to reflect light to the source.But in contrast to the white screens Da-lite HP ,grey fabric(not metal) and the projection as a black color-Black screen.-15$
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/110-diy-screen-section/1485908-diy-black-screen-tests-41.html



First of all my compliments to your various tests and research efforts, very inspiring! 


I'm really tempted to order myself to do some experimentation, too, but which is the fabric that has thus far yielded the most impressive results? It is RS 822, is it not?


----------



## millerwill

Wookii said:


> I did, yes, thanks.
> 
> In the end though I couldn't source any of the actual material, and ended up buying some of the 2.4 material from a member of this forum, and to be honest I'm glad I did.
> 
> My projector is not in the perfect position for a retro-reflective screen, being sited at around 5ft high (rather than seated head height), so I was getting a gain of around 2.0 off the HP 2.8 sample. With the HP 2.4 screen now installed I get around 2.05 gain, so slightly higher, and with the added advantage of not having the slight 'sheen' I saw to bright areas when examining the HP 2.8 sample.


I also had to go with HP2.4 from HP2.8 3-5 yrs ago when I wanted a larger screen (now 6'x12') and 2.8 was no longer available. But like you, I like the 2.4 version even better (though I was very happy with the earlier 2.8); I think it does give a slightly smoother pic.


----------



## HCORE

Frank714 (8803H,YSL 101,RS 822)the fabric is very similar,selected for high gain and darker.Have a minimum of differences.
I apologize for the messed up English.(google translator)
Make the top layer ,will extend the viewing angle to a certain me,you can pick up - very wide angle,40-45,20-35 from the axis.I'm working on it,the layer is very thin to apply.I will share results method(formula mix).Decided to use RS 822(only as a black layer)+layer from the mixture(this is a thin transparent layer)...To be continued..


----------



## Dave in Green

From reading the description of RS 822 it consists of glass beads glued to the surface of a cloth backing. This is the way that traditional glass bead screens are constructed. The downside is that glass beads glued to the surface can come loose and fall off with wear and tear. The advantage of the HP screen material was that the glass beads were embedded in a translucent layer adhered to the fabric backing. This made HP more durable and less subject to individual glass beads coming off.


----------



## joel dickman

Wookii said:


> Interesting detail their Joel.
> 
> A couple of questions, are there any visible artefacts on the projected image at all? e.g any sparklies, shimmer or sheen?
> 
> How to the black levels compare to your HP 2.8? Are they similar or do dark areas appear darker?



I cannot detect any shimmer or sparkly artefacts on either the Da-Lite or the Road-Star screens. If I poke my head up into the projected light cone and create a head-shaped shadow in the middle of the screen, the image looks rather strange. Hard to describe. Maybe I get what others call hot-spotting when I do this. But I cannot get this hot-spotting effect when seated in my normal viewing position. Although the Road-Star screen is silver gray (with the room lights turned on) and the Da-Lite screen is white, they look very similar when watching movies. Dark areas look equally dark on both screens. 


My wife watches movies with me in my basement batcave once in a blue moon. She prefers watching various cable television shows on an LG plasma upstairs. So I mostly watch alone, and thus the narrow viewing cone of the Road-Star fabric is no big deal. If you love the look of a gigantic plasma television, and like me are a (mostly) solitary cinemaphile, the Road-Star fabric is well worth trying. If you like viewing with larger groups of people, the Road-Star screen will probably not be to your liking. Only the viewer(s) in the central sweet spot are going to get the impact of the very bright and punchy image.


It is certainly the best $80 I have ever spent on anything related to audio or video. I only wish it was available in a height greater than 56". I would cover my whole basement wall with the stuff, floor to ceiling. If I did this, I would likely want to replace my faithful old Marantz projector with something newer and brighter. My VP-12S4 is no light cannon.


Joel Dickman


----------



## joel dickman

Dave in Green said:


> From reading the description of RS 822 it consists of glass beads glued to the surface of a cloth backing. This is the way that traditional glass bead screens are constructed. The downside is that glass beads glued to the surface can come loose and fall off with wear and tear. The advantage of the HP screen material was that the glass beads were embedded in a translucent layer adhered to the fabric backing. This made HP more durable and less subject to individual glass beads coming off.




If you use the link posted by ericglo to visit the AliExpress page describing the Road-Star fabric and scroll down a little bit, there is a technical description area. The fabric is supposed to have a coating of some kind over the glass beads. I have not touched the surface of the material, but it does not seem fragile to me. It may even be possible to wash it in a washing machine.


Joel Dickman


----------



## HCORE

joel dickman possible to wash it in a washing machine.YES!
Fabric for special clothes(high ,wear resistance) police and road services...


----------



## Ericglo

joel dickman said:


> There has been a discussion in the DIY screen section recently of retroreflective fabric available from China. Go to the DIY screen area and find the thread titled *DIY black screen tests.* Read the last five pages or so. Warning: some of the thread contributors are not native English speakers. A few of the posts may be hard to interpret. *Pay special attention to post #1225 from ericglo.* This post contains links to the company selling the special fabric, Road-Star China.
> 
> Joel Dickman


Good job, Joel.

That is unfortunate that they can't provide a greater height. I kind of figured that they could do greater lengths, so at least a 2.35 could be large.

I literally just wiped mine down and folded it up. The father of the High Power (Darin) asked me to bring it to Cedia. Hopefully a lot of us can take a look at it and give some detailed opinions. 



Dave in Green said:


> From reading the description of RS 822 it consists of glass beads glued to the surface of a cloth backing. This is the way that traditional glass bead screens are constructed. The downside is that glass beads glued to the surface can come loose and fall off with wear and tear. The advantage of the HP screen material was that the glass beads were embedded in a translucent layer adhered to the fabric backing. This made HP more durable and less subject to individual glass beads coming off.


I just scratched the edge of mine and didn't see any beads come off. I also wiped it down with a damp cloth and it look fine.


