# New High Contrast High Power Discussion Thread



## newfmp3

 http://www.da-lite.com/products/sele...viewMode=front 



> Quote:
> High Contrast High Power
> 
> 
> 
> This revolutionary screen surface provides a unique combination of high gain along with contrast enhancement due to its grey base and highly reflective top surface. The result is a screen surface with moderate viewing angles and the ability to reflect light back towards the source. These characteristics make this surface an excellent choice for environments with a moderate amount of ambient light and a projector which is placed on a table top or in the same horizontal viewing plane as the audience. Flame retardant and mildew resistant. Viewing Angle: 20° Gain: 2.4



...discuss


I figure rather then mess up the other HP thread even further , keep things here?


----------



## noah katz

Thanks for the find.


So, they finally did it.


Same gain as the regular HP and the necessarily narrow viewing angle.


The questions that come to my mind are whether this makes uniformity an issue, and how much improvement there is in intrascene contrast in rooms with light colored surfaces.


----------



## Pete

I suppose this type of screen fills a need, but it seems like a little too much band-aid for projector shortcomings. I'd rather go with more projector output, back off a little on the gain, get a better gray scale, a little larger viewing cone, less hot-spotting, and more uniformity.


----------



## noah katz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pete* /forum/post/20433205
> 
> 
> I suppose this type of screen fills a need, but it seems like a little too much band-aid for projector shortcomings.



To me it's more of a bandaid for a non-dedicated room, which many of us have.


----------



## airscapes

I have samples of 2.4 HC-2.4 and Silver lite 2.5 on the way.. will stick them all up on the 2.8 and see what they look like.. I know what 2.4 looks like all to well.. but some day I may have to replace the 2.8.. what to do.. what to do? If my antique camera can see the same thing my eyes do, I will post some screen shots just to show difference in brightness ..


----------



## noah katz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/20441166
> 
> 
> If my antique camera can see the same thing my eyes do, I will post some screen shots just to show difference in brightness ..



Nothing wrong with adjusting the images afterwards to make them look lioke what you saw.


In fact, that may be the only way to get blacks to look the same, even with a good camera.


----------



## gareth_davies

Im just about to complete an order for a 106" HC Highpower now, I will post back my personal view as soon as I get it, It may take a little longer as I have to bring it into Mexico... I will be using it with my sony Pearl.. a little extra brightness will be most welcome. I am re-arranging my set-up for the retro reflective type of screen.

regards

g


----------



## Pete




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/20440807
> 
> 
> To me it's more of a bandaid for a non-dedicated room, which many of us have.



A bright punchy projector will overcome shortcomings of non-dedicated rooms and will clear the way for screens which are less compromised by undesirable attributes. Getting such a projector at a reasonable cost used to be a challenge, but there are a number of options now (DPI, SIM2, Runco) for less than $8K.


----------



## Benito Joaquin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pete* /forum/post/20444068
> 
> 
> A bright punchy projector will overcome shortcomings of non-dedicated rooms and will clear the way for screens which are less compromised by undesirable attributes. Getting such a projector at a reasonable cost used to be a challenge, but there are a number of options now (DPI, SIM2, Runco) for less than $8K.



Good options too!! Before we used to have to sacrifice image quality for brighness. Now you get a nice bright image and it looks good!


Benito


----------



## newfmp3

I'd like to see this as well. Think I'll just wait for you guys to get your samples.


----------



## DigsMovies

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Pete* 
I suppose this type of screen fills a need, but it seems like a little too much band-aid for projector shortcomings. I'd rather go with more projector output, back off a little on the gain, get a better gray scale, a little larger viewing cone, less hot-spotting, and more uniformity.


Quote:

Originally Posted by *Pete* 
A bright punchy projector will overcome shortcomings of non-dedicated rooms and will clear the way for screens which are less compromised by undesirable attributes. Getting such a projector at a reasonable cost used to be a challenge, but there are a number of options now (DPI, SIM2, Runco) for less than $8K.
What screen(s) would you suggest to pair with one of those projectors in a non-dedicated room?


-thx


----------



## Warbie

Colour me interested. My RS20 is in a pretty well treated room - dark walls, carpets, velvet panelling around the screen/ceiling - and i'm not happy with the black levels. I shall order samples asap!


----------



## noah katz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pete* /forum/post/20444068
> 
> 
> A bright punchy projector will overcome shortcomings of non-dedicated rooms and will clear the way for screens which are less compromised by undesirable attributes.



The brightness helps combat ambient light, but not the reduction in intrascene CR caused by re-reflected light that ; a projector that's twice as bright has twice as much of it.


The only way to combat that is nonreflective room surfaces.


Some of us can't/won't do that, leaving a directional screen as the only option.


----------



## Warbie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gareth_davies* /forum/post/20443588
> 
> 
> Im just about to complete an order for a 106" HC Highpower now, I will post back my personal view as soon as I get it, It may take a little longer as I have to bring it into Mexico... I will be using it with my sony Pearl.. a little extra brightness will be most welcome. I am re-arranging my set-up for the retro reflective type of screen.
> 
> regards
> 
> g



I'd be interested in how you get on with the screen, Gareth. Are you familar with the standard high power material, or the Firehawk G3? I'm most interested in how this new material compares with those (I currently have 2.8 HP). If it gives the benefits of a grey screen without any odd sheen and the extra punch from the gain i'll be all over it


----------



## Lawguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pete* /forum/post/20444068
> 
> 
> A bright punchy projector will overcome shortcomings of non-dedicated rooms and will clear the way for screens which are less compromised by undesirable attributes. Getting such a projector at a reasonable cost used to be a challenge, but there are a number of options now (DPI, SIM2, Runco) for less than $8K.



Brightness helps out with the parts of the image that are projected. Black isn't projected.


----------



## Pete




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DigsMovies* /forum/post/20445271
> 
> 
> What screen(s) would you suggest to pair with one of those projectors in a non-dedicated room?
> 
> 
> -thx



The Stewart FireHawk G3 would be a good match. You get 60 degree viewing cone, a little bit of gain, gray substrate to boost contrast, and the optical coating rejects reflected light from side walls.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/20446575
> 
> 
> The brightness helps combat ambient light, but not the reduction in intrascene CR caused by re-reflected light that ; a projector that's twice as bright has twice as much of it.
> 
> 
> The only way to combat that is nonreflective room surfaces.
> 
> 
> Some of us can't/won't do that, leaving a directional screen as the only option.



Agreed...but extremely directional is not ideal. Moderation should be the goal.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lawguy* /forum/post/20448110
> 
> 
> Brightness helps out with the parts of the image that are projected. Black isn't projected.



Understood...which is why a projector with good Dynamic Black and gray screen material are needed.


----------



## Lawguy

I've got a 2x2 sample on the way.


----------



## millerwill

Today I received samples of the new HC HP, and also the new white HP (4 pieces each) and have been looking at them in comparison to my 4 yr old HP2.8. (Only reason I'm thinking of a new screen is that I'm interested in going larger--from 110x62 to 128x72.) My room has no external light and has black fabric on the ceiling and side walls about about 7 ft form the screen wall, so wall reflections are not really a concern. (And the back wall has dark drapes all across--which is REALLY imp for the HP, as I think everybody knows.) I put up samples pieces of HP2.8 (which I had from earlier days), HP2.4, and HC HP2.4, all at the left and right extremes of where my proposed 128"W screen would be. My pj (RS20) is on a stand about a ft above my head and about 2 ft behind it; I sit ~ 1.07 SW from the screen (50 deg wide viewing angle).


Observations:


1. I put up a full screen 100% IRE test pattern, and the HP2.8 is noticeably brighter--not dramatically, but noticeably--and even at the extreme L and R is uniformly bright over my whole screen; wish they still made the 2.8!


2. The two new 2.4 HP's, gray and white, looked very similar in brightness--which they should, of course, since they are both supposed to have 2.4 gain--but maybe the white one was ever so slightly brighter. The narrower viewing angle of the HC HP (which is mildly gray on looking at it) is not an issue for me since the pj is so close to my head, and it's basically just me looking at it (my wife unfortunately died this past Dec).


3. Colors look nice and basically the same on all three (except the 2.8 being brighter), and I presume any color shifts will be taken care of when one calibrates.


3. I don't see any point in getting the HC version unless you are worried about reflections from white walls/ceiling, or have ambient light from the side. I can really see essentially no diff between it and the white HP, and the latter presumably does have a wider viewing cone. Again, for me the narrow cone is no problem, but I don't see what the HC does for me. As I said, I would prefer the HP2.8.


Will be interested hear what others think when they get their samples.


----------



## Lawguy

Thanks millerwill,


I was hoping that the HCHP was going to be a darker gray and an overall lower effective gain but what we have is still appears to be interesting.


I am a past High Power screen owner. I like many of its qualities. One thing that surprised me when I switched to a Black Diamond was how much the High Power lit up my room in spite of the fact that I had treated many surfaces. This really affected brighter scenes - the brighter the scene the more the washout. The HCHP as it is may be a good balance between something like a Black Diamond and the classic HP. Maybe it is good for dark rooms that suffer from reflected light issues.


----------



## airscapes

Quote:

Originally Posted by *millerwill* 
Today I received samples of the new HC HP, and also the new white HP (4 pieces each) and have been looking at them in comparison to my 4 yr old HP2.8. (Only reason I'm thinking of a new screen is that I'm interested in going larger--from 110x62 to 128x72.) My room has no external light and has black fabric on the ceiling and side walls about about 7 ft form the screen wall, so wall reflections are not really a concern. (And the back wall has dark drapes all across--which is REALLY imp for the HP, as I think everybody knows.) I put up samples pieces of HP2.8 (which I had from earlier days), HP2.4, and HC HP2.4, all at the left and right extremes of where my proposed 128"W screen would be. My pj (RS20) is on a stand about a ft above my head and about 2 ft behind it; I sit ~ 1.07 SW from the screen (50 deg wide viewing angle).


Observations:


1. I put up a full screen 100% IRE test pattern, and the HP2.8 is noticeably brighter--not dramatically, but noticeably--and even at the extreme L and R is uniformly bright over my whole screen; wish they still made the 2.8!


2. The two new 2.4 HP's, gray and white, looked very similar in brightness--which they should, of course, since they are both supposed to have 2.4 gain--but maybe the white one was ever so slightly brighter. The narrower viewing angle of the HC HP (which is mildly gray on looking at it) is not an issue for me since the pj is so close to my head, and it's basically just me looking at it (my wife unfortunately died this past Dec).


3. Colors look nice and basically the same on all three (except the 2.8 being brighter), and I presume any color shifts will be taken care of when one calibrates.


3. I don't see any point in getting the HC version unless you are worried about reflections from white walls/ceiling, or have ambient light from the side. I can really see essentially no diff between it and the white HP, and the latter presumably does have a wider viewing cone. Again, for me the narrow cone is no problem, but I don't see what the HC does for me. As I said, I would prefer the HP2.8.


Will be interested hear what others think when they get their samples.
I plan the same basic test as you when my samples arrive, but with a couple of lights on. My HP 2.8 works well with a few up facing floor lamps on but the 2.4 is not as good. I was wondering now the new HC 2.4 would fair in that situation. If you still have them up, could you flip on a few lights to compare?

Thanks


----------



## Warbie

Thanks for the update, millerwall. Did you notice any improvement re. black levels with the new material?


----------



## millerwill

Thanks for the comments.


Lawguy: Interesting thoughts. Yes, my room too is certainly not perfect, but without having a full HCHP gray screen, it's hard to tell how much reflections might be minimized by it. Since brightness is not reduced by it, and since the narrower viewing angle is no problem for me, it might indeed be the better choice just in case the effects you describe are important.


BTW, did you keep the Black Diamond? (Though this is irrelevant for me since they don't come in large enough sizes for my interest.)


airscapes: I look forward to hearing your report. I have no overhead lights in my room, but a couple of halogen lamps with metallic shades that are quite focused and used for reading, etc., at the two recliners that constitute my 'HT' seating (except for a couch along a side wall). As usually oriented, the light from these lamps does not hit the screen directly, but tonight I'll flip the shades around to see how the screen samples perform.


Warbie: Since the gain of the HP and HCHP are the same, I can't see how the black (or white) level of them could be different. It seems to me that the only difference between the two is how reflected light is handled, and there is essentially no reflected light relevant for the black level.


----------



## Lawguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/20459423
> 
> 
> BTW, did you keep the Black Diamond? (Though this is irrelevant for me since they don't come in large enough sizes for my interest.)



Yup. I am a big fan. I did a write up here for Mark Petersen's site.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lawguy* /forum/post/20459462
> 
> 
> Yup. I am a big fan. I did a write up here for Mark Petersen's site.



So your room has no external light and no white walls/ceiling, and you still find the BD gives a more dynamic (or however you would describe it) pic than the old HP? I read your link carefully.


----------



## Lawguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/20460053
> 
> 
> So your room has no external light and no white walls/ceiling, and you still find the BD gives a more dynamic (or however you would describe it) pic than the old HP? I read your link carefully.



Yes. It comes as the expense of: (1) limited screen size (not bigger than 100" for a .8 BD) (2) visible screen texture is sometimes present (it would not be with the HP) and (3) limited viewing angles - differences in brightness become more apparent as you move off axis (not a concern in my room). So, there are tradeoffs. For me, the trade offs are more than worth it (comparing a 106" HP to the 100" .8 BD).


Edit: I have treated the walls in back of the screen, the ceiling and on the sides - the areas where the reflections were. But, there are some areas were the ceiling and walls remain white.


----------



## Warbie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/20459423
> 
> 
> Warbie: Since the gain of the HP and HCHP are the same, I can't see how the black (or white) level of them could be different. It seems to me that the only difference between the two is how reflected light is handled, and there is essentially no reflected light relevant for the black level.



I might be misunderstanding something basic, but when I put a Firehawk G3 sample on my old 1.0 gain white screen the blacks on the Firehawk were considerably darker despite it putting out a brighter image.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lawguy* /forum/post/20460202
> 
> 
> Yes. It comes as the expense of: (1) limited screen size (not bigger than 100" for a .8 BD) (2) visible screen texture is sometimes present (it would not be with the HP) and (3) limited viewing angles - differences in brightness become more apparent as you move off axis (not a concern in my room). So, there are tradeoffs. For me, the trade offs are more than worth it (comparing a 106" HP to the 100" .8 BD).
> 
> 
> Edit: I have treated the walls in back of the screen, the ceiling and on the sides - the areas where the reflections were. But, there are some areas were the ceiling and walls remain white.



Well I'm definitely going with a larger screen (if I do anything*), so the BD is out. Maybe, as you suggest, the HCHP would be a good compromise between it and the HP. Too bad it's not possible to see how a full screen of this material performs. The sample pieces are useful, but really don't reveal the complete story.


*I am pondering whether going from 110x62 to 128x72 is enough of an increase to make it worth the hassle (and $). I get the same viewing angle from 11ft with a 128"W screen as from 9.5ft with my present 110"W one. Viewing the present one from 9.5ft has the immersion, etc., that I'm liking, but this puts the seat in an awkward location; viewing back at 11ft would be much more reasonable layout-wise, thus the desire for the larger screen. And if an improved screen material is also possible, that would enhance the argument for replacement.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Warbie* /forum/post/20460277
> 
> 
> I might be misunderstanding something basic, but when I put a Firehawk G3 sample on my old 1.0 gain white screen the blacks on the Firehawk were considerably darker despite it putting out a brighter image.



I could very well be the one missing something! I'm just assuming that if the gain is 2.4, then all light is 2.4x brighter coming off the screen, be it at 10% or 100% IRE. Your observation seems to contradict this, so I would appreciate being 'illuminated' by more knowledgeable persons.


----------



## Lawguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/20460348
> 
> 
> Too bad it's not possible to see how a full screen of this material performs. The sample pieces are useful, but really don't reveal the complete story.



True. Small samples only tell you a little bit.


You may also want to check out the Firehawk. It is higher gain and also would probably improved on screen contrast over the HP. One thing that I realized is that although the HP was very bright, it was probably too bright for my 106" screen and, as I mentioned, resulted in image harming reflections. The .8 BD is much dimmer but I really don't miss the brightness because the picture is much better overall.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lawguy* /forum/post/20460456
> 
> 
> True. Small samples only tell you a little bit.
> 
> 
> You may also want to check out the Firehawk. It is higher gain and also would probably improved on screen contrast over the HP. One thing that I realized is that although the HP was very bright, it was probably too bright for my 106" screen and, as I mentioned, resulted in image harming reflections. The .8 BD is much dimmer but I really don't miss the brightness because the picture is much better overall.



I understand that the FH has to be at the longer end of the throw range, which won't work for me. And the HCHP has about twice its gain, is retro-reflective, both of which are good for my setup.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lawguy* /forum/post/20460456
> 
> 
> True. Small samples only tell you a little bit.
> 
> 
> You may also want to check out the Firehawk. It is higher gain and also would probably improved on screen contrast over the HP. One thing that I realized is that although the HP was very bright, it was probably too bright for my 106" screen and, as I mentioned, resulted in image harming reflections. The .8 BD is much dimmer but I really don't miss the brightness because the picture is much better overall.



It's interesting the effects of different screens, isn't it?


When I had my HP (2.8 gain) screen up and was comparing it to essentially a neutral gain white screen, the trade offs ebbed and flowed with program material. (This was even before my room was well treated for reflections, as it is now).


The added brightness of the HP screen made for a perceptually sharper, more dimensional image particularly on brighter scenes without too much dark area (the more dark the image, the grayer and less dimensional the image on the HP screen appeared). Darker scenes looked more convincing on the lower gain screen, due to the dimmer picture.


Overall the neutral gain screen never quite reached the heights of "wow" of the HP screen on certain scenes. But there was an overall sense of solidity to the image, anchored it seemed by the deeper black levels, that made for a more consistent satisfaction for me. That was true even as I envied what the HP could do with lots of scenes. (That's skipping my issues with viewing angles as well).


So, always a trade off.


But as long as you don't need a really big image, it seems you've got a bright enough image on the BD screen, while benefiting from the deeper black levels and better preservation of contrast, which sounds like quite a good trade off.


----------



## Drexler

Rich,


Well, you have to factor in the projector in the equation as well. If you have a low contrast projector then yes, the HP will appear grey in really dark scenes. However, if you have a projector with very high contrast they will still have deep blacks. I.e. your RS20 will have deeper blacks on a dark scene with the HP than most other projectors would have with a unity gain screen - everything else being equal and no ambient light present. The higher the contrast on the projector the less drawbacks you will get in dark scenes. Ultimately with infinite contrast and you'd get none.


The HP just amplifies the light output, dark and bright scenes alike. It will be like having a brighter projector, which normally is not considered a bad thing, no?


Also, you can always adjust the brightness at the projector by using an iris or a filter to cut the light output. Too bright can always be dealt with, too dim and there's nothing much to do.


----------



## millerwill

Tonight I've been playing again with the samples I have of the new HC and white HP2.4, 4 pieces of each. I have them stuck up on the white (since I took down the black fabric on the screen wall) wall at the 4 corners of where my larger, 128x72, screen would be. There is a HC and white piece in each corner.


I've looked at grayscale test patterns, from 10% to 100% IRE, and moved my head 2 to 3 ft each to side of my primary seat (which is near the screen center). Unfortunately this has shown that the HC material has too narrow a viewing cone for me: the sample pieces on the right and left sides take on VERY different brightness when I move only 2 ft off center, while the white HP pieces on the left and right sides maintain the same brightness. This was not a subtle effect and is quite definitive, at least for my setup.


So if I do get a new, larger screen, it looks like it will be the white HP2.4. (Any body interested in buying a 110x62 HP2.8, DaSnap fixed frame?)


----------



## Hughman

I received my sample of the HCHP today along with a Da-Mat (just for a baseline gain and to compare to my screen. Gotto feel for that Matt guy, not dumb just misunderstood). For a few quick observations I'll first state I was surprised how much darker this material was than the 2.4 or 2.8 when viewing under a typical room lit condition, a good precursor to the benefits of this screen. The screen material is the same as the 2.4, not the smooth 2.8. When taped on my screen with the 2.4 and 2.8 with all the room lights it's quite obvious this screen is very effective at re-directing high levels of ambient light away from the viewing area and maintaining much lower black levels than the other screens


Turning on the projector and comparing the screens at the full on axis gain shows the 2.8 to be the brightest followed by the HCHP, then the 2.4. Assuming the 2.8 is actually a 2.8 gain and the 2.4 is 2.4 I'd guess the HCHP is about 2.55. While seated in the back row the pj is mounted about 30 inches above eye level and from the central on axis seat the HCHP has near the exact gain as the 2.4 screen, moving to either of the two side seats at 10 degrees of central axis and the HCHP's gain is slightly lower than the 2.4 but still brighter than a 1 gain screen (in the photo below I've imposed a small square of the 1 gain screen onto the HCHP for comparison, it's not subtle). Moving more than 12 degrees of axis with the pj 30 inches overhead and the gain drops quickly.


Regarding screen texture, with the 2.8 I became annoyed with it because of a paisley type texture I could see on brighter scenes and this caused me to change my viewing philosophy somewhat but I noted the 2.4 sample I received had less of this optical texture and I thought it was a better screen which provided a smoother looking image at typical viewing distances. The new HCHP has more texture than the 2.4 but the texture is slightly different, it's not like what I've found on any of the 4 2.8's I've had or the 2.4 but has more of a very subtle sparkly sheen which reminded me of the Studiotek ST130 G3's texture (had one). To confirm I pulled out the 130G3 sample I still have and yes, the optical texture of the HCHP has a remarkably similar signature as the Studiotek, which is good news for most.


This screen would be a superb choice for those looking for added gain, are battling off-axis ambient light issues or just like to watch with a light or two on, but have a relatively narrow viewing area of 3 maybe 4 (pushing it) seats wide . It's brighter than the 2.4 on axis (both) and the same brightness at 10 degrees off axis (20 degree viewing cone). With the PJ 30 inches the HCHP offers the same brightness on axis and slightly less at 10 degrees off axis. Outside of this and gain drops like stone.


Basically, all the viewing caveats/conditions you find for the 2.8 and 2.4 also apply to this screen. The flip side though is outstanding ambient light re-direction for black level retention. Though I couldn't capture the effect with a camera (poor black level differentiation) with all the ceiling lights on (two just in front of the screen) in my dark room and viewing the screen at an angle which equalized brightness, the black level of the HCHP appears to be about 1/3 that from the 2.4. while offering the same if not a brighter top end. All in all an impressive package which performs as many have previously speculated a gray HP would. In case you go looking at my HT, the photos in my link have not been updated to my newer HT scheme.


In the following photos the top sample is the 2.8, the bottom sample the 2.4, the smaller bottom left is the Da-mat, and the smaller central is the HCHP.


----------



## millerwill

Hughman: Good and detailed description! Interesting how different ones of us fix on different aspects of these screens and draw different conclusions!


I think the one thing that influences my observations is that I'm sitting very close to a large screen. I.e., I have the samples at the left and right edges of my intended screen, 128"W, and I'm sitting 11ft (132") from it. My RS20 is at its shortest throw, but since I'm so close (I've gotten hooked on the BIG pic!) it is still about 3 ft behind my head. So if I lean over to the left or right--e.g., moving my head only 1.5 ft, say--I get enough of a change in viewing angle that the brightness of the HC HP samples at the left and right become very noticeably different, while the brightness of white HP2.4 samples change not at all (to my eye). So in my configuration, the extreme narrowness of the viewing angle for the HC HP is a serious detriment, enough to rule it out for me. The 4 samples of the white HP2.4--at the 4 corners of my intended 128x72 screen--appear totally uniform, and in fact essentially as bright (as my eye can tell) to my old HP2.8 screen.


So for my configuration, the white HP2.4 is the obvious choice. The wider viewing cone of it compared to that of the old HP2.8 might even make it better than the old one (for me).


----------



## mit_hd

Hughman I thought the HP is free of any visible screen texture from what i have been told here in the forum. I was hoping the new HCHP will be the ideal candidate to replace my venerable Greywolf II, which is notorious for its sparkly sheen but otherwise gives a great image.


Any thoughts from others? Thanks.


----------



## Lawguy

Very interesting!


I think that this will be an excellent screen for many people.


I have yet to receive my sample but based on what others have written, I am optimistic. From Hughman's picture, the HCHP seems grayer than I imagined. Also, both Hughman and millerwill suggest that the 2.4 HP and HCHP are similar in brightness (if Hughman thinks the HCHP is a little bit brighter).


So, a relatively dark gray substrate with a good amount of effective gain must have a really large amount of actual gain. This is so because gray absorbs light. To compensate for the gray substrate's light absorption, the actual gain has to be 2.4 plus whatever amount of light the gray absorbs. So, maybe the actual gain of the screen is 3+ (just a guess).


I wonder how this is accomplished. With an angular reflective screen, an optical coating (or coatings) is applied to the screen. This coating reflects a lot of light but the more it reflects, the narrower the viewing angle becomes and the more visible the coating becomes. But, the HCHP is a retroreflective screen that gets its gain from glass beads. Maybe there are simply more glass beads in the HCHP than in the HCHP. But, maybe it is more than that. The description of the HCHP on Dalite's site says that it has a "highly reflective top surface." This may be another way to describe the glass beads or it may mean that some kind of optical coating has been applied to the screen. So, it could be a hybrid angular reflective/refroreflective screen. Just a theory.


However it works, the large amount of gain restricts the viewing angle more than the HP does. This further restricted viewing angle means that the HCHP will reject more off axis light. No one has yet mentioned any visible texture. That is good and a definite improvement over angular reflective screens (and suggesting that there is no reflective coating applied to the screen).


Both millerwill and Hughman focus on viewing angles. A few points here. If the HCHP is like the stock HP, there may be differences in brightness from seat to seat, but each seat gets uniform brightness over the entire screen. If so, this is a definite improvement over some angular reflective screens in which the image may not be uniform for seats in some locations. Also, even if you can see changes in brightness by doing as millerwill did - leaning left and right in a seat - people generally don't watch things this way (I don't anyway







) So, some difference from seat to seat could be an acceptable compromise IF the light rejection properties of the screen improve image quality overall.


Again, this is all theory because I have not yet seen this screen.


----------



## Hughman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mit_hd* /forum/post/20463313
> 
> 
> Hughman I thought the HP is free of any visible screen texture from what i have been told here in the forum. I was hoping the new HCHP will be the ideal candidate to replace my venerable Greywolf II, which is notorious for its sparkly sheen but otherwise gives a great image.



The sheen or texture from the HCHP is very subtle, but it's difficult to ascertain the overall impact from a small sample. Despite that the sheen is on a magnitude far far less than what you'd see from the Greywolf, and many may not notice it at all.


----------



## Hughman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lawguy* /forum/post/20463507
> 
> 
> Very interesting!
> 
> 
> I think that this will be an excellent screen for many people.



Agree, this is a great screen.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lawguy* /forum/post/20463507
> 
> 
> ...... Also, both Hughman and millerwill suggest that the 2.4 HP and HCHP are similar in brightness (if Hughman thinks the HCHP is a little bit brighter).



Below I've attached a photo taken with flash which will show the screens maximum gain differences. The HCHP is centrally located within the 2.4 and does show to be brighter than the 2.4.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lawguy* /forum/post/20463507
> 
> 
> No one has yet mentioned any visible texture. That is good and a definite improvement over angular reflective screens (and suggesting that there is no reflective coating applied to the screen).



Actually above I noted I feel the texture is ultimately similar to the ST130 G3. However, with only viewing small samples of both that impression may correlate non-linearly as the screens increase in size.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lawguy* /forum/post/20463507
> 
> 
> Both millerwill and Hughman focus on viewing angles. A few points here. If the HCHP is like the stock HP, there may be differences in brightness from seat to seat, but each seat gets uniform brightness over the entire screen. If so, this is a definite improvement over some angular reflective screens in which the image may not be uniform for seats in some locations. Also, even if you can see changes in brightness by doing as millerwill did - leaning left and right in a seat - people generally don't watch things this way (I don't anyway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) So, some difference from seat to seat could be an acceptable compromise IF the light rejection properties of the screen improve image quality overall.



That's a good summary, and it should also be noted that even with the projector 30 or so inches overhead staying within a 20 degree viewing cone (3 chairs 12 feet from screen) the gain will be higher or about the same as any high gain angular reflective screen. I'd guess it to be from 1.5 to 2.4 gain under that scenario.