----------



## Dave in Green

joel dickman said:


> If you use the link posted by ericglo to visit the AliExpress page describing the Road-Star fabric and scroll down a little bit, there is a technical description area. The fabric is supposed to have a coating of some kind over the glass beads. I have not touched the surface of the material, but it does not seem fragile to me. It may even be possible to wash it in a washing machine.
> 
> 
> Joel Dickman


I had only looked at the Road-Star site description, which is nowhere near as detailed as the one on AliExpress. That's an impressive "sandwich" of back cloth, adhesive layer, reflective aluminum layer, glass bead protective layer and glass bead layer all covered with transparent PET film. If all done properly with the right materials it certainly should have the potential to perform well with good durability. The devil is often in the details. 

In the DIY Black Screens Tests thread the main concern appears to be a narrow viewing cone. But that's pretty standard for retroreflective screen material, and is perfectly acceptable for those who view alone or perhaps with only one or two others. At the asking price of


----------



## Robert Clark

Great to hear of a successor to the late, great High Power, but a shame that its so small! Wonder if the seam would be too visible if you laid one layer staggered over another...


----------



## noah katz

Frank714 said:


> *You will only enjoy the increased brightness return from an HP 2.8 screen if your projector is table, shelf or floor mounted (i.e. you are sitting rather close to the projection lens).
> 
> Should your projector be ceiling mounted the HP 2.8 screen will do little or nothing compared to a 1.0 gain screen!*


*

This is a bit of an overgeneralization.

My pj is 7' from the floor, so close to ceiling mounted, and I'm getting about 1.9 gain, along with the HP's other advantages of no hotspotting, immunity to waves, and ambient light rejection.

It does however have a 22' throw, which helps.*


----------



## henrich3

I just received an EluneVision Reference PureBright 4K 240 screen and can confirm that it's the exact same material used in Da-Lite's High Power 2.4:

*Ambient light: PureBright 240 (top), SnoMatte 100 (bottom left), HP 2.4 (bottom middle), HP 2.8 (bottom right):*









*Camera flash: PureBright 240 (top), SnoMatte 100 (bottom left), HP 2.4 (bottom middle), HP 2.8 (bottom right):*









*Macro close-up: PureBright 240 (top), HP 2.4 (bottom):*









*Camera flash: PureBright 240 (back), SnoMatte 100 (front):*


















My 135" diag PureBright 240 replaced a 126" Stewart SnoMatte 100 (AKA StudioTek 100). I like a bright image. My RS600 was able to paint a reasonably bright image on the SnoMatte if I opened the pj's aperture all the way (low lamp / open iris for 2D, high lamp / open iris for 3D). I was concerned that frequent lamp swaps might be necessary to maintain image brightness as the lamp ages & dims. With the PureBright 240 I was able to upgrade to a larger screen and still have a brighter image than the smaller SnoMatte. The downside is that the PureBright isn't as accurate as the SnoMatte. There's a slight graininess to the image that's similar to film grain. It's a mild and non-objectionable artifact that's normally only noticeable on solid bright colors. The far brighter image of the PureBright makes a more dramatic improvement to the picture quality than does the SnoMatte's image purity IMO, so that's why I made the swap. That said, if I had a significantly brighter projector (or preferred smaller screens) I would have kept the SnoMatte.

EluneVision can't get any more of the PureBright material since their source (same as Da-Lite's) stopped production a couple years ago. They still have a few fixed frame screens in stock with the PureBright fabric, so if anyone is pining away for an HP 2.4, EluneVision's clone should fit the bill. Get 'em before they're gone!


----------



## Dave in Green

henrich3 said:


> I just received an EluneVision Reference PureBright 4K 240 screen and can confirm that it's the exact same material used in Da-Lite's High Power 2.4: ...
> 
> ... EluneVision can't get any more of the PureBright material since their source (same as Da-Lite's) stopped production a couple years ago. They still have a few fixed frame screens in stock with the PureBright fabric, so if anyone is pining away for an HP 2.4, EluneVision's clone should fit the bill. Get 'em before they're gone!


Many thanks for confirming this. I'm guessing that the source was having a hard time producing consistent quality material and was going to have to raise the price a lot to cover their production cost losses. Da-Lite, Draper and EluneVision may have thought the price increase would have killed sales and weren't willing to go along with it. Really sad as there is still a market for something like this today if any manufacturer could produce consistent quality material at a reasonable cost.


----------



## erkq

Dave in Green said:


> Many thanks for confirming this. I'm guessing that the source was having a hard time producing consistent quality material and was going to have to raise the price a lot to cover their production cost losses. Da-Lite, Draper and EluneVision may have thought the price increase would have killed sales and weren't willing to go along with it. Really sad as there is still a market for something like this today if any manufacturer could produce consistent quality material at a reasonable cost.


The only saving grace is that this is happening in an age when affordable projectors are getting brighter, like the current line of JVCs.


----------



## Pultzar

Is there a used market? I have a 2.8 gain screen 6' tall by 14' wide that I might be selling.


----------



## Ericglo

I wonder how popular it was outside of the HT market. Maybe business sales fell off and the HT market wasn't big enough to justify continuing.

My guess is one of the products that create the screen is no longer available or environmentally unfriendly.


----------



## Frank714

Pultzar said:


> Is there a used market? I have a 2.8 gain screen 6' tall by 14' wide that I might be selling.



In the classifieds section for "front projectors": http://www.avsforum.com/forum/252-front-projector/





Ericglo said:


> My guess is one of the products that create the screen is no longer available or environmentally unfriendly.


Can't possibly be the micro beads / pearls in my Da-Lite HP 2.8. They are very friendly to my 3D home theater viewing environment.


(but seriously, these are contained by the transparent coating of the screen, and anybody who dumps such a great screen on the trash should have his head examined)


----------



## Ericglo

Just so there is no misunderstanding, I am talking about the coating and application. It could be a solvent based coating that is hazardous in liquid form and/or spraying. Once it is applied and dried, then there probably isn't an issue.