----------



## Hughman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/20463066
> 
> 
> Hughman: I think the one thing that influences my observations is that I'm sitting very close to a large screen.



No question, sitting at 11 feet from any size screen will put the adjacent side seating greater than 10 degrees off axis and closer to 15 and that's where the gain drops quickly. My photos in my first post and impressions were gathered sitting with my eyes about 15.5 feet from the screen which keeps the viewing cone from three seats within about a 20 degree cone (10 degrees off axis each side.) When I find myself swaying back forth while watching movies it's time to put the bottle down and head to bed.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/20463066
> 
> 
> So for my configuration, the white HP2.4 is the obvious choice. The wider viewing cone of it compared to that of the old HP2.8 might even make it better than the old one (for me).



The 2.4 definitely has the flattest (less peaky) viewing cone of the three.


----------



## Lawguy

Truth is that I am less interested in gain than I am with light rejection and contrast preservation. I am trying to figure out how to test these things with a small sample. My old HP lit up my room even though it was treated in many areas. This often did bad things to the image on screen. I am hoping that the HCHP would mitigate this.


----------



## airscapes

I am very interested in looking at 2.4 and HC 2.4 under a microscope to see if the new produce is just 2.4 with a gray emulsifier or if there are other differences. From the description that millerwill gave it could be just 2.4 with gray emulsifier. From my experience comparing 2.4 and 2.8 screens side by side. 2.4 has a steeper drop off of the gain provided by the glass beads than does 2.8. However with the large amount of white emulsifier it has a better off axis gain. If you were to make that white surface gray, you would see a very sharp drop in gian as soon as you were out of the bead cone and the 2.4 white would stay at a gain of 1. Does that match what you are seeing millerwill?


----------



## Lawguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/20463886
> 
> 
> I am very interested in looking at 2.4 and HC 2.4 under a microscope to see if the new produce is just 2.4 with a gray emulsifier or if there are other differences. From the description that millerwill gave it could be just 2.4 with gray emulsifier. From my experience comparing 2.4 and 2.8 screens side by side. 2.4 has a steeper drop off of the gain provided by the glass beads than does 2.8. However with the large amount of white emulsifier it has a better off axis gain. If you were to make that white surface gray, you would see a very sharp drop in gian as soon as you were out of the bead cone and the 2.4 white would stay at a gain of 1. Does that match what you are seeing millerwill?



If I understand you correctly, I don't think that your explanation is right.


Gray absorbs more light than white. So for a gray screen to have the same effective gain as a white screen, the gray screen must really be higher gain than the white screen.


If the HCHP was just a 2.4 HP with a gray substrate, the gray version would be dimmer than the white version. This is not the case. They are around the same brightness. To me, this suggests that the HCHP probably has more/different glass beads and/or some kind of optical coating that increases the gain in the same way that the coating on an angular reflective screen increases gain.


----------



## Hughman

Here are few photo comparisons up close, this post is of one comparing the surface of the HCHP to the 2.4. plus one photo showing the screens propensity to hotspot but only at an off-axis angle, the light appears to have angular reflection on the back side of the ridges, this photo is about 45 degrees from the light source.


----------



## Hughman

The photos in this post show the varying perceived screen textures up close depending on the viewing angle from the light source. The last photo is at approx on axis to light source and this photo depicts some of the same optical texture I've noted in both the 2.8 and 2.4 versions. As viewing angle decreases the viewable screen textures transitions from the screens physical texture to the gain components optical texture.


photo 1- approx 90 degrees

photo 2- approx 45 degrees

photo 3- approx 0 degrees


----------



## Lawguy

What happens when the viewer is at zero degrees to the screen and the light comes from off axis at varying degrees?


----------



## Hughman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lawguy* /forum/post/20464211
> 
> 
> What happens when the viewer is at zero degrees to the screen and the light comes from off axis at varying degrees?



Good idea, previous photo were with the camera at about 45 degrees to the screen. With the camera on axis or at 0 degrees (or 90 depending on your POV) directly in front of the screen the texture changes somewhat there's far less transition to the direction of the optical texture becoming apparent as the light source approaches 0 degrees.


----------



## Lawguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughman* /forum/post/20464337
> 
> 
> Good idea, previous photo were with the camera at about 45 degrees to the screen. With the camera on axis or at 0 degrees (or 90 depending on your POV) directly in front of the screen the texture changes somewhat there's far less transition to the direction of the optical texture becoming apparent as the light source approaches 0 degrees.



From these pictures, it does not seem that the HCHP is rejecting much off-axis light. Hmmm . . .


----------



## Hughman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lawguy* /forum/post/20464360
> 
> 
> From these pictures, it does not seem that the HCHP is rejecting much off-axis light. Hmmm . . .



I think it's the camera, all that's required to confirm it's off-axis light rejection abilities is the first photo I posted showing all the screens with all room lights on and the photo with the camera flash on depicting the relative gains of the screens on axis. Everything else is pretty much a waste of bandwidth let alone time which I seem too have too much of.


Regarding the gray portion of the screen, it appears to be the emulsion binder for the retroreflective beads as opposed to a grey base fabric. It should be interesting to see the material under microscope and I look forward to airscapes report on this.


One more thing, the screen color when compared to the studiotek leans toward a blue/red (majenta) push while the 2.4 pushes more blue.


----------



## millerwill

This is the most interesting and informative thread I've been involved with on the Forum for several months--thank all you guys! (I guess all we needed was a new product.)


I'm going to do some more viewing experiments tonight, but in the meanwhile did a little trigonometry for the fun of it. As I understand retro-reflectivity, the relevant angle is that between the lines from the pj and from your eye, to a given point on the screen; I'll call this angle alpha. So for my specific situation--128"W screen, pj at min throw (178", at horizontal center of the screen), and viewing distance (admittedly very close) of 11ft (132")--I have calculated the variation of this angle for various horizontal points on the screen and for various horizontal sitting positions.


1. Viewing position at horizontal center of screen: alpha obviously = 0 for a point at the center of the screen, and it is 6 deg for the left (and right) edges of the screen. So the HCHP should be quite uniform and essentially full brightness over the whole screen; nice.


2. Viewing position 24" to left (or right) of horizontal center: alpha varies between 0 deg (pj shining right over your head) to 14 deg. The latter angle I think will yield a significantly dimmer pic that alpha = 0, and this is what I want to check out more systematically tonight.


Now if I didn't sit so close--e.g., if I sat back at the distance where the pj is--things are different:


3. Sitting at the screen center (i.e., eyes right at pj!), alpha = 0 for all points on the screen.


4. And even if the viewing position is 24" to the left (or right) of horizontal center, alpha varies no more than a few deg about 6. So no problem.


So the viewing angle issue I'm concerned about is strictly due to wanting to sit close (~ 1.0 to 1.1 SW) But if I didn't want to do that, I wouldn't be thinking about a new screen!


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lawguy* /forum/post/20463507
> 
> 
> . . . If the HCHP is like the stock HP, there may be differences in brightness from seat to seat, but each seat gets uniform brightness over the entire screen. . . . Also, even if you can see changes in brightness by doing as millerwill did - leaning left and right in a seat - people generally don't watch things this way (I don't anyway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )



From my above post, you can see that my concern is not the variation in brightness that one sees by moving your head around, but the variation in brightness at different points on the screen from a given (fixed) viewing position. I.e., the first statement quoted above is true only if the viewer's eyes are sufficiently close to the pj lens (which can't be achieved if one wishes to sit much closer than where the pj is located).


----------



## Hughman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/20464863
> 
> 
> So the viewing angle issue I'm concerned about is strictly due to wanting to sit close (~ 1.0 to 1.1 SW) But if I didn't want to do that, I wouldn't be thinking about a new screen!



If you wish to maximize uniformity over your current setup looks like you only have two options: Either move the pj closer to sitting position or move the couch back towards the PJ and then get a much bigger screen to maintain same viewing distance/screen size ratio. If the HCHP benefits aren't being realized in your room however, seems more of an exercise of ocd, not saying that in itself isn't a good enough reason.


----------



## Lawguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/20465011
> 
> 
> From my above post, you can see that my concern is not the variation in brightness that one sees by moving your head around, but the variation in brightness at different points on the screen from a given (fixed) viewing position. I.e., the first statement quoted above is true only if the viewer's eyes are sufficiently close to the pj lens (which can't be achieved if one wishes to sit much closer than where the pj is located).



Okay. I see that now. This is unusual for a retroreflective screen.


----------



## Hughman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lawguy* /forum/post/20465124
> 
> 
> Okay. I see that now. This is unusual for a retroreflective screen.



Actually it makes perfect sense for a retro screen. The greater the offset between viewer and PJ the greater the gain differences will be from center of screen to screen edge. Here's a little diagram. Light travelling back to the PJ from the screen will be of the same gain regardless of where on the screen it comes from, the gain for the viewer at the screen center will match the light intensity reflected back to the source, but as the viewer gets closer to the screen relative to the PJ the angle increases between you and the max gain reflection from the screen sides therefore you are subject to the same off-axis dimming you'd encounter if you moved your seat further off axis.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughman* /forum/post/20465091
> 
> 
> If you wish to maximize uniformity over your current setup looks like you only have two options: Either move the pj closer to sitting position or move the couch back towards the PJ and then get a much bigger screen to maintain same viewing distance/screen size ratio. If the HCHP benefits aren't being realized in your room however, seems more of an exercise of ocd, not saying that in itself isn't a good enough reason.



But I can't solve my problem with either strategy above: the min throw distance of the JVC (which is about the minimum of any pj) is 1.4; i.e., the closest the pj can be to the screen is 1.4 (actually ~ 1.37) times the screen width. But if I want to have a viewing angle of ~ 50 deg (which I do), I have to sit at ~1.0 to 1.1 screen widths. 1.1 

I'll do some more viewing experiments tonight and report back.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughman* /forum/post/20465257
> 
> 
> Actually it makes perfect sense for a retro screen. The greater the offset between viewer and PJ the greater the gain differences will be from center of screen to screen edge. Here's a little diagram. Light travelling back to the PJ from the screen will be of the same gain regardless of where on the screen it comes from, the gain for the viewer at the screen center will match the light intensity reflected back to the source, but as the viewer gets closer to the screen relative to the PJ the angle increases between you and the max gain reflection from the screen sides therefore you are subject to the same off-axis dimming you'd encounter if you moved your seat further off axis.



Yep, that's it!


----------



## Hughman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/20465261
> 
> 
> But I can't solve my problem with either strategy above: the min throw distance of the JVC (which is about the minimum of any pj) is 1.4; i.e., the closest the pj can be to the screen is 1.4 (actually ~ 1.37) times the screen width. But if I want to have a viewing angle of ~ 50 deg (which I do), I have to sit at ~1.0 to 1.1 screen widths. 1.1
> 
> I'll do some more viewing experiments tonight and report back.



Ahh I see.


----------



## Hughman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/20465273
> 
> 
> Yep, that's it!



I rewrote that a few times and it still isn't all that clear







.


----------



## Lawguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughman* /forum/post/20465257
> 
> 
> Actually it makes perfect sense for a retro screen. The greater the offset between viewer and PJ the greater the gain differences will be from center of screen to screen edge. Here's a little diagram. Light travelling back to the PJ from the screen will be of the same gain regardless of where on the screen it comes from, the gain for the viewer at the screen center will match the light intensity reflected back to the source, but as the viewer gets closer to the screen relative to the PJ the angle increases between you and the max gain reflection from the screen sides therefore you are subject to the same off-axis dimming you'd encounter if you moved your seat further off axis.



Okay. I didn't think it through as respects millerwill's setup.


----------



## gareth_davies




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Warbie* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be interested in how you get on with the screen, Gareth. Are you familar with the standard high power material, or the Firehawk G3? I'm most interested in how this new material compares with those (I currently have 2.8 HP). If it gives the benefits of a grey screen without any odd sheen and the extra punch from the gain i'll be all over it



I am only familiar with BOC and a matte white flavour, my screen is currently in illinois , on its way to laredo to my customs broker, i estimate it should be here next thursday , i will report my impressions and try to take some photos then (almost meaningless but fun either way). I received my new cabinet/stand from the factory today it stands at 40" high and puts the lens of the Pearl right at 43 and a bit, so if i am right i should be quite close to the optimum .... We shal see, literally, lol!


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughman* /forum/post/20463583
> 
> 
> No question, sitting at 11 feet from any size screen will put the adjacent side seating greater than 10 degrees off axis and closer to 15 and that's where the gain drops quickly. My photos in my first post and impressions were gathered sitting with my eyes about 15.5 feet from the screen which keeps the viewing cone from three seats within about a 20 degree cone (10 degrees off axis each side.) When I find myself swaying back forth while watching movies it's time to put the bottle down and head to bed.



I was between 10 and 11.5 feet from my HP screen. (105" diag). I didn't need to be boozing to see the brightness shifts. I was sitting on a normal, single person chair. My back can get sore if I stay in the exact same position for long periods of time. So I'd go from leaning on side of the chair arm and after a while shift and lean on the other side. I guess this would move my head a couple of feet or so, but I could always see the image brightness shift every time. Drove me a bit nuts. I have a to-the-inch 3D computer model used to design my theater room and I took the measured/stated viewing angles of the 2.8 HP screen and plotted them to my room, measuring degrees of viewing angle from my seats. It turns out it was entirely predictable I would be able to perceive changes in brightness even with such relatively small moves. (I think the brightness change was something like a 20 percent drop when I'd shift my head).


As usual...sensitivity to these things vary....(I can only imagine my reaction to the even narrower cone of the new gray version).


Most people don't see the texture on the HP screen either. I found the HP screen generally very clean looking and only occasionally thought I spotted some texture, whereas I believe you found it more objectionable.


----------



## millerwill

I've listed my 110x62 (126"diag 16x9) HP2.8 for sale in the AVS classifieds in case anyone is interested. Really hate giving it up (have had it 4 yrs), but have decided that I really do want to go larger.


----------



## millerwill

Well, I've done some more viewing of the HCHP and new White HP samples, placed at the 4 corners of where my intended screen (128x72) would be. From my sitting position, there is noticeable variation in brightness of the HCHP at the 4 corners, but not in the White HP. And in contrast to observations of some others, the White HP is slightly brighter than the HCHP; but this would not be a concern, it is the brightness variation that is.


I.e., the narrower viewing cone is an issue for my arrangement (described above). Since I have black fabric on my ceiling and side walls out about 7 ft from the screen wall (and also, of course, on the back wall), I don't really seem to have any issues with reflected light. (I don't with my present 119x62 HP2.8 screen.) I would get a 2.8 White HP in the larger size if it were still possible.


----------



## Warbie

My samples arrived this morning and i'll give some impressions later on. I can't fault Dalite's service here - I requested a sample on wednesday and it arrived on saturday morning in the UK!


If only Dalite products could be bought over here - they'd make a killing.


----------



## Hughman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/20466574
> 
> 
> Well, I've done some more viewing of the HCHP and new White HP samples, placed at the 4 corners of where my intended screen (128x72) would be. From my sitting position, there is noticeable variation in brightness of the HCHP at the 4 corners, but not in the White HP. And in contrast to observations of some others, the White HP is slightly brighter than the HCHP; but this would not be a concern, it is the brightness variation that is.



Your observations of the HP being slightly brighter to the HCHP are not in contrast to what has been reported assuming you made this determination with the screens in the corners, or were they placed centrally for that?


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughman* /forum/post/20468229
> 
> 
> Your observations of the HP being slightly brighter to the HCHP are not in contrast to what has been reported assuming you made this determination with the screens in the corners, or were they placed centrally for that?



You're right--they were at the corners. I haven't tried it in the center since i don't want to tape anything to my present screen.


----------



## RickAVManiac




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Warbie* /forum/post/20467924
> 
> 
> My samples arrived this morning and i'll give some impressions later on. I can't fault Dalite's service here - I requested a sample on wednesday and it arrived on saturday morning in the UK!
> 
> 
> If only Dalite products could be bought over here - they'd make a killing.



Anything new ?


----------



## airscapes

I received my samples today and put them under a machinist microscope to see what was what.

I compared the old 2.8, 2.4 and HC 2.4.

The images were taken with a 4MP camera that does not have manual focus so the are not the best. You can not compare color, they look very much the same under this cheap microscope. However my view is better and I can tell you the HC 2.4 is just 2.4 with a gray emulsifier. As you can see, 2.8 had micro beads of the exact same size closely packed with little sign of the backing emulsifier. The 2.4 and HC are comprised of 3 different sized beads with the largest smaller than than the 2.8. There is also considerable room between beads compared to the 2.8. This is what gives the 2.4 a little bit better off axis gain. The scale of the scope is .02mm so the 2.8 beads are about .05-.06 mm. 2.4 and HC are .02-.04. I have no idea of the accuracy of the scope but you can at least see the difference.

If the wife lets me hang the samples tonight I will let you know my observations.


Here is the link to the photos.
Dalite HP Fabric Microscopic Comparison & House Hunters


----------



## Hughman

I really enjoy your microscopic photos of these screens. The 2.4 and HC definitely look to be the same bead size and density so I'll chalk up the slighter more on-axis gain of my 2.4HC sample to manufacturing variances.


----------



## airscapes

Hung the samples and watched some TV snapping photos.. didn't alter the photos but did play with exposure trying to show the difference. Wife and I would take HP 2.4 if we were not going to do a lot of lights on viewing other wise HC 2.4 is a bit better with darker darks and darker lights as well.. Photos were taken from my normal viewing spot, wife is off axis to my left. We love our 2.8.. I will take weak blacks with pop any day!

Left 2.4 Right HC 2.4
Dalite HP Fabric Microscopic Comparison & House Hunters


----------



## Drexler

airscapes,


Very interesting! Can't figure out why the HP HC has more directionality than the regular 2.4 from these photos though. They seem to have the same bead size and density. If the only difference was the colour of the substrate they would behave similarly but the grey being dimmer. Something else is obviously at play here. Are they perhaps differing in the back coating of the beads? Maybe the HC has a mirror-like coating whereas the regular 2.4 has a matte white one which disperse the light to a larger degree?


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/20478112
> 
> 
> ... We love our 2.8.. I will take weak blacks with pop any day! [/url]



I agree with you about the HP2.8, and don't think they have 'weak blacks'. As has been argued and discussed ad infinitum, it is the pj (not the screen) that determines o/f CR. A screen like the HP2.8 is simply like the same pj (with the same CR) but more lumens; a 1.3 gain screen, then, gives the same o/f CR with this pj, but effectively fewer lumens. Since we all seem to want more lumens (actually ftL), using a high gain screen is a no brainer if it doesn't produce any undesired artifacts for your specific setup, e.g., hotspotting [not an issue for the HP], inability to locate the pj in an optimal position, or too narrow a viewing cone for your seating arrangements.


Thus the HP2.4 is not as desirable as the old HP2.8 unless you need the wider viewing cone. Similarly, the HCHP2.4 is not as desirable unless you have ambient light conditions that might be moderated by the HC's reduction of reflected light.


----------



## Hughman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/20478112
> 
> 
> .... HC 2.4 is a bit better with darker darks and darker lights as well.



The only photo you provided which any comparisons can be made is the full white shot #990 and that shows the HCHP (right) to be slightly brighter than the 2.4. I'm guessing that photo was captured using a flash?


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughman* /forum/post/20478378
> 
> 
> The only photo you provided which any comparisons can be made is the full white shot #990 and that shows the HCHP (right) to be slightly brighter than the 2.4. I'm guessing that photo was captured using a flash?



No flash was used but it may have been over exposed a bit after all I was not pausing, just trying to snap when the screen was still.. I think that white shot was a commercial ending.. truthfully I did not even look at the photos, just dumped them and uploaded them.


----------



## BobL

The HC has a lesser viewing angle because it is a higher gain. They are both an overall 2.4 gain but the HP has a white backing which we will call a 1.0 screen with a 2.4x optical coating. The HC is a gray backing and without the optical coating is less than a 1.0, I'll take a guess and say it is .8 screen, which means its optical coating is a 3.0x gain to give an overall 2.4x gain. They could still do a 2.8 with smaller beads if they wanted to but their are tradeoffs of course.


This is common with many screens look at the Firehawk and the Studiotech 130 and compare their viewing angles. The ST130 is an overall slightly higher gain but has a much wider viewing angle because of its white base vs. the FH's gray base.


Da-lite as well as Stewart and other companies went to smaller beads because when 1080P became available the pixels were smaller than the beads and would cause more distortion. All screens with gain cause some distortion, so it is not criticizing anyone's screen. If you compare a reference screen like the ST100 and any optical coated gain screen up close and examine the pixels you will see the difference as the edges of the pixels won't be a crisp and some color distortion.


----------



## Hughman

Further to Drexlers post I peeled back the coating on both the HCHP and the normal 2.4 to expose the backing. Interesting finding, the 2.4 has a gray backing fabric and the HCHP has a white somewhat pearlescent backing fabric. Both materials appear to fiberglass but can't I find a lighter to test right now. The first photo is a close up of the HCHP backing. I'd hazard a guess the color/reflectance of the backing at least aids in directionality of the top layers plus plays a part in the peak on-axis gain of the screens. The gray base for the 2.4 likely the cause of the drop in gain from the 2.8, the white base of the HCHP the reason it retains it's high gain (very slightly higher than the 2.4) on axis despite the gray emulsion.


----------



## Lawguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Drexler* /forum/post/20478146
> 
> 
> airscapes,
> 
> 
> Very interesting! Can't figure out why the HP HC has more directionality than the regular 2.4 from these photos though. They seem to have the same bead size and density. If the only difference was the colour of the substrate they would behave similarly but the grey being dimmer. Something else is obviously at play here. Are they perhaps differing in the back coating of the beads? Maybe the HC has a mirror-like coating whereas the regular 2.4 has a matte white one which disperse the light to a larger degree?



Perhaps there is some kind of optical coating on the screen?


----------



## Lawguy

I got my sample today. It is a 2'x2' so maybe I can do some interesting things with it. My first impression is that it does not look very gray to me.


----------



## millerwill

A bit of an OT question, but since a lot of HP enthusiasts are here it's a good place to ask:


Do any of you use (or have used) a pulldown HP screen (e.g., the Model C) in a large size (> 110"W, say)? Reason I ask is that if I do replace my present 110"W fixed frame (DaSnap) HP with a larger one (128"W), it would be much easier to install a Model C rather than a fixed frame screen (as well as about half the price). I have black material on the screen wall, so the screen basically disappears, thus esthetics is not a great issue. Main thing would be about winkles, but I know that the retro-reflective HP tends not to show these even if they are there, and also that the relatively stiff HP material tends not to wrinkle. The screen would be pulled down essentially all the time, i.e., no raising and lowering it.


Any experience or thoughts about this would be appreciated.


----------



## Lawguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/20481619
> 
> 
> A bit of an OT question, but since a lot of HP enthusiasts are here it's a good place to ask:
> 
> 
> Do any of you use (or have used) a pulldown HP screen (e.g., the Model C) in a large size (> 110"W, say)? Reason I ask is that if I do replace my present 110"W fixed frame (DaSnap) HP with a larger one (128"W), it would be much easier to install a Model C rather than a fixed frame screen (as well as about half the price). I have black material on the screen wall, so the screen basically disappears, thus esthetics is not a great issue. Main thing would be about winkles, but I know that the retro-reflective HP tends not to show these even if they are there, and also that the relatively stiff HP material tends not to wrinkle. The screen would be pulled down essentially all the time, i.e., no raising and lowering it.
> 
> 
> Any experience or thoughts about this would be appreciated.



I had a pulldown HP. Wrinkles and waves were a bit of an issue with panning. With pans, you could sometimes notice the waves. Other than that, no issue.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lawguy* /forum/post/20481693
> 
> 
> I had a pulldown HP. Wrinkles and waves were a bit of an issue with panning. With pans, you could sometimes notice the waves. Other than that, no issue.



Hmm. You 'had' one, but gave it up? Which model, what size? (Thanks for the feedback!)


----------



## Hughman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/20481619
> 
> 
> A bit of an OT question, but since a lot of HP enthusiasts are here it's a good place to ask:
> 
> 
> Do any of you use (or have used) a pulldown HP screen (e.g., the Model C) in a large size (> 110"W, say)? Reason I ask is that if I do replace my present 110"W fixed frame (DaSnap) HP with a larger one (128"W), it would be much easier to install a Model C rather than a fixed frame screen (as well as about half the price). I have black material on the screen wall, so the screen basically disappears, thus esthetics is not a great issue. Main thing would be about winkles, but I know that the retro-reflective HP tends not to show these even if they are there, and also that the relatively stiff HP material tends not to wrinkle. The screen would be pulled down essentially all the time, i.e., no raising and lowering it.
> 
> 
> Any experience or thoughts about this would be appreciated.



I've had two pull-downs (model c's, one 133"diag and don't recall the other size) which I eventually converted to fixed applications and my experience echoes Lawguys. Waves will develop if they aren't there from the get-go and these waves are visible but not from varying brightness due to the wave gully angles like you'd see on a angular reflective screen but from projected image distortions during pans ie: straight line will bend and distort through the waves which is visible. Whether you find these minimal artifacts bothersome I can't answer. FWIW I no longer use my HP either, it's rolled up in the closet.


----------



## Lawguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/20481713
> 
> 
> Hmm. You 'had' one, but gave it up? Which model, what size? (Thanks for the feedback!)



I didn't give up the HP because of wrinkles. The panning thing didn't bother me. It was a 106" HP - the original 2.8 kind. I forget whether mine was the model B or model C. It was the cheaper one.


To be honest, one of the reasons that I switched was because I preferred the look of a fixed frame screen. This is, of course, subjective.


----------



## Hughman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lawguy* /forum/post/20481580
> 
> 
> I got my sample today. It is a 2'x2' so maybe I can do some interesting things with it. My first impression is that it does not look very gray to me.



Interesting, obviously the perceived grayness will vary depending on a few factor but in general my perception of mine is similar to this photo.


----------



## Lawguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughman* /forum/post/20481883
> 
> 
> Interesting, obviously the perceived grayness will vary depending on a few factor but in general my perception of mine is similar to this photo.



Mine does not look that gray. But, it looks grayer when viewed at an angle. Plus, I am at my office and it is bright here.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughman* /forum/post/20481841
> 
> 
> I've had two pull-downs (model c's, one 133"diag and don't recall the other size) which I eventually converted to fixed applications and my experience echoes Lawguys. Waves will develop if they aren't there from the get-go and these waves are visible but not from varying brightness due to the wave gully angles like you'd see on a angular reflective screen but from projected image distortions during pans ie: straight line will bend and distort through the waves which is visible. Whether you find these minimal artifacts bothersome I can't answer. FWIW I no longer use my HP either, it's rolled up in the closet.



OK, thanks to you and LG. I agree that the fixed frame looks neater, and if they really do do a better job PQ-wose, I suppose I should just deal with the hassle of installation if I go the upgrade route.


----------



## Trogdor2010

Sounds like a Black Diamond screen on steroids.


Still I would love to see what it will look like.


----------



## noah katz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Trogdor2010* /forum/post/20482053
> 
> 
> Sounds like a Black Diamond screen on steroids.



Why do you sat that?


I'd think it's more like the BD is a HCHP on steroids, with a price to match.


----------



## newfmp3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> OK, thanks to you and LG. I agree that the fixed frame looks neater, and if they really do do a better job PQ-wose, I suppose I should just deal with the hassle of installation if I go the upgrade route.



I do not know how people live with pull down screens. I can not tolerate the slightest wrinkle. But if you got kids, fixed is constant worry


----------



## Lawguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *newfmp3* /forum/post/20483050
> 
> 
> I do not know how people live with pull down screens. I can not tolerate the slightest wrinkle. But if you got kids, fixed is constant worry



Tensioned roll down screens are a good option too. You avoid the problems with waves. From what I remember, the HP is not available tensioned, at least it wasn't when I was looking. Also, cost go up pretty dramatically with a tensioned screen.


Ideally, I would have a motorized - ceiling recessed - Black Diamond but it does not exist at the moment.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/20466490
> 
> 
> I've listed my 110x62 (126"diag 16x9) HP2.8 for sale in the AVS classifieds in case anyone is interested. Really hate giving it up (have had it 4 yrs), but have decided that I really do want to go larger.