----------



## Dave in Green

Ericglo said:


> ... I literally just wiped mine down and folded it up. The father of the High Power (Darin) asked me to bring it to Cedia. Hopefully a lot of us can take a look at it and give some detailed opinions. ...


Any updates on how Darin and others reacted to the retroreflective material?


----------



## Ericglo

Darin and Kris thought it was sparkly. I should have given Darin the material to take home and look at though.


----------



## Dave in Green

So they didn't think it was a viable option for replacing HP 2.4?


----------



## Ericglo

I can't remember, but I don't think so. You could PM darin.


----------



## Craig Peer

erkq said:


> The only saving grace is that this is happening in an age when affordable projectors are getting brighter, like the current line of JVCs.


True - many projectors struggled to put 350 lumens on the screen not that long ago. Today, many projectors put 2 or 3 times that out - in low lamp !!


----------



## Mojito

Just got the Roadstar material and tiried it in my environment by sticking it to the wall with masking tape. The screen is superbright (as expected) from the projector lense level with very narrow angels. The brightness drops drammatically when you move off axis. At night it is less of an issue as the brighness at sweet spot is too high and moving off makes more comfortable, but at the cost of slight loss of contrast (this is subjective, without any measurements).

Here are some photos to illustrate its properties. The photos were taken in full daylight (cloudy weather), no light contorl with the same camera settings. 

Blank screen:










With flash:









At projector lense level:









At couch level (1.5 meters below projector lense):









From the side opposite to window:









From the window side:









So if you can arrange your set up so that you could watch from the projector lense level, this screen will let you watch anything at any time and in any lighting conditions. Otherwise, there will be lots of compromises. But this material is cheap enought to get just for the sake of trying it out.


----------



## airscapes

Um, don't you think it should have been shipped on a roll? Those winkles and creases are absolutely ridiculous, or is that just what they send as a sample? I would not pay for folded up screen material .
Previous Page Post
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/23-screens/773065-high-power-review-part-1-a-96.html#post47684393


----------



## Mojito

airscapes said:


> Um, don't you think it should have been shipped on a roll? Those winkles and creases are absolutely ridiculous, or is that just what they send as a sample? I would not pay for folded up screen material .


This is the material, not sample. You can stretch those creases out pretty well, but yes I agree they should send it rolled, not folded.


----------



## Dave in Green

Ericglo said:


> ... You could PM darin.


I PMed darinp and never got a response.


----------



## supercop

Mojito said:


> Just got the Roadstar material and tiried it in my environment by sticking it to the wall with masking tape. The screen is superbright (as expected) from the projector lense level with very narrow angels. The brightness drops drammatically when you move off axis. At night it is less of an issue as the brighness at sweet spot is too high and moving off makes more comfortable, but at the cost of slight loss of contrast (this is subjective, without any measurements).
> 
> Here are some photos to illustrate its properties. The photos were taken in full daylight (cloudy weather), no light contorl with the same camera settings.
> 
> Blank screen:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With flash:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At projector lense level:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At couch level (1.5 meters below projector lense):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the side opposite to window:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the window side:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if you can arrange your set up so that you could watch from the projector lense level, this screen will let you watch anything at any time and in any lighting conditions. Otherwise, there will be lots of compromises. But this material is cheap enought to get just for the sake of trying it out.


what brand is this?


----------



## Mojito

supercop said:


> what brand is this?


It is reflective material from Chinese brand Roadstar


----------



## WereWolf84

Mojito said:


> It is reflective material from Chinese brand Roadstar


Any ideas what's the gain of this reflective material ?


----------



## supercop

Mojito said:


> It is reflective material from Chinese brand Roadstar


Any Direct Link to the company website?

Try to search but no result.

Thank you


----------



## Mojito

supercop said:


> Any Direct Link to the company website?
> 
> Try to search but no result.
> 
> Thank you


Here:
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1-4...32671740456.html?spm=2114.13010608.0.0.okC3v1
As stated above they ship the material folded for free, If you want it rolled make sure you tell them in advance and it may cost you something.


----------



## Mojito

WereWolf84 said:


> Any ideas what's the gain of this reflective material ?


I can't measure it. If you want me to guess, it would be somewhere above 2. You may find more info if you browse throgh the previous pages.


----------



## Ericglo

airscapes said:


> Um, don't you think it should have been shipped on a roll? Those winkles and creases are absolutely ridiculous, or is that just what they send as a sample? I would not pay for folded up screen material .
> Previous Page Post
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/23-screens/773065-high-power-review-part-1-a-96.html#post47684393


You can use a blow dryer. It is only $60 delivered after all.



Dave in Green said:


> I PMed darinp and never got a response.


I don't know what to tell you.


----------



## supercop

Any Alternative to Hi-power (Elunevision) 2.4 that has the same or even better performance regardless of the price and can go as big as 250" 2.35:1 or 2.40:1?

I just found out about the discontinue of the products and if I know about this I would have bought them in advanced.

So sad...


----------



## henrich3

supercop said:


> Any Alternative to Hi-power (Elunevision) 2.4 that has the same or even better performance regardless of the price and can go as big as 250" 2.35:1 or 2.40:1?
> I just found out about the discontinue of the products and if I know about this I would have bought them in advanced.
> So sad...


No. The High Power / Draper Radiant / EluneVision PureBright screens used glass beads to achieve their gain. All other screens with similar gains use silver or optical coatings to get the gain up. Those technologies have significant artifacts like sparkles, sheen, hotspotting, and color shifts. The HP/Radiant/PureBright material isn't artifact free, but its slight "film grain" type artifact is so mild that it's rarely noticed.

I don't know what size PureBright 240 screens EluneVision still has in stock, but if you're looking for a high gain screen I'd contact them to see what's left. If they don't have what you want, you may want to look for a used HP.


----------



## Dave in Green

Ericglo said:


> ... I don't know what to tell you.


I finally did get a return PM from darinp about the Roadstar reflective material. You were correct that he didn't think it was a viable replacement for HP. He said he thought the material sparkled badly enough to not really be a good solution for many people. I suppose it could be inferred from darinp's description that the reflective material might be good enough for the low price to satisfy some people who aren't sensitive to screen sparkles.


----------



## seantos

I have a 120" model c pulldown Da-Lite HP 2.8 screen that I am looking at selling (since I am upgrading to a larger fixed screen) and I am wondering if I should try to sell it locally or if its worth trying to ship something like that. I live in Regina, Saskatchewan in Canada so I don't think there is a huge audience for this kind of thing locally. Also, I would much rather sell the screen to someone that would actually appreciate it and knows how valuable the material is these days. I have only ever rolled the screen down once when I got it about 7 years ago. 

Does anyone have a ballpark idea what shipping something like that might be worth? Would a place like UPS or Fed ex be able to package it up since I no longer have the package it originally shipped in? Just trying for figure out what it might be worth and how to factor in what its going to cost to ship to someone versus trying to sell it for less locally.


----------



## airscapes

It would need to go freight and no clue on crossing the board.. I believe I have read folks trying to do this within the states getting quotes between $200 and $300 to ship. If you have the original box that may be helpful.. but still the shipping could cost what the screen is worth..


----------



## seantos

Ya, that was what I was afraid of. I think when it was originally shipped to me all those years ago it was only about $50 to ship which still seems crazy but maybe the cost was built into the screen to hide part of the shipping costs. Plus I am sure businesses get a much better rate than I would. I suppose I should get the dimensions and just head down to one of the shipping places and get an estimate.


----------



## Dave in Green

This screen would be attractive to the right buyer if you can find a way to reach them. If I were you I would advertise it in the AVS Forum Classifieds at the price that you would like to get for it and say that the buyer is responsible for shipping costs. That will make your asking price appear more reasonable. As I recall from when I was pricing them a new 120" Model C with High Power fabric originally sold for less than US $500 including shipping,


----------



## Fabricator

I have a 119" model c pulldown Da-Lite HP 2.8 screen.

at the bottom where the meteriaal wraps around the pull bar, it is coming unglued.
haas anyone fixed this ?

da-lite told me to use electrical tape lol.


----------



## airscapes

Fabricator said:


> I have a 119" model c pulldown Da-Lite HP 2.8 screen.
> 
> at the bottom where the meteriaal wraps around the pull bar, it is coming unglued.
> haas anyone fixed this ?
> 
> da-lite told me to use electrical tape lol.


I have not had this issue, you got a photo?

If it is just a small area I would first try Black Gaffers tape.. If you don't have any, buy role of 2" wide balck and you will wonder how you lived without it.. puts PVC duct tape to shame!  http://www.goodbuyguys.com/catalog/index.php/cPath/22_86

Looking at mine it wraps around the back and is fastened and reinforced at the ends.. The backing is fiber glass so I don't think you need to worry about adverse reactions of adhesive.. I would probably use contact cement as you would not have to clamp that.. 
For those who may not know how contact cement works, it is applied to both sides that be be adhered, allowed to dry completely then the 2 parts are pressed together.
The cement should be applied to each surface evenly so multiple thin coats are advisable allowing sufficient time to dry between coats and before adhering the 2 surfaces.

If that is not feasible I would use a 2 part epoxy that lists fiberglass as a supported surface to bond.
Good luck!


----------



## Fabricator

the piece that i am holding also forms the bottom of the image area.
so i cannot put tape on it as per da-lite. that is, unless i make the image area that much smaller.
da-lite also said that any cement/glue could make the screen rot (not exact words).
i was thinking super glue.

talking to da-lite = idk if i was chatting with a tech or just a sales person.
their other option was to "just" replace the material, lol, idiot.


----------



## airscapes

Fabricator said:


> the piece that i am holding also forms the bottom of the image area.
> so i cannot put tape on it as per da-lite. that is, unless i make the image area that much smaller.
> da-lite also said that any cement/glue could make the screen rot (not exact words).
> i was thinking super glue.
> 
> talking to da-lite = idk if i was chatting with a tech or just a sales person.
> their other option was to "just" replace the material, lol, idiot.


That seems very different than mine.. there is black across the bottom of the screen above the bar.. and it wraps without a seam front to back, where it has the seam..


----------



## Fabricator

can i get a pic ?


----------



## airscapes

So maybe it is the same.. looking at where yours is coming apart, the screen surface actually looks to be higher than the black part as if the fabric is one piece but is obviously adhered to the back at the same point.. hard to describe in words.. 
Yeah after another look at your pic I am fairly sure there is no difference in them.. 
I would do some testing of white artist tape for a boarder to line up the pice you will be glueing.. it is not real sticky but would not want it to lift any beads off the screen.. 
Then test a small spot with the contact adhesive. I would also take it down to work on it.. 
Good luck


----------



## Fabricator

thanx. yeah, they are the same. i will report back with results.


----------



## Fabricator

ok, i fixed it.

i just used super glue = i buy the 4 pack for $1.50 from walmart.
the left side looks as though it never separated . the right side, i didn't get it exactly lined up. its a few .001"s low in a place = non issue.

the glue seems to be holding just fine. and no visible issues that i can see = discolorations or whatever.
i will be, forever, keeping an eye on it. but i expect its fixed.

on a side note.
my screen has 2 new friends.
14cf each, the screen is 2' out from the wall and the subs go back to the wall.
6000DSP


----------



## Fabricator

oh. has anyone touched up the black sides on these ?


----------



## mattbern

seantos said:


> Ya, that was what I was afraid of. I think when it was originally shipped to me all those years ago it was only about $50 to ship which still seems crazy but maybe the cost was built into the screen to hide part of the shipping costs. Plus I am sure businesses get a much better rate than I would. I suppose I should get the dimensions and just head down to one of the shipping places and get an estimate.