Well, I had a good offer on my screen right away, but then found out that the shipping cost across the country was almost $400! So I've re-listed it but only for local pick-up; so anyone in the SF Bay Area interested in a HP2.8 can check it out in the AVS Classifieds.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/20485665
> 
> 
> Well, I had a good offer on my screen right away, but then found out that the shipping cost across the country was almost $400!



Check with ups freight .. I can not imagine Dalite pays $400 to ship


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/20485767
> 
> 
> Check with ups freight .. I can not imagine Dalite pays $400 to ship



The quote I had was from the freight company that Dalite uses. I also talked to Dalite about just how to pack it up, and they warned me that the shipping cost might approach $400. But yes, I imagine that they get a better deal because of their volume.


----------



## Drexler

Maybe if the buyer is not in a hurry you could use a normal shipping company? I was quoted $800 to send my projector from Canada to Sweden by UPS. A shipping company will send my projector, 119 inch HP pulldown plus two moving boxes for $500. The crux is it takes 43 days. Well, I can live with that considering the price delta.


Regarding wrinkles and waves. I have the 119' diagonal model C HP without CSR (mounted upside down none the less!) and yes there are some waves but I very rarely notice them when watching - basically never. I keep the screen in place all the time though and don't roll it up an down.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Drexler* /forum/post/20488030
> 
> 
> Maybe if the buyer is not in a hurry you could use a normal shipping company? I was quoted $800 to send my projector from Canada to Sweden by UPS. A shipping company will send my projector, 119 inch HP pulldown plus two moving boxes for $500. The crux is it takes 43 days. Well, I can live with that considering the price delta.
> 
> 
> Regarding wrinkles and waves. I have the 119' diagonal model C HP without CSR (mounted upside down none the less!) and yes there are some waves but I very rarely notice them when watching - basically never. I keep the screen in place all the time though and don't roll it up an down.



As noted, my quote was from a 'normal shipping company' (ABF Freight), the one Dalite used in sending me my original screen.


Yes, I am considering the Model C (without CSR), and would be leaving it down all the time, as you do. I would also get it with ~ 10" of black at the top, so that I could easily adjust how low I would want the visible screen to be. But I still haven't decided on this or a fixed frame model (Cinema Contour).


----------



## Drexler




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/20488094
> 
> 
> As noted, my quote was from a 'normal shipping company' (ABF Freight), the one Dalite used in sending me my original screen.
> 
> 
> Yes, I am considering the Model C (without CSR), and would be leaving it down all the time, as you do. I would also get it with ~ 10" of black at the top, so that I could easily adjust how low I would want the visible screen to be. But I still haven't decided on this or a fixed frame model (Cinema Contour).



Ah, sorry. Missed that. I guess they have a minimum fee which makes sending small stuff uneconomical.


I have 2 ft blackdrop on mine (that I don't use). I took the pull down because it's much cheaper and it would be a temporary installation since I'm moving. If you're thinking long term and can afford it I would suggest the cinema contour. It looks nicer!


I'm planning a fixed installation with masking panels when I have a more permanent living situation. Maybe already in my next flat.


----------



## supercop

a little bit out of topic.. can any one confirm the biggest size 16:9 both HP and HCHP without having seam? I am planning to order 156" 16:9 screen.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *supercop* /forum/post/20493449
> 
> 
> a little bit out of topic.. can any one confirm the biggest size 16:9 both HP and HCHP without having seam? I am planning to order 156" 16:9 screen.



Call or chat with a Dalite Customer Service person ..
http://www.da-lite.com/products/


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *supercop* /forum/post/20493449
> 
> 
> a little bit out of topic.. can any one confirm the biggest size 16:9 both HP and HCHP without having seam? I am planning to order 156" 16:9 screen.



72" is the largest Height one can get with the HP material that is seamless.


----------



## supercop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/20494054
> 
> 
> 72" is the largest Height one can get with the HP material that is seamless.



I just got this answer from dalite..


"The largest cut to size pieces of High Power and High Contrast High Power we can make would be 96"H x 170.75"W, which is 196" diagonal.


Best regards,


Kevin Mikaloff, CTS, LEED AP


Sales Partner"



I am confused now.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *supercop* /forum/post/20494490
> 
> 
> I just got this answer from dalite..
> 
> 
> "The largest cut to size pieces of High Power and High Contrast High Power we can make would be 96"H x 170.75"W, which is 196" diagonal.
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> 
> Kevin Mikaloff, CTS, LEED AP
> 
> 
> Sales Partner"
> 
> 
> 
> I am confused now.



Me too. The website says that HP screens up to 72" H will be seamless. Maybe they can make larger ones, as the info you received, but with seams.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/20495159
> 
> 
> Me too. The website says that HP screens up to 72" H will be seamless. Maybe they can make larger ones, as the info you received, but with seams.



Knowing dDalite, that 72" may have not been updated when they dropped the 2.8 for the 2.4.


----------



## gareth_davies

well, just recieved and installed my screen, first impressions........

WOW, compared to my older 1.0 gain matte white this thing rocks, the blacks are a little greyish.. but something i can definately live with.


Have to move a fair bit of center (at least in my room) to see it dim, but sitting on axis, with my Pearl projecting from behind at 43 inches to the center of the screen (lens height from floor, also center of screen from floor) looks amazing. My Pearl now has new life!!


I can take some screen shots later tonight when i finish work and post them..


regards,

Gareth


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gareth_davies* /forum/post/20495743
> 
> 
> well, just recieved and installed my screen, first impressions........
> 
> WOW, compared to my older 1.0 gain matte white this thing rocks, the blacks are a little greyish.. but something i can definately live with.
> 
> 
> Have to move a fair bit of center (at least in my room) to see it dim, but sitting on axis, with my Pearl projecting from behind at 43 inches to the center of the screen (lens height from floor, also center of screen from floor) looks amazing. My Pearl now has new life!!
> 
> 
> I can take some screen shots later tonight when i finish work and post them..
> 
> 
> regards,
> 
> Gareth



Is yours the HC (gray) or the White HP?


----------



## gareth_davies

Hi I ordered the HCHP, i must say, its not really grey in my opinion though. Sort of off white to me.

As i mentioned the blacks are not as good as with the 1.0 gain cheapy i had but I can live with that, my wife said it looks like a big a)) plasma.. thats good enough for me.. instant WAF!


I may even consider frame mounting it , that would keep any wrinklies away with a bit of luck, should i keep this rolled down? Ive noticed some tiny bits of what i think is the paint or coating on the black borders , ive only rolled it up 3 times whilst positioning it etc, and that kind of made me think of leaving it rolled down permanently or making a frame for it? suggestions??


regards,

Gareth


----------



## sac8d4

Another Dalite option to consider is the new silverlite 2.5 material...I will say this, it has the color and texture of duct tape. In my paticular setup (going off samples at the moment), I much prefer the HP 2.4 over the Silverlite 2.5, mainly to do with the viewing angle.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sac8d4* /forum/post/20498357
> 
> 
> Another Dalite option to consider is the new silverlite 2.5 material...I will say this, it has the color and texture of duct tape. In my paticular setup (going off samples at the moment), I much prefer the HP 2.4 over the Silverlite 2.5, mainly to do with the viewing angle.



I ordered the silver light with the HC and did not leave it on for photos, it was AWFUL! Wife said what is that, get that off of there!.. That should sum it up fairly good..


----------



## supercop

just have a confirmation for Dalite regarding the biggest size with no seam.


"Thank you for your request and inquiry into Da-Lite products. You can

have a viewing area height of 90" in a fixed frame screen to stay within

the limitation of having no seam."


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *supercop* /forum/post/20508329
> 
> 
> just have a confirmation for Dalite regarding the biggest size with no seam.
> 
> 
> "Thank you for your request and inquiry into Da-Lite products. You can
> 
> have a viewing area height of 90" in a fixed frame screen to stay within
> 
> the limitation of having no seam."



Wow, that's quite different from what is all over their website (which states that 72" is the highest a seamless HP screen can be). You would think they would clear this up on the site.


----------



## Drexler

Here's a quick and dirty test on a sample of the HC HP. Room is pretty bright with white walls, ceiling except the one closest to the screen which is covered by a black curtain.


I'm shooting on a 264 cm wide HP 2.4 from 400 cm, 130 cm above the floor. Seating position is at 300 cm, eyes 80 cm above the floor. First pic is under the projector, second about 100 cm to the side, third about 170 cm to the side, fourth way out on the side and the last almost beside the screen.


The other screen sample is the Da-Lite Matte White gain 1.0 for comparison.


As you can see, the HC HP rather surprisingly hold it's brightness pretty well with the normal HP as long as you stay within the screen boundary. Outside it quickly drops to a gain below one. The normal HP doesn't seem to drop much below one no matter how far to the side you go.


More to follow...


----------



## Drexler

Here's a black test pattern with light shining from the side directly on the screen. Again pics taken from under the PJ or 100 or 170 cm to the side. Lastly a pic that shows you the seating arrangements and the positions from where I took the other pictures. First pics from the sofa directly under the PJ, second at the edge of the sofa (which is about 10 cm inside the edge of the screen), third from the armchair on the right (which thus is significantly outside the edge of the screen).


As you can see, the HC HP is clearly superior at rejecting light from the side, which would also mean it would be better at rejecting reflected light from the sides in addition to not spreading as might light in the first place.


These tests actually made me change my position and I'm considering getting the HC HP for my new apartment. (Moving in a couple of weeks). The viewing angle is not as narrow as I thought and it rejects stray/reflected light significantly better than the HP2.4.


----------



## R Harkness

Interesting Drexler. Thanks.


I'm glad it's going to work out for you.


(Although from the photos the viewing angles look incredibly narrow to me).


----------



## Drexler




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/20530723
> 
> 
> Interesting Drexler. Thanks.
> 
> 
> I'm glad it's going to work out for you.
> 
> 
> (Although from the photos the viewing angles look incredibly narrow to me).



Well, as long as I'm sitting in the couch it's very bright, significantly brighter than the 1.0 reference. And the PJ isn't actually located at the centre of the couch (it's closer to the left side and I'm taking the pics from the right) so I figure I can get in a four seater and still get a bright image for all seats.


Sure, every once in a while I would have more than three guests watching a movie, but that's quite rare. I'll have to weigh the pro's with a better black level and contrast ratio against the con of a few times where a few people will get a dimmer seat. I'll wait and see how much treatment I can do to the new room and its size before I'll make up my mind.


Everything is a compromise in life.


----------



## airscapes

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Drexler* 
Well, as long as I'm sitting in the couch it's very bright, significantly brighter than the 1.0 reference. And the PJ isn't actually located at the centre of the couch (it's closer to the left side and I'm taking the pics from the right) so I figure I can get in a four seater and still get a bright image for all seats.


Sure, every once in a while I would have more than three guests watching a movie, but that's quite rare. I'll have to weigh the pro's with a better black level and contrast ratio against the con of a few times where a few people will get a dimmer seat. I'll wait and see how much treatment I can do to the new room and its size before I'll make up my mind.


Everything is a compromise in life.








Truth be told, guest love the image no matter how bad it is, they don't typically have anything like it at their house. All that really matters is your seat is what you want to see, guest are guest, they don't pay for the theater, they just enjoy it! I have guest that sit outside the viewing cone of my HP 2.8 and rave about the image.. some day I will make them sit in the captains chair and watch their eyeballs melt! Don't compromise on your enjoyment, make the compromise on the guest seats!


----------



## pawstar

Hi folks,


I finally got my HCHP sample a few days ago and I did some contrast testing in my non-dedicated room on a bunch of different high contrast materials (and the VS1.5) offered by Da-Lite. All of the contrast loss was from light reflected back onto the screen and samples from a white ceiling and light colored walls. For reference the projector used was a JVC RS40 which is mounted at a height just slightly below the top of my BOC screen.


The samples, from left to right, are High Contrast Cinema Vision, High Contrast High Power, Silver Lite 2.5, Silver Matte, Video Spectra 1.5, High Contrast Da-Matt, High Contrast Matte White. Further description of the test scenario can be inferred from the filename.


----------



## pawstar

... remainder of pics.


----------



## millerwill

Well, I've sold my 110x62 HP2.8 screen and ordered a larger 'hybrid' (2.0) screen, 144x72, HP 2.4 (white, not the gray HC HP2.4). I've been playing for the last several months--and now last several weeks with my old screen down--showing my RS20 on my wall to verify that this is the size I want. From a ~12 ft viewing distance I will have a 128x72 16x9 pic, and then for 2.35 I will zoom out to have a 144" Wx 61"H pic (with black bars above and below). I really love the immersive feeling this 'really big' pic gives.


I have samples of the 2.4 HP material, the regular white and the gray HC version. I decided on the regular white version since by sitting so close the pj lens is not right behind my head, and the wider viewing angle of the white HP is better. With the gray HC version I notice brightness variation (at the 4 corners where I had the samples attached) from my viewing position. It might be that one would never notice this with normal viewing material, but with a 100% IRE test pattern it was pretty obvious, while it was much more uniform with the white HP samples. (And I have black velvet-like material on my ceiling and side walls, out about 8 ft from the screen wall--and dark drapes on the back wall--so that reflections are not a problem in my room.)


I'm getting the Da-Snap frame, which is 1.5" square frame, with the screen material on the back (this is what I had for my old screen and liked it very much). For the 128x72 16x9 viewing, this will have 8" wide 'black bars' on both sides. I doubt this will be objectionable, but if it is it will be simple to get two 72"x8" pieces of styrofoam, 1" thick, wrap them in 'proto-star' flocked velvet material, and slide them in to each side to form a mask to a 128x72 pic. Really looking forward to the arrival of the new screen.


PS I plan for this to be my LAST screen!