Hi, is your da-lite hp still for sale?


----------



## joel dickman

*High Power 2.8 screen and new UHD 4K discs with HDR*

During the past six months I have been using an Epson 5040UB projector with a 159" diagonal 16:9 Da-Lite High Power 2.8 screen in a basement bat cave room. No gaming, no streaming, just 1080p Blu Ray discs and older DVD discs sometimes too. Very happy with the picture: like a gigantic plasma television, with rich color, deep blacks, very bright and razor sharp. My only complaint is that the motion handling could be better. My old Marantz DLP seemed superior during camera pans and with scrolling movie credits. Using frame interpolation at the lowest setting helps.

The other day I decided to try watching a few of the new 4K UHD Blu Ray discs. The Epson has a pixel-shifting feature and HDR modes that allow a "faux" 4K image, so-called 4K lite. Less resolution than the more costly Sony projectors, but an improvement upon ordinary 1080P. I used a Philips BDP7501 player and borrowed some 4K UHD blu rays from the local library:* Planet Earth II *and *Deepwater Horizon*. I did a comparison of both the 4K and 1080p versions of the films. Some impressions:

1) Viewing from a distance of about twelve feet, the 4K discs were sharper looking. Not a huge difference, but easily noticeable. I think that the HDR feature made a much bigger contribution to the improvement in picture quality - the greater contrast just made everything look far more true to life. Especially with the *Planet Earth II *series. I tried using the Epson picture mode that displays the wider color gamut, but did not notice much difference in color. Since I have some color blindness, my failure to discern a difference may be internal to me. I do not have Dolby Atmos object-oriented sound, so I can't comment on that.

The improvement in the picture quality of the *Planet Earth II* was significant enough to make me want to give my 1080p SDR version to my brother, and buy the 4K UHD version for myself. (My brother is much less fussy about picture quality.) Mainly for the HDR bump upward in contrast, though the improved resolution helped too. I think that the *Deepwater Horizon *disaster film also was better in 4K HDR, but only marginally so. It is easy to get used to something better. Start eating t-bone steaks, and going back to Big Macs can be a disappointment. If money is tight, you may be better off never seeing 4K UHD Blu Ray discs at all. That way you are more likely to remain perfectly happy with ordinary 1080p SDR Blu Ray discs. 

2) In reading various threads about HDR here on AVSforum, a common theme is that home theater projectors do not have sufficient lumens and that the HDR picture is too dark. Some projector users find HDR unwatchable, and prefer SDR because of this. The common explanation is that the new HDR discs are mastered with the expectation that the vast majority of people will use them with flat screen televisions capable of far higher light output than home theater projectors.

I am happy to report that I experienced no such problems, and had more than enough light to create a satisfyingly bright picture. Didn't even need to use the brighter modes of the Epson projector. The medium level brightness and power modes provided more than enough light output. I did tweak the contrast upwards a little bit though when watching the 4K UHD movies.

*Moral of the story: if you are lucky enough to own a High Power screen, hang on to it tightly.* The extra gain it provides will allow you to get a very beautiful HDR picture, at least with a projector as bright as the Epson5040UB. Many home theater people covet the High Power screens because they allow 3D films to be seen with a sufficiently bright picture. Even if 3D is in decline, the new HDR standard also takes full advantage of the high gain. And at least when watching *Planet Earth II,* 4K UHD with HDR is the real deal. The image quality was the best I have ever seen. I don't know about other 4K Blu Ray discs though.

I think that Da-Lite High Power screens were produced for a pretty long time: between five and ten years or so. At lower prices than are common today. I understand that Da-Lite had quality control problems producing the screen in quantity. Still, it seems strange to me that no other screen manufacturer has tried to fill the market void created by the disappearance of the High Power. My guess is that somebody is missing an opportunity to make money. But what do I know? I am just a high gain screen fan, not a manufacturer, and there is likely more going on here than meets the eye.

Happy Viewing,
Joel Dickman


----------



## Fabricator

joel dickman said:


> During the past six months I have been using an Epson 5040UB projector with a 159" diagonal 16:9 Da-Lite High Power 2.8 screen in a basement bat cave room. No gaming, no streaming, just 1080p Blu Ray discs and older DVD discs sometimes too. Very happy with the picture: like a gigantic plasma television, with rich color, deep blacks, very bright and razor sharp. My only complaint is that the motion handling could be better. My old Marantz DLP seemed superior during camera pans and with scrolling movie credits. Using frame interpolation at the lowest setting helps.
> 
> The other day I decided to try watching a few of the new 4K UHD Blu Ray discs. The Epson has a pixel-shifting feature and HDR modes that allow a "faux" 4K image, so-called 4K lite. Less resolution than the more costly Sony projectors, but an improvement upon ordinary 1080P. I used a Philips BDP7501 player and borrowed some 4K UHD blu rays from the local library:* Planet Earth II *and *Deepwater Horizon*. I did a comparison of both the 4K and 1080p versions of the films. Some impressions:
> 
> 1) Viewing from a distance of about twelve feet, the 4K discs were sharper looking. Not a huge difference, but easily noticeable. I think that the HDR feature made a much bigger contribution to the improvement in picture quality - the greater contrast just made everything look far more true to life. Especially with the *Planet Earth II *series. I tried using the Epson picture mode that displays the wider color gamut, but did not notice much difference in color. Since I have some color blindness, my failure to discern a difference may be internal to me. I do not have Dolby Atmos object-oriented sound, so I can't comment on that.
> 
> The improvement in the picture quality of the *Planet Earth II* was significant enough to make me want to give my 1080p SDR version to my brother, and buy the 4K UHD version for myself. (My brother is much less fussy about picture quality.) Mainly for the HDR bump upward in contrast, though the improved resolution helped too. I think that the *Deepwater Horizon *disaster film also was better in 4K HDR, but only marginally so. It is easy to get used to something better. Start eating t-bone steaks, and going back to Big Macs can be a disappointment. If money is tight, you may be better off never seeing 4K UHD Blu Ray discs at all. That way you are more likely to remain perfectly happy with ordinary 1080p SDR Blu Ray discs.
> 
> 2) In reading various threads about HDR here on AVSforum, a common theme is that home theater projectors do not have sufficient lumens and that the HDR picture is too dark. Some projector users find HDR unwatchable, and prefer SDR because of this. The common explanation is that the new HDR discs are mastered with the expectation that the vast majority of people will use them with flat screen televisions capable of far higher light output than home theater projectors.
> 
> I am happy to report that I experienced no such problems, and had more than enough light to create a satisfyingly bright picture. Didn't even need to use the brighter modes of the Epson projector. The medium level brightness and power modes provided more than enough light output. I did tweak the contrast upwards a little bit though when watching the 4K UHD movies.
> 
> *Moral of the story: if you are lucky enough to own a High Power screen, hang on to it tightly.* The extra gain it provides will allow you to get a very beautiful HDR picture, at least with a projector as bright as the Epson5040UB. Many home theater people covet the High Power screens because they allow 3D films to be seen with a sufficiently bright picture. Even if 3D is in decline, the new HDR standard also takes full advantage of the high gain. And at least when watching *Planet Earth II,* 4K UHD with HDR is the real deal. The image quality was the best I have ever seen. I don't know about other 4K Blu Ray discs though.
> 
> I think that Da-Lite High Power screens were produced for a pretty long time: between five and ten years or so. At lower prices than are common today. I understand that Da-Lite had quality control problems producing the screen in quantity. Still, it seems strange to me that no other screen manufacturer has tried to fill the market void created by the disappearance of the High Power. My guess is that somebody is missing an opportunity to make money. But what do I know? I am just a high gain screen fan, not a manufacturer, and there is likely more going on here than meets the eye.
> 
> Happy Viewing,
> Joel Dickman



hey, THANX man. i came here to see if my HP 2.8 119" was going to be 'to bright" with the new projectors out there. i am needing a new one. mine blew up, 1000 lumen. 
of course, i will just try it and see.


----------



## GMancusa

joel dickman said:


> During the past six months I have been using an Epson 5040UB projector with a 159" diagonal 16:9 Da-Lite High Power 2.8 screen in a basement bat cave room. No gaming, no streaming, just 1080p Blu Ray discs and older DVD discs sometimes too. Very happy with the picture: like a gigantic plasma television, with rich color, deep blacks, very bright and razor sharp. My only complaint is that the motion handling could be better. My old Marantz DLP seemed superior during camera pans and with scrolling movie credits. Using frame interpolation at the lowest setting helps.
> 
> The other day I decided to try watching a few of the new 4K UHD Blu Ray discs. The Epson has a pixel-shifting feature and HDR modes that allow a "faux" 4K image, so-called 4K lite. Less resolution than the more costly Sony projectors, but an improvement upon ordinary 1080P. I used a Philips BDP7501 player and borrowed some 4K UHD blu rays from the local library:* Planet Earth II *and *Deepwater Horizon*. I did a comparison of both the 4K and 1080p versions of the films. Some impressions:
> 
> 1) Viewing from a distance of about twelve feet, the 4K discs were sharper looking. Not a huge difference, but easily noticeable. I think that the HDR feature made a much bigger contribution to the improvement in picture quality - the greater contrast just made everything look far more true to life. Especially with the *Planet Earth II *series. I tried using the Epson picture mode that displays the wider color gamut, but did not notice much difference in color. Since I have some color blindness, my failure to discern a difference may be internal to me. I do not have Dolby Atmos object-oriented sound, so I can't comment on that.
> 
> The improvement in the picture quality of the *Planet Earth II* was significant enough to make me want to give my 1080p SDR version to my brother, and buy the 4K UHD version for myself. (My brother is much less fussy about picture quality.) Mainly for the HDR bump upward in contrast, though the improved resolution helped too. I think that the *Deepwater Horizon *disaster film also was better in 4K HDR, but only marginally so. It is easy to get used to something better. Start eating t-bone steaks, and going back to Big Macs can be a disappointment. If money is tight, you may be better off never seeing 4K UHD Blu Ray discs at all. That way you are more likely to remain perfectly happy with ordinary 1080p SDR Blu Ray discs.
> 
> 2) In reading various threads about HDR here on AVSforum, a common theme is that home theater projectors do not have sufficient lumens and that the HDR picture is too dark. Some projector users find HDR unwatchable, and prefer SDR because of this. The common explanation is that the new HDR discs are mastered with the expectation that the vast majority of people will use them with flat screen televisions capable of far higher light output than home theater projectors.
> 
> I am happy to report that I experienced no such problems, and had more than enough light to create a satisfyingly bright picture. Didn't even need to use the brighter modes of the Epson projector. The medium level brightness and power modes provided more than enough light output. I did tweak the contrast upwards a little bit though when watching the 4K UHD movies.
> 
> *Moral of the story: if you are lucky enough to own a High Power screen, hang on to it tightly.* The extra gain it provides will allow you to get a very beautiful HDR picture, at least with a projector as bright as the Epson5040UB. Many home theater people covet the High Power screens because they allow 3D films to be seen with a sufficiently bright picture. Even if 3D is in decline, the new HDR standard also takes full advantage of the high gain. And at least when watching *Planet Earth II,* 4K UHD with HDR is the real deal. The image quality was the best I have ever seen. I don't know about other 4K Blu Ray discs though.
> 
> I think that Da-Lite High Power screens were produced for a pretty long time: between five and ten years or so. At lower prices than are common today. I understand that Da-Lite had quality control problems producing the screen in quantity. Still, it seems strange to me that no other screen manufacturer has tried to fill the market void created by the disappearance of the High Power. My guess is that somebody is missing an opportunity to make money. But what do I know? I am just a high gain screen fan, not a manufacturer, and there is likely more going on here than meets the eye.
> 
> Happy Viewing,
> Joel Dickman


Thanks for your post Joel, very informative! I've been a fan of the HP ever since TRYG started this thread! I was happy with what I had so I never felt the urgency so I kept putting it off, never thought Da-Lite would just stop producing it. Now with HDR I feel even more regret . I've been hopeful that the HP would make a come back, but that doesn't seam likely. Totally agree with your sentiment, if you lucky enough to own a HP then hang onto it, even if you move!