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/20570672
> 
> 
> Well, I've sold my 110x62 HP2.8 screen and ordered a larger 'hybrid' (2.0) screen, 144x72, HP 2.4 (white, not the gray HC HP2.4). I've been playing for the last several months--and now last several weeks with my old screen down--showing my RS20 on my wall to verify that this is the size I want. From a ~12 ft viewing distance I will have a 128x72 16x9 pic, and then for 2.35 I will zoom out to have a 144" Wx 61"H pic (with black bars above and below). I really love the immersive feeling this 'really big' pic gives.
> 
> 
> I have samples of the 2.4 HP material, the regular white and the gray HC version. I decided on the regular white version since by sitting so close the pj lens is not right behind my head, and the wider viewing angle of the white HP is better. With the gray HC version I notice brightness variation (at the 4 corners where I had the samples attached) from my viewing position. It might be that one would never notice this with normal viewing material, but with a 100% IRE test pattern it was pretty obvious, while it was much more uniform with the white HP samples. (And I have black velvet-like material on my ceiling and side walls, out about 8 ft from the screen wall--and dark drapes on the back wall--so that reflections are not a problem in my room.)
> 
> 
> I'm getting the Da-Snap frame, which is 1.5" square frame, with the screen material on the back (this is what I had for my old screen and liked it very much). For the 128x72 16x9 viewing, this will have 8" wide 'black bars' on both sides. I doubt this will be objectionable, but if it is it will be simple to get two 72"x8" pieces of styrofoam, 1" thick, wrap them in 'proto-star' flocked velvet material, and slide them in to each side to form a mask to a 128x72 pic. Really looking forward to the arrival of the new screen.
> 
> 
> PS I plan for this to be my LAST screen!



Just wondering what you ended up getting for your old screen and if you did have to ship it, what means did you use?


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/20571260
> 
> 
> Just wondering what you ended up getting for your old screen and if you did have to ship it, what means did you use?



See pm.


----------



## R Harkness

Quote:

Originally Posted by *airscapes* 
Truth be told, guest love the image no matter how bad it is, they don't typically have anything like it at their house. All that really matters is your seat is what you want to see, guest are guest, they don't pay for the theater, they just enjoy it! I have guest that sit outside the viewing cone of my HP 2.8 and rave about the image.. some day I will make them sit in the captains chair and watch their eyeballs melt! Don't compromise on your enjoyment, make the compromise on the guest seats!
I generally agree with this.


Guests are going to be blown away in a decent set up no matter where they sit, including with the HP screens.


However, for me, it just nagged at me that I could optimise my image for a narrow range of seating. If I was in the sweet spot I knew my guests weren't seeing the image I was seeing, and visa versa. One can think about it like "Guests won't notice or care, they'll be impressed in any case." But for me that's also like thinking before I show my system to someone "Well, I could knock down my brightness somewhat, screw up my gamma, get the color off a bit, and probably even soften the image a bit if I wanted to...but the typical guest will still be impressed!"


Yes...but I want them to experience what the system can _really_ do, not merely stick with whatever the average joe might be impressed with.

So it just stuck in my craw that we all couldn't see the same image in many circumstances.


This, of course, is just how things affected me in my set up.


That said, I'm betting the new gray HP screen should look amazing in the sweet spot, with it's brightness and added ambient light rejection ability.


----------



## raymondeast

right now i have a 92" high power screen with 2.8..i want to get a bigger screen 120" because i will be getting a new house and the home theater room will be 16'x35'...should i stick to the high power white or hchp? why did they change the gain from 2.8 to 2.4?


----------



## airscapes

Stay with the HP unless you plan to watch with lots of lights on.

They say they changed to have a more consistent product but I would guess the manufacture stopped making the material. The new stuff looks as if it is cheaper to manufacture and has slightly better off axis gain.


----------



## newfmp3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *raymondeast* /forum/post/20600820
> 
> 
> right now i have a 92" high power screen with 2.8..i want to get a bigger screen 120" because i will be getting a new house and the home theater room will be 16'x35'...should i stick to the high power white or hchp? why did they change the gain from 2.8 to 2.4?



tough call. 2.8 is better, 2.4 isn't horrible by any means but I can see the desire to go bigger as well.


----------



## noah katz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *raymondeast* /forum/post/20600820
> 
> 
> right now i have a 92" high power screen with 2.8..i want to get a bigger screen 120" because i will be getting a new house and the home theater room will be 16'x35'...should i stick to the high power white or hchp? why did they change the gain from 2.8 to 2.4?



I think it depends on the max viewing angles.


Within a certain angle you'd be better off with the HCHP, unless the room is a batcave and always dark for viewing.


----------



## Benito Joaquin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *raymondeast* /forum/post/20600820
> 
> 
> right now i have a 92" high power screen with 2.8..i want to get a bigger screen 120" because i will be getting a new house and the home theater room will be 16'x35'...should i stick to the high power white or hchp? why did they change the gain from 2.8 to 2.4?



Can you confirm that the home theater room will be a dedicated theater?


Benito


----------



## Pete

Stewart showed a new material at Infocom last week. They're calling it Reflections Active 170. Apparently it is optimized for use with active 3D and 2D projectors on larger screen sizes. It's claimed to balance the competing needs of lost light recovery from 3D filtering and glasses, while maintaining uniformity. Peak gain is 1.7 (70% elevated gain over matte white); half gain viewing angle is 40 degrees.


----------



## raymondeast




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Benito Joaquin* /forum/post/20602255
> 
> 
> Can you confirm that the home theater room will be a dedicated theater?
> 
> 
> Benito



yes the room will be just a home theater room


----------



## lemansfanatic

okay it sounds like this HCHP is what I need, but I'm still new at this, my setup:


In our bedroom, just me and wifey lay directly 3 feet under center of projector (Epson 8350) No other movie watchers from any other angles


No light control - we have white walls ceilings etc


Brightness uniformily doesn't matter to me, only redirecting bounceback light for preserving highest contrast because *shadow detail* and *black levels* are the most important thing to me as I will have plenty enough brightness from 9 feet away on 100" manual pulldown screen


Is this what I need? or just regular HC 1.1 gain, or HP white> ahhhh!!!!


----------



## airscapes

call dalite and order sample 3' may be to high to get the advantage. 12-24 is where you need to be.


----------



## lemansfanatic

12"? wow thats close! I use the dynamic Irus, now way I'd want my head to be 12 inches from the PJ


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lemansfanatic* /forum/post/20648294
> 
> 
> 12"? wow thats close! I use the dynamic Irus, now way I'd want my head to be 12 inches from the PJ



That would be for max gain.. but 3' puts you out of the cone. Order some samples and see how it looks.


----------



## jaxrobinson

Oh guys you have written amazing suggestions...Great job..


----------



## jointdoc

Is the Da-lite HP 2.35:1 screen custom order only? I have looked online and only seen it in HDTV format. Thanks.


----------



## noah katz

I think all Dalite orders are custom; when you order a screen from a dealer they place the order w/Dalite who then ships it to you.


----------



## northern2020

Hey guys, looking to get the Hi Power 2.4 white...


but I am in a angular reflective set up at a throw of 21 feet away, DLA HD 950, viewing at 19 feet, with a projector ceiling mounted, and the lens 13.5" from the ceiling (10 feet high less 13.5")


This is primarily for Xbox 360 games, in a fully light controlled room.


Can I get by with this screen?


Thanks for your info.


Other options are studiotek 1.3


----------



## northern2020




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pete* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Stewart showed a new material at Infocom last week. They're calling it Reflections Active 170. Apparently it is optimized for use with active 3D and 2D projectors on larger screen sizes. It's claimed to balance the competing needs of lost light recovery from 3D filtering and glasses, while maintaining uniformity. Peak gain is 1.7 (70% elevated gain over matte white); half gain viewing angle is 40 degrees.



I'm wondering how this will be for 2D viewing?


Anyone have any experience with this?


----------



## AVWERKS

2020

This won,t work with what you suggested. The PJ must be close to your head to benefit from the gain. It,s not a angular but a retro reflective surface meaning the light path is contained along the axis from PJ lens to screen and back to the lens, so your coconut needs to be close to this axis.

No more than an arms throw from that straight line axis.


Regards

David


----------



## millerwill

OK, FINALLY I have my new HP2.4 (white) screen. To recall, I sold my 4 yr old 2.8 HP (110x62) because I wanted a larger screen. It sold quite fast (and the new owner is very pleased with it--had to be shipped from CA to GA, but made it fine). I had planned for several weeks to look at the pic on the wall, to be sure of exactly the size I wanted, and how the pj (RS20) would work with it, etc. Unfortunately when the new screen arrived it did not have the ProTrim material on the frame, as I ordered it (and my dealer correctly ordered), so had to wait for another one to be made and shipped (all at Dalite's expense--they are a standup company!). It arrived yesterday, and I put the frame together last night, and today my daughter and son-in-law helped me snap on the screen material and get it mounted on the wall.


I settled on a 'hybrid' size, 144x72 (2.0 W/H ratio), to have a 16x9 pic that is 128x72 (with black bars on the sides) and zooming for a 2.35 pic that is 144x62 (with blacks bars above/below). This all works great; I'm very pleased with the result, though I would certainly enjoy a pj with lens shift/zoom memory. (I sit ~ 12 ft back, so 1.0 screen widths for 2.35, and 1.1 for 16x9; i.e., pretty close, but that's what I decided I wanted--and I LIKE it.)


My RS20 has over 1800 hrs on it and is down to ~ 300 lumens, so I was assuming that I would need to get a new lamp, but to my surprise the pic looks very good, even though this amounts to only ~ 11 ftL. I do, though, have ProtoStar 'flocked' black material on side walls and ceiling, and no external light, so that helps a great deal, as well of course, with the eyes' amazing way of adjusting. Still, I'm sure I will like a brighter pic better. (Am planning to do a pj upgrade this fall, so not sure whether or not I'll get a new lamp or not.)


The HP2.4 shows a beautiful pic, so smooth, with absolutely no hint on hotspotting or any artifacts. Probably better in this regard even than the HP2.8, though I never had any problems with it. Viewing width is no issue for me, since this large screen goes almost wall to wall. Brightness uniformity is excellent over the hold screen.


----------



## millerwill

PS One important note: I had Dalite samples of both the White and the HC versions of the new HP2.4 screen material. The HC material showed considerable brightness drop off at the edges of the screen--presumably because of its narrower viewing angle--while the White material was completely uniform. This resulted primarily because of the large screen I decided on (see above post). Because of its large size, the pj has to be ~4.5 ft behind my head and ~2 ft above it, not as ideal as with my smaller screen. Also, because of the excellent light control in my room--and the excellent CR of the JVC pj--the HC characteristics of that screen were not important.


So I urge everyone to carefully consider all these features--their room, their pj, screen size, etc.--on deciding which screen works best for them.


----------



## northern2020




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AVWERKS* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 2020
> 
> This won,t work with what you suggested. The PJ must be close to your head to benefit from the gain. It,s not a angular but a retro reflective surface meaning the light path is contained along the axis from PJ lens to screen and back to the lens, so your coconut needs to be close to this axis.
> 
> No more than an arms throw from that straight line axis.
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> David



Using FLyboys screen gain calculator the gain would be ~1.6 with a ceiling mounted setup.


With my setup the projector central calculator recommends a screen gain of 1.5


Would it be unwise to use the 2.4? Or should I settle for a higher gain angular reflective screen?


Thanks for the input


----------



## AVWERKS

If you want to maximize the best qualities of the HP series then you must use it the way it's maker intended it to be used. There,s no bending of the rules when it comes to light and how micro beads of glass function. My experience with the high gain angular types is their not nearly as satisfying long term as the best setup conditions with the HP group.


Regards

David


----------



## tyee

I just figured out how to use the HP screen with my Mits HC4000 and have the projector mounted right above my head even though the projector has a large offset.........

....... well, modify my theater room (medium bedroom situated above the kitchen) by dropping the floor at the screen end to a lower level than were I am sitting just like in the movie theaters! Like this --



.............................../-----sit here

............................../

screen bottom here /



except the floor slope would have to be more gradual than shown above!

I really don't think the wifey would mind, do you?


----------



## northern2020

Alright caved in...


Hi Power 2.4 cinema contour fixed 140" diagonal 16x9 ordered..,,


Thank you Benito J / AV store for outstanding customer service!


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *northern2020* /forum/post/20757305
> 
> 
> Alright caved in...
> 
> 
> Hi Power 2.4 cinema contour fixed 140" diagonal 16x9 ordered..,,
> 
> 
> Thank you Benito J / AV store for outstanding customer service!



I predict you will be very pleased! This new HP2.4 material gives such a smooth artifact-free pic; I do believe it is even better than the older (2.8) material that I had (and enjoyed) for 4 yrs.


----------



## northern2020

Yes!


It will be an improvement over the painted taupe wall that I currently use!


----------



## rsmash

So where does one get the new HPHC screens? Is the pricing expected to be similar to the HP?


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsmash* /forum/post/20757855
> 
> 
> So where does one get the new HPHC screens? Is the pricing expected to be similar to the HP?



Call AVS and ask for quote. I would guess the price will be the same as an HP of the same size and model, after all it is just a gray version of the current HP fabric.


----------



## ctviggen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AVWERKS* /forum/post/20734248
> 
> 
> If you want to maximize the best qualities of the HP series then you must use it the way it's maker intended it to be used. There,s no bending of the rules when it comes to light and how micro beads of glass function. My experience with the high gain angular types is their not nearly as satisfying long term as the best setup conditions with the HP group.
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> David



If you have a room setup or can temporarily setup a projector in the appropriate spot, I'd try everything out first. I have my projector about 20 inches from the ceiling and my head is 3 feet below the projector. I'm using the original HP screen, and have a fantastic picture. Not only that, but if I stand with my head near the projector then move my head from there to where I normally sit, I can't tell much if any difference. I have a semi-light controlled room (screen comes down in front of sliding glass doors with blackout shades and windows opposite screen have blackout shades on them, but both sets of shades still let some light through on the sides).


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ctviggen* /forum/post/20758524
> 
> 
> If you have a room setup or can temporarily setup a projector in the appropriate spot, I'd try everything out first. I have my projector about 20 inches from the ceiling and my head is 3 feet below the projector. I'm using the original HP screen, and have a fantastic picture. Not only that, but if I stand with my head near the projector then move my head from there to where I normally sit, I can't tell much if any difference. I have a semi-light controlled room (screen comes down in front of sliding glass doors with blackout shades and windows opposite screen have blackout shades on them, but both sets of shades still let some light through on the sides).



I would have to wonder if your screen material is really HP...The difference is very obvious to me and everyone who has been told to watch the screen as you stand up.. it gets darker (table mounted projector) screen is 2.8.

But, it is good you are happy with the image regardless!


----------



## millerwill

As many have said, by all means email Dalite and ask them to send you samples of the HC and the White HP2.4 material. I was thinking about the HC version, but for my setup it showed significant drop off in brightness near the L and R sides, presumably due to its narrower viewing angle. So it would be wise to check this out for your intended screen size, etc.


----------



## mjg100




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lemansfanatic* /forum/post/20647277
> 
> 
> okay it sounds like this HCHP is what I need, but I'm still new at this, my setup:
> 
> 
> In our bedroom, just me and wifey lay directly 3 feet under center of projector (Epson 8350) No other movie watchers from any other angles
> 
> 
> No light control - we have white walls ceilings etc
> 
> 
> Brightness uniformily doesn't matter to me, only redirecting bounceback light for preserving highest contrast because *shadow detail* and *black levels* are the most important thing to me as I will have plenty enough brightness from 9 feet away on 100" manual pulldown screen
> 
> 
> Is this what I need? or just regular HC 1.1 gain, or HP white> ahhhh!!!!



With a 100" screen, get the 1.1 HC screen. You do not need the gain of the HP screen at that size using an 8350.


----------



## mjg100




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *raymondeast* /forum/post/20600820
> 
> 
> right now i have a 92" high power screen with 2.8..i want to get a bigger screen 120" because i will be getting a new house and the home theater room will be 16'x35'...should i stick to the high power white or hchp? why did they change the gain from 2.8 to 2.4?



I thought that I read that the 2.8 gain was still available.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mjg100* /forum/post/20760038
> 
> 
> I thought that I read that the 2.8 gain was still available.



No longer.


----------



## mjg100




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/20760138
> 
> 
> No longer.



I had read that you could special order it. Is that not correct?


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mjg100* /forum/post/20760415
> 
> 
> I had read that you could special order it. Is that not correct?



Nope, only available used if you can find one..


----------



## pottscb

So, in reading Millerwill's multiple posts it seems like the further you site back from the HCHP, the less light drop off from the corners (no doubt due to the smaller angle involved with moving away, perpendicular, from the screen). My question is, what light percentage drop off is usually perceptible by most people. I know this is a general question, as there are people on AVS that claim to see a gnats ear at 100 feet. But I've read professional reviews that A-B'd pj's that had >20% light difference in side by side viewing and they state that it is hardly perceptible. My main question is, when using FLyboy's gain calculator, is .1-.2 gain dropoff acceptable when using from on access to the furthest viewing position (extreme edge of an 8 ft. long couch). I'm about 14 ft. away from my screen position, I was thinking a 106" but I want to know how if I should go smaller in order to decrease the unevenness in the corners of the screen. (and also whether to go with HCHP or re. HP fabric).


Thanks for any insight.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pottscb* /forum/post/20930090
> 
> 
> So, in reading Millerwill's multiple posts it seems like the further you site back from the HCHP, the less light drop off from the corners (no doubt due to the smaller angle involved with moving away, perpendicular, from the screen). My question is, what light percentage drop off is usually perceptible by most people. I know this is a general question, as there are people on AVS that claim to see a gnats ear at 100 feet. But I've read professional reviews that A-B'd pj's that had >20% light difference in side by side viewing and they state that it is hardly perceptible. My main question is, when using FLyboy's gain calculator, is .1-.2 gain dropoff acceptable when using from on access to the furthest viewing position (extreme edge of an 8 ft. long couch). I'm about 14 ft. away from my screen position, I was thinking a 106" but I want to know how if I should go smaller in order to decrease the unevenness in the corners of the screen. (and also whether to go with HCHP or re. HP fabric).
> 
> 
> Thanks for any insight.



Call dalite and order samples.. Let you eyes tell you which is better for your environment


----------



## millerwill

Quote:

Originally Posted by *pottscb* 
So, in reading Millerwill's multiple posts it seems like the further you site back from the HCHP, the less light drop off from the corners (no doubt due to the smaller angle involved with moving away, perpendicular, from the screen). My question is, what light percentage drop off is usually perceptible by most people. I know this is a general question, as there are people on AVS that claim to see a gnats ear at 100 feet. But I've read professional reviews that A-B'd pj's that had >20% light difference in side by side viewing and they state that it is hardly perceptible. My main question is, when using FLyboy's gain calculator, is .1-.2 gain dropoff acceptable when using from on access to the furthest viewing position (extreme edge of an 8 ft. long couch). I'm about 14 ft. away from my screen position, I was thinking a 106" but I want to know how if I should go smaller in order to decrease the unevenness in the corners of the screen. (and also whether to go with HCHP or re. HP fabric).


Thanks for any insight.
I'm not nearly as knowledgeable and experienced as most people in this game, so I think when I see something it has to be pretty blatant!


I think the reason that I saw this problem (brightness variation, esp darkening at the extremities of the screen) with the HC HP material is because I was going to a considerably larger screen, 144"W compared to my original 110"W (HP2.8 material) screen, and still sitting very close, ~ 12.5 ft, i.e., just over 1 SW. So I had to put my pj (RS20) further back behind my our 2 recliners: for the older, smaller screen the pj was only a ft or so behind our heads, but with the new larger one it was ~ 4 to 5 ft behind our heads (but still as low as possible for the pic to clear our heads). So the relevant angles for the retro-reflective character of the screen varied considerably more for various points on the screen than when it was much closer to our eyes (by being just behind our heads). So the much narrower viewing angle of the HC HP material reared its head.


BTW, I am incredibly pleased and impressed with the new HP 2.4 (non-HC version). The pic is so wonderfully smooth and precise, even more so than the older 2.8 HP, which was already outstanding in the regard.


While at CEDIA the last few days, just for the fun of it I walked by the Dalite booth to tell them how much I liked my new screen, and they said the the new HP2.4 material had borrowed aspects of their JPK Affinity screen, the super smooth material that Joe Kane helped developed esp for high res HD projectors.


The morale is that it really pays to get samples from Dalite to check all this out for your own specific situation!


----------



## pottscb

Hey guys,

I'm planning to convert a living room into a HT room. I've got decent lighting control (screen will drop down over only window in the room) carpet is light brown, walls are brown but ceiling is white. I'll be sitting about 14' from a 110" diagonal and will probably be purchasing one of this fall's crop of pjs (RS45, Epson 5010, Pany 7K or similar) and mounting it in a closet 1 ft. above and behind my couch. While I think the HCHP would help with the white ceiling's light scatter, I'm a little worried about the dark corners cause by the gain rolloff. It seems that Millerwill proved that a smaller ratio of screen size to seating distance minimizes this...does anyone have a setup where this is not noticeable (and what size is screen and seating distance?).


Thanks,

Cory


----------



## pottscb

The problem with samples, especially with a screen that you're worried about droppoff of brightness in the corners, is that screen samples don't really cut it. Even if you ordered samples for the center and corner, it wouldn't really tell you how gradual the droppoff was.


----------



## airscapes

I don't think many folks here bought this screen, the samples are very non impressive compared to the standard HP. I do not recall seeing a member post a review of this product after buying it. It has only been on the market since this threads inception.


----------



## supercop

If you guys can wait.. I can give you the impression of HCHP.


My screen will be 158" 16:9 screen.


My projector will be Infocus 8604 1700 lumen.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pottscb* /forum/post/21028274
> 
> 
> The problem with samples, especially with a screen that you're worried about droppoff of brightness in the corners, is that screen samples don't really cut it. Even if you ordered samples for the center and corner, it wouldn't really tell you how gradual the droppoff was.



Samples are certainly not perfect, but can still be very helpful. E.g., it was clear to me that the HC version of the 2.4HP material was significantly darker at the extreme edges of the screen, compared to the center region, while the regular HP2.4 material was much more uniform.


This is probably because I have a very large screen (144" W) and sit quite close, so this issue with the HC version may not be a problem for many situations. But I would advise trying things as best you can with the samples.


----------



## Pete

I had an opportunity to compare HPHC with Black Diamond side by side. The most noticeable difference: HPHC did not display any color shift and the Black Diamond did. I didn't think I would care for HPHC, but I have to say, it's mighty impressive and deserves to be on the short list of possible materials for ambient lit living rooms and family rooms and/or light-challenged projectors. The fact that it has a structured backing and is not a vinyl-based screen makes it possible to forgo the added expense and poor aesthetics of tab tensioning in retractable deployments.


----------



## cpage

How do I find the product number for these screens? I'm looking for a 92" Model C with the HPHC material.


----------



## Pete

I'm not sure what you mean by model C. I think it depends on the frame or the case type + the material and size. You can go on their website and tell them what you have in mind and they can give you the part number.


----------



## AV Science sales 1

Model C = Manual pull down.

I'd recommend you call Da Lite directly for the part number. If you have trouble reaching them, we are a Da Lite dealer and can also help.


Benito


----------



## elmalloc

it would be great if we all could have every major screen type set up in our room and easily return any ones which we didn't want.


----------



## airscapes

On the dalite website, you click product, manual wall screen, model C, and on the right you will see a list of pdf, including one call "part numbers and pricing". Prices are list and normally a bit more than you pay if you order though AVS. AH.. they have not updated the file .. give them another 9 months or so.. they don't really jump right on documentation...


----------



## darinp2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/21053138
> 
> 
> On the dalite website, you click product, manual wall screen, model C, and on the right you will see a list of pdf, including one call "part numbers and pricing". Prices are list and normally a bit more than you pay if you order though AVS. AH.. they have not updated the file .. give them another 9 months or so.. they don't really jump right on documentation...



I noticed that too. From what I have heard you can use the part number for the High Power version, but add a C to the end for Custom, then have the customization be to get the high contrast high power. For instance, order 11111C instead of 11111. Other things like a black case or extra drop may cause a C also.


--Darin


----------



## Aaronsmity

Glad I found this thread I have been looking at the 2.4 Hi Power 133" Cinema Contour. Any word on waves ever appearing on this screen? Is it tensioned or whatever? I want something that will be good for 3D with my new panny so I want something with some decent gain but have heard that since the lumen output on the panny 7000 is pretty strong in a light controlled room that the video is borderline too bright when just doing regular 2d even in eco mode on a high gain screen.. Thoughts?


my setup is panny 7000 throwing @ 18'

completely light controlled room

dark red/crimson carpet and walls


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aaronsmity* /forum/post/21073203
> 
> 
> Glad I found this thread I have been looking at the 2.4 Hi Power 133" Cinema Contour. Any word on waves ever appearing on this screen? Is it tensioned or whatever? I want something that will be good for 3D with my new panny so I want something with some decent gain but have heard that since the lumen output on the panny 7000 is pretty strong in a light controlled room that the video is borderline too bright when just doing regular 2d even in eco mode on a high gain screen.. Thoughts?
> 
> 
> my setup is panny 7000 throwing @ 18'
> 
> completely light controlled room
> 
> dark red/crimson carpet and walls



There is no question of waves on the Cinema Contour, or other fixed frame screens.


----------



## AV Science sales 1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aaronsmity* /forum/post/21073203
> 
> 
> Glad I found this thread I have been looking at the 2.4 Hi Power 133" Cinema Contour. Any word on waves ever appearing on this screen? Is it tensioned or whatever? I want something that will be good for 3D with my new panny so I want something with some decent gain but have heard that since the lumen output on the panny 7000 is pretty strong in a light controlled room that the video is borderline too bright when just doing regular 2d even in eco mode on a high gain screen.. Thoughts?
> 
> 
> my setup is panny 7000 throwing @ 18'
> 
> completely light controlled room
> 
> dark red/crimson carpet and walls



never came across waves with this material.

Are you looking to do fixed, motorized or pull down?


Benito


----------



## Aaronsmity

I am looking for fixed since it saves me on space.. so I guess waves are usually only with pulldown or motorized screens? thats good to know


----------



## AV Science sales 1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aaronsmity* /forum/post/21075494
> 
> 
> I am looking for fixed since it saves me on space.. so I guess waves are usually only with pulldown or motorized screens? thats good to know



Your chances of getting waves on a fixed screen are slim to none! You might come across other problems but they are problems you would catch right away and get it taken care of under warranty.


Benito


----------



## Ericglo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *darinp2* /forum/post/21072418
> 
> 
> I noticed that too. From what I have heard you can use the part number for the High Power version, but add a C to the end for Custom, then have the customization be to get the high contrast high power. For instance, order 11111C instead of 11111. Other things like a black case or extra drop may cause a C also.
> 
> 
> --Darin





Have you tested your sample?


----------



## Pete

High Power High Contrast has a structured backing (fiberglass), so it maintains its shape -- does not require tab tensioning as would a more stretchy vinyl material.


----------



## greg1292

I just purchased a HCHP 120" pulldown and should have it next week. I will

compare it to my HP 2.4 in a light controlled room. The projector is an JVC

RS-2 which I know run on low lamp mode and projector is centered to the

screen. All my seating is straight on with none outside the screen width.


Would be nice if this screen gives me better blacks and

a better picture with the lights on. Big HP screen fan so will be

fun to compare. The loser will be my outdoor screen


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greg1292* /forum/post/21184737
> 
> 
> I just purchased a HCHP 120" pulldown and should have it next week. I will
> 
> compare it to my HP 2.4 in a light controlled room. The projector is an JVC
> 
> RS-2 which I know run on low lamp mode and projector is centered to the
> 
> screen. All my seating is straight on with none outside the screen width.
> 
> 
> Would be nice if this screen gives me better blacks and
> 
> a better picture with the lights on. Big HP screen fan so will be
> 
> fun to compare. The loser will be my outdoor screen



Looking forward to your review. The sample did not impress..


----------



## greg1292

Sample looked good enough to give it a try. Even though seems to small to make an honest evaluation. Will let you know how it turns out.


----------



## threed123

Anyone using the 159" 16:9 High Power--what projector and what is your experience--especially if you have it ceiling mounted?


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *threed123* /forum/post/21212188
> 
> 
> Anyone using the 159" 16:9 High Power--what projector and what is your experience--especially if you have it ceiling mounted?



I have a ~147" diag 16x9 (128x72) HP2.4 with a RS20. It is mounted on a stand, though, and only a ft or so above eye level. Great combo, plenty bright.


----------



## greg1292

Just picked up HCHP 120" should have it installed tonight! Should be fun to

compare.


----------



## raymondeast

well now im not sure what to get

my set up is the projector will be ceiling mounted the ceiling is 8' high the projector is a sanyo z2000 the first row of seats will be 15' back and second 18'..the screen i want is 133" high power white...will this work for the high power? or should i stick to a screen with 1.0 gain? thanks...