----------



## Frank714

joel dickman said:


> *Moral of the story: if you are lucky enough to own a High Power screen, hang on to it tightly.*



...i.e. provided your front projector is table-mounted or sits on a shelf close to eye-level. As the distance between eye-level and projector lens increases the advantage of the retro-reflective High Power 2.8 gradually dimishes.


As I'm looking for a used HP 2.8 screen here in Europe larger than the one of my Da-Lite Slimline Electrol HP 2.8 (image width limited to 1.78 m / 70 inches) for my 3D table projection, I can only hope that some owners that (erroneously) use it along with a ceiling-mounted projector might want to part with it.


(As a matter of fact I know that several dealers in Europe sold High Power 2.8 screens in the 1990's because of a better profit margin to unsuspecting ceiling-mounting customers...)


----------



## Pultzar

2.8 screen posted for sale:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/252-...-fs-182-high-power-2-8-screen-ultra-rare.html


----------



## Frank714

Qapla'! I hope the new owner is going to be a High Power 2.8 _connoisseur _who wants to upgrade - and will then part with his smaller HP 2.8 screen...


----------



## Frank714

Went through my product archive yesterday and noticed that the High Power 2.8 was already in the 1993 (!) Da-Lite product catalogue.


I'm enclosing the product overview page from the 1996 catalogue, notice the "High Power" logo which I'm certain many owners agree with.


----------



## Frank714

Samuel1122 said:


> The truth of front projection is that surrounding light should be controlled, the more you can do this, the better the picture, sadly, a pitch dark condition is not generally the best to hang out in, except if obviously you adore caverns...



...and the High Power 2.8 was just optimal for lit rooms because of its retro-reflective properties.


----------



## noah katz

Frank714 said:


> ...and the High Power 2.8 was just optimal for lit rooms because of its retro-reflective properties.



The HP is a great screen, but let's not go off the deep end.

I find it totally unusable in a daylit room; when there is reflected light from all directions the screen excels at capturing that coming from your general direction and return it to your eyes.


----------



## Brandon B

noah katz said:


> The HP is a great screen, but let's not go off the deep end.


I don't know, my HP feeds our dog when we are away for the weekend, and it washed my car once.


----------



## Kriilin

I've got a hi-gain Model C I used with my Panny AE-200U (700 lumens) waaay back in the day. I'm setting up my "HT living room" again with an Epson 5040, I might need sunglasses!


----------



## Craig Peer

Kriilin said:


> I've got a hi-gain Model C I used with my Panny AE-200U (700 lumens) waaay back in the day. I'm setting up my "HT living room" again with an Epson 5040, I might need sunglasses!


Probably not, since the 5040 is not that bright in a movie watching cinema mode in low lamp.


----------



## howiee

Just to echo what many have said already - it's such a damn shame you can't buy these anymore! We could have large, uber bright HDR with no sheen/sparkles on low power bulb settings. And they were cheap! I'd gladly pay high end screen prices for a large high power.


----------



## Craig Peer

howiee said:


> Just to echo what many have said already - it's such a damn shame you can't buy these anymore! We could have large, uber bright HDR with no sheen/sparkles on low power bulb settings. And they were cheap! I'd gladly pay high end screen prices for a large high power.




They did have weird single super bright “ sparkles “ at times. That used to bug me. And a lot of light fall off when off center. I liked the one I had, but it was not perfect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dave in Green

noah katz said:


> The HP is a great screen, but let's not go off the deep end.
> 
> I find it totally unusable in a daylit room; when there is reflected light from all directions the screen excels at capturing that coming from your general direction and return it to your eyes.


All ALR screens have tradeoffs that allow them to perform at their best under specific conditions and HP was no different. It was very good at doing what it was intended to do -- reflect projector image light back at the projector and ambient light back at its source. The optimum setup with HP was to sit as close to the projector as possible and have as little ambient light as possible coming from the general direction of the projector and viewers sitting next to the projector.

With projectors being much brighter today than when HP was introduced a modern incarnation of HP would be designed differently. A dark substrate could reduce the original 2.8 gain down to 1.0 while providing superior ambient light performance, and smaller glass beads would be required for 4K resolution. Given the low cost of original HP and the high cost of current quality ALR screens there would be plenty of room to allow for improved production controls that would raise cost.

Still, a modern HP would be a niche product just like all other ALR screen iterations. It would only really suit a setup with a couple of people sitting on either side of a table mounted projector. The high volume Da-Lite enjoyed when glass bead screens were popular to compensate for dim projectors is gone and low volume products result in much higher cost per item. It would likely take a high quality, low cost supplier in China to roll the dice on producing such a screen and then trying to attract screen marketers to buy in.


----------



## airscapes

Craig Peer said:


> They did have weird single super bright “ sparkles “ at times. That used to bug me. And a lot of light fall off when off center. I liked the one I had, but it was not perfect.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Those were Clingons.. a rogue micro bead that was not properly embedded. After several cleanings they are completely eliminated.. And yes, only good for a 2 seater room, but man I would never give it up!


----------



## Craig Peer

airscapes said:


> Those were Clingons.. a rogue micro bead that was not properly embedded. After several cleanings they are completely eliminated.. And yes, only good for a 2 seater room, but man I would never give it up!


At this point I have a 6 - 8 seater room - one row across, so the Stewart StudioTek 130 screen works much better in my theater.


----------



## airscapes

I am sure it would.. as has been said.. niche market 2-3 seater.. just held a piece of computer paper up in front of my HP screen and asked the wife how she liked it.. her response was Dark, why would you want that?  I told her if anything happens to this screen that is what you have to look forward to! Good thing I have a backup 110" and 103" HP 2.8 ;-)


----------



## Dave in Green

airscapes said:


> I am sure it would.. as has been said.. niche market 2-3 seater.. just held a piece of computer paper up in front of my HP screen and asked the wife how she liked it.. her response was Dark, why would you want that?  I told her if anything happens to this screen that is what you have to look forward to! Good thing I have a backup 110" and 103" HP 2.8 ;-)


Of course it's always important to consider that a projector, screen and viewing environment represent a system where all components need to be matched for optimum performance. Changing one element often requires changing other elements. You appear to have a perfect match with your older, dimmer projector and higher gain HP screen. Maybe by the time your HP degrades with age you'll be ready for a newer, brighter projector that better matches a newer, lower gain screen.


----------



## Danonano

It's a bit ironic that a screen that works so well with HDR was designed years ago. I think it would sell very well today because it makes projected HDR possible without any special tone mapping.


----------



## Pultzar

airscapes said:


> I am sure it would.. as has been said.. niche market 2-3 seater.. just held a piece of computer paper up in front of my HP screen and asked the wife how she liked it.. her response was Dark, why would you want that?  I told her if anything happens to this screen that is what you have to look forward to! Good thing I have a backup 110" and 103" HP 2.8 ;-)


Based on how the human visual system works, it is not really a valid test to compare screens side by side like this. You need to compare them sequentially with enough time to adjust in between.

I have an HP 2.8 and ST 100. I would not go back to the HP 2.8. The ST100 is way more transparent.


----------



## airscapes

Pultzar said:


> B
> I have an HP 2.8 and ST 100. I would not go back to the HP 2.8. The ST100 is way more transparent.


I think it was luck of the draw.. none of my HP screens have had the paisley artifacts that some have talked about .. very much invisible even with a 100% full field.. If you ever have seen the slop they call HD content from Verizon, screen texture/artifacts is the least of ones worries..  

Lets face it, the HP had it's market, anyone still needing what it provides has to find what they need used, and eventually there will be no more.. :frown: Just like the Beta Hifi and Floppy disk.. it will fade into tech history.. been almost 10 years since the sold that last of them..


----------



## howiee

Craig Peer said:


> They did have weird single super bright “ sparkles “ at times. That used to bug me. And a lot of light fall off when off center. I liked the one I had, but it was not perfect


True. I used to go up to the screen and try and wipe them off with my finger, which on reflection wasn't a great idea and probabaly did nothing other than make it a bit greasy! They were super infrequent, though, and a compromise i'd be happy with. 200"+ screens (did they make them this big?!) with over 30 ftl would have been totally achievable.


----------



## Pultzar

howiee said:


> True. I used to go up to the screen and try and wipe them off with my finger, which on reflection wasn't a great idea and probabaly did nothing other than make it a bit greasy! They were super infrequent, though, and a compromise i'd be happy with. 200"+ screens (did they make them this big?!) with over 30 ftl would have been totally achievable.


The max height was 72" without a seam.


----------



## sthompson

Would anyone happen to know what screen the JVC NX9 was showing on at this years CEDIA? I recently upgraded my projector to the NX9 and I'm not particularly fond of the image in bright scenes (some sparkling) on my 133" Dalite Cinema Contour screen.

That and once the brightness was bumped up, I noticed I had a couple of small marks in the top left of the screen.

Whatever screen they were using for the NX9 seemed to be a perfect match.

Thanks


----------



## Ericglo

I believe JVC usually uses a Stewart screen. Craig or Mike should know the exact screen or can find out.


----------



## Craig Peer

sthompson said:


> Would anyone happen to know what screen the JVC NX9 was showing on at this years CEDIA? I recently upgraded my projector to the NX9 and I'm not particularly fond of the image in bright scenes (some sparkling) on my 133" Dalite Cinema Contour screen.
> 
> That and once the brightness was bumped up, I noticed I had a couple of small marks in the top left of the screen.
> 
> Whatever screen they were using for the NX9 seemed to be a perfect match.
> 
> Thanks


It was a 165" diagonal 16:9 StudioTek 130 screen.


----------



## Craig Peer

sthompson said:


> Would anyone happen to know what screen the JVC NX9 was showing on at this years CEDIA? I recently upgraded my projector to the NX9 and I'm not particularly fond of the image in bright scenes (some sparkling) on my 133" Dalite Cinema Contour screen.
> 
> That and once the brightness was bumped up, I noticed I had a couple of small marks in the top left of the screen.
> 
> Whatever screen they were using for the NX9 seemed to be a perfect match.
> 
> Thanks


The StudioTek 130 would be a perfect match. I've been watching my RS4500 on mine for nearly 3 years. I have a bunch of screen shots here - 

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/117-...thread-add-your-pictures-13.html#post58692596


----------



## sthompson

Thanks I’ll definitely check it out!

That combination with 8k material was the first time I've seen a projector come close to the picture I get on my LG Oled.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sthompson

Well I've ordered a StudioTek 130 and have placed my Dalite High Power up for sale here

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/252-...5-x116-high-power-w-protrim.html#post58732518

Looking forward to the NX9 and 130 pairing.


----------



## sthompson

@Craig Peer You wouldn't happen to know what settings JVC was using on the NX9 for that screen & video material?

Also does anyone know where I can grab the demo that they were using?

Thanks


----------



## Craig Peer

sthompson said:


> @Craig Peer You wouldn't happen to know what settings JVC was using on the NX9 for that screen & video material?
> 
> Also does anyone know where I can grab the demo that they were using?
> 
> Thanks


Not sure about the demo disc. As for settings, can't say exactly, but I'd start with Natural. Or send me an email and I'll see what I can dig up for you.


----------