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *raymondeast* /forum/post/21215403
> 
> 
> well now im not sure what to get
> 
> my set up is the projector will be ceiling mounted the ceiling is 8' high the projector is a sanyo z2000 the first row of seats will be 15' back and second 18'..the screen i want is 133" high power white...will this work for the high power? or should i stick to a screen with 1.0 gain? thanks...



Unless you put the projector in the optimum location 6-14" over your head, you won't get any benefit from the high power.. it will be like any other utility gain screen.


----------



## greg1292




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/21215847
> 
> 
> Unless you put the projector in the optimum location 6-14" over your head, you won't get any benefit from the high power.. it will be like any other utility gain screen.



How is this for my set up?


----------



## greg1292

In a light controlled bat cave the HCHP has a superior picture to the HP screen.

I know that some of you may think I want to justify my purchase but really there is no contest. The RS2 with the HCHP looks 3D end of story. I also noticed that the green are not neon any more. There is a calmness to the picture that look real and naturally but not forced like the HP 2.4 I just took down. Black levels are superior and my blacked out room no longer lights up like a christmas tree.


The screen still is crap with ambient light but that is not a problem with my room. I was right that samples cannot give you the whole truth about a screen and am happy that I took the plunge. If you view the screen or are seating outside the screen there is a cone effect but very accurate with no color shift.


I noticed no artifacts induced by the screen or hot spotting.


Watching Transformers 3 or Lord Of the Rings is like seeing it for the first time










I will use the HP 2.4 for my outdoor home theater screen as it is no longer

worthy for my Man Cave.


Da-lite hit a home run and can't believe there has not been more hype about this screen.


Coming from crt this is the best setup I have ever had.


You can take my words with a grain of salt but no regrets here!


----------



## millerwill

Glad to hear that the HCHP works for you, Greg; sounds very nice! I only had the samples of HCHP and the regular HP2.4, and I backed off the HCHP because in my setup the narrower viewing cone lead to noticeable lack of brightness uniformity over the whole screen from my MLP. The regular HP, though, was completely uniform, and i've been extremely happy with it. (It may be that my screen is quite large, 144" W, so may have made a greater demand on the viewing cone.)


So I would just encourage people to get samples and check all this out for their specific situation.


----------



## cpage




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greg1292* /forum/post/21217851
> 
> 
> In a light controlled bat cave the HCHP has a superior picture to the HP screen.
> 
> I know that some of you may think I want to justify my purchase but really there is no contest. The RS2 with the HCHP looks 3D end of story. I also noticed that the green are not neon any more. There is a calmness to the picture that look real and naturally but not forced like the HP 2.4 I just took down. Black levels are superior and my blacked out room no longer lights up like a christmas tree.
> 
> 
> The screen still is crap with ambient light but that is not a problem with my room. I was right that samples cannot give you the whole truth about a screen and am happy that I took the plunge. If you view the screen or are seating outside the screen there is a cone effect but very accurate with no color shift.
> 
> 
> I noticed no artifacts induced by the screen or hot spotting.
> 
> 
> Watching Transformers 3 or Lord Of the Rings is like seeing it for the first time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will use the HP 2.4 for my outdoor home theater screen as it is no longer
> 
> worthy for my Man Cave.
> 
> 
> Da-lite hit a home run and can't believe there has not been more hype about this screen.
> 
> 
> Coming from crt this is the best setup I have ever had.
> 
> 
> You can take my words with a grain of salt but no regrets here!



I am considering moving to this screen from a HP 2.8 with my Pro8100.. unfortunately I do not have a batcave, but instead am in an apartment with white walls. Not sure whether or not this screen or a new projector are in order, but I am desperate to get better black levels.


Can you speak a little more on the difference in black levels between the HPHC and HP? And the difference between the two with regards to ambient light?


Thanks.


----------



## noah katz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/21215847
> 
> 
> Unless you put the projector in the optimum location 6-14" over your head, you won't get any benefit from the high power.. it will be like any other utility gain screen.



So *not* true.


Even if it's only giving unity gain, it still has the benefits of not hotspotting, rejection of ambient light, and freedom from waves showing.


----------



## greg1292




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cpage* /forum/post/21218131
> 
> 
> I am considering moving to this screen from a HP 2.8 with my Pro8100.. unfortunately I do not have a batcave, but instead am in an apartment with white walls. Not sure whether or not this screen or a new projector are in order, but I am desperate to get better black levels.
> 
> 
> Can you speak a little more on the difference in black levels between the HPHC and HP? And the difference between the two with regards to ambient light?
> 
> 
> Thanks.



The HCHP screen has deeper blacks and more depth and shadow detail back into the screen with less noise in the image. Blacks with lots of ambient light are about the same with either screen but with the lights off

HCHP does shine. Sure would like to see Tyrg do a review of the HCHP.


----------



## greg1292




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/21217949
> 
> 
> Glad to hear that the HCHP works for you, Greg; sounds very nice! I only had the samples of HCHP and the regular HP2.4, and I backed off the HCHP because in my setup the narrower viewing cone lead to noticeable lack of brightness uniformity over the whole screen from my MLP. The regular HP, though, was completely uniform, and i've been extremely happy with it. (It may be that my screen is quite large, 144" W, so may have made a greater demand on the viewing cone.)
> 
> 
> So I would just encourage people to get samples and check all this out for their specific situation.



I agree coming from HP wider viewing cone but if you sit 12ft back from a 10ft screen and sit inside (edge to edge) go with the HCHP and be amazed.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greg1292* /forum/post/21218980
> 
> 
> I agree coming from HP wider viewing cone but if you sit 12ft back from a 10ft screen and sit inside (edge to edge) go with the HCHP and be amazed.



I would agree with your situation.


My 'problem' is that I sit ~ 11ft from a 12ft W screen, and with this size screen the pj has to be about 17ft from the screen. So the angle from lens, to various pts on the screen, to eye varies enough that the narrower viewing cone of the HCHP led to noticeable brightness variation.


My only suggestion was that each person would be wise to check out all this for their own situation.


----------



## slickrock




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greg1292* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The HCHP screen has deeper blacks and more depth and shadow detail back into the screen with less noise in the image. Blacks with lots of ambient light are about the same with either screen but with the lights off
> 
> HCHP does shine. Sure would like to see Tyrg do a review of the HCHP.



So the Chasm has been finally Crossed with the HCHP. Took forever.


----------



## Drexler

I have just ordered one and will write up a comparison to a normal 2.4 HP in a white livingroom when it arrives. That should be in two weeks or so.


----------



## greg1292




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slickrock* /forum/post/21222236
> 
> 
> So the Chasm has been finally Crossed with the HCHP. Took forever.



As far as PQ the HCHP has but the HP still offers alot

wider viewing cone. Both are great screens and if I had not

had both to compare I still would have been happy with

the HP. Da-lite does a great job with both of these screens.


----------



## G-Rex

Currently have a 113" wide scope 2.8 HP and really like it. My projector is an RS20 in a dedicated light controlled theater. Greg's posts really has me thinking of an upgrade to a HCHP.


Would like to go to a 120" wide scope screen (max I can fit). My screen width would be 120" in a 2:35:1 format. Four seats with outer chair view area measuring 115" apart. Screen to my eyes is 15'. The projector is table mounted and the lense is about 30" from the back of my head. From the discussion above it would seem that my outer chairs would be just within the acceptable light cone. Just outside the outer chairs the light would drop off drastically, correct? The Microlite screen seemed interesting, but who knows when it will be released.


I am considering the Sony 1000 projector for this screen. The Sony is speced at 2000 ansi lumens but may put out about 1500 al when calibrated. With this kind of brightness do you guys think it would work well with the HCHP? Or would it be best to go with a white 1.3 gain screen ie. ST 130? These types of screens are angular reflective which is not ideal for a table mounted projector.


----------



## airscapes

I would order the samples and take a look on your 2.8 HP.. the HCHP was very unimpressive compared to the 2.8 at my house .. lights on or off. The comparison greg1292 made was against the 2.4 which is not very impressive compared to the 2.8.. yes the gain is less so black is blacker..


----------



## G-Rex

I have ordered 2.4 HCHP and 2.4 HP samples. What I found interesting was Greg's observation that the HC did not light up his theater with reflected light near as bad as the normal HP, and with a very bright projector it will only make matters worse.


----------



## G-Rex

Airscapes, what projector are you using?


----------



## greg1292

G-REX stay with the HP or higher gain you would miss the pop. Think

of the HCHP having a little less pop than a 2.8 but overall a more natural

picture and better black level.depth,and shadow detail. If I'm happy with

the RS2 brightness your RS20 will be smokin.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *G-Rex* /forum/post/21225660
> 
> 
> Airscapes, what projector are you using?



HC3000 but my screen is very small so I get 30fl on low lamp in the sweet spot.. I am not saying the HCHP is bad, just not something I would want after the living with the 2.8. Samples don't tell the complete story but there is no reason not to check them out since they are free.

Also once a projector is calibrated in the environment with HP the image is very natural and accurate. I am not really bothered by the raised black. This could be due to the small screen size and the over all pop of DLP.


----------



## R Harkness

Great to hear the screen is working out so well for you. But...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greg1292* /forum/post/21218968
> 
> 
> The HCHP screen has deeper blacks and more depth and shadow detail back into the screen



That type of description can be confusing especially for people trying to learn about screens. What you describe are not attributes of a screen - they are attributes of a particular projector in a particular room on particular settings etc. Someone else may be getting deeper black levels and/or better shadow detail with the original HP screen, depending on their projector/settings/room.


I only point this out so some readers don't get confused that screens come with attributes like "_displaying deeper black levels/better shadow detail, depth_" etc.


Cheers,


----------



## greg1292

Thanks for the correction. Just a happy camper thanks to all the great

advice received on the forum.


----------



## Hughman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/21226474
> 
> 
> I only point this out so some readers don't get confused that screens come with attributes like "_displaying deeper black levels/better shadow detail, depth_" etc.
> 
> 
> Cheers,



If one of the screens attributes is off-axis light rejection and a room suffers from off-axis light contamination onto the screen such as might be encountered from light bouncing off a wall, ceiling, or floor close to the screen then in practise the screens inherent qualities will help maintain the attributes you list. The HCHP was designed for better of-axis light rejection that the 2.4 and 2.8 and it has succeeded. If some don't find this impressive I would suggest doing comparisons with something larger than coaster size samples while making efforts to match brightness levels, otherwise determinations are based on a skewed and rather useless set of references for the purpose of visually evaluating and comparing the screens intended performance parameters.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughman* /forum/post/21227041
> 
> 
> If one of the screens attributes is off-axis light rejection and a room suffers from off-axis light contamination onto the screen such as might be encountered from light bouncing off a wall, ceiling, or floor close to the screen then in practise the screens inherent qualities will help maintain the attributes you list. The HCHP was designed for better of-axis light rejection that the 2.4 and 2.8 and it has succeeded. If some don't find this impressive I would suggest doing comparisons with something larger than coaster size samples while making efforts to match brightness levels, otherwise determinations are based on a skewed and rather useless set of references for the purpose of visually evaluating and comparing the screens intended performance parameters.



Though I chose the regular HP2.4, I think I agree with the point you are making here. E.g., if one has light-colored walls and has an issue with side-wall reflected light, the HCHP could be very helpful in taming this. OTOH, if one has more of the black hole type room situation, with dark non-reflective side walls and ceiling, I think the std HP might be preferred; it was for me.


----------



## G-Rex

My walls are a medium/dark fabric. The ceiling is painted a fairly dark beige and is very tall so its a good distance above the screen which helps to minimizes reflections. Despite this, the normal HP seems to still light up the room. Does the HCHP screen prevent light from bouncing off the screen and lighting up the theater similar to a low gain Black Diamond would?


Could any of you answer my question re the sweet spot of this screen. Do you guys think that my outer two chairs will have acceptable light and be within the proper viewing cone? See my measurements a few posts back. Thanks


----------



## greg1292




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *G-Rex* /forum/post/21227596
> 
> 
> My walls are a medium/dark fabric. The ceiling is painted a fairly dark beige and is very tall so its a good distance above the screen which helps to minimizes reflections. Despite this, the normal HP seems to still light up the room. Does the HCHP screen prevent light from bouncing off the screen and lighting up the theater similar to a low gain Black Diamond would?
> 
> 
> Could any of you answer my question re the sweet spot of this screen. Do you guys think that my outer two chairs will have acceptable light and be within the proper viewing cone? See my measurements a few posts back. Thanks



I have black walls and ceiling and the HCHP has less reflected light in a dark room which I was going after but did not want to give up the 2.4

gain. Just wanted a better picture. Last night I watched a movie 10 inches outside the screen with no noticeable drop off. Hope this helps.

As far as black diamond which I sell is the light rejection king but I don't

like the increased artifacts intoduced into the screen by the 1.4BD.

To me the HCHP is a cross between a JKP/BD/HP just an opinion.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greg1292* /forum/post/21228236
> 
> 
> I have black walls and ceiling and the HCHP has less reflected light in a dark room which I was going after but did not want to give up the 2.4
> 
> gain. Just wanted a better picture. Last night I watched a movie 10 inches outside the screen with no noticeable drop off. Hope this helps.
> 
> As far as black diamond which I sell is the light rejection king but I don't
> 
> like the increased artifacts intoduced into the screen by the 1.4BD.
> 
> To me the HCHP is a cross between a JKP/BD/HP just an opinion.



Interesting.. did you calibrate your projector off the screen using a high quality meter since installing the HCHP? It would be interesting to see how much if any the brightness needs to be change and if there is any major color shift.


----------



## G-Rex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greg1292* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> I have black walls and ceiling and the HCHP has less reflected light in a dark room which I was going after but did not want to give up the 2.4
> 
> gain. Just wanted a better picture. Last night I watched a movie 10 inches outside the screen with no noticeable drop off. Hope this helps.
> 
> As far as black diamond which I sell is the light rejection king but I don't
> 
> like the increased artifacts intoduced into the screen by the 1.4BD.
> 
> To me the HCHP is a cross between a JKP/BD/HP just an opinion.



It does help...thanks. I don't know that much with regard to the JKP Affinity screens. I will read up on it. The sheen and the fairly narrow viewing angle ruled out the BD 1.4.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughman* /forum/post/21227041
> 
> 
> If one of the screens attributes is off-axis light rejection and a room suffers from off-axis light contamination onto the screen such as might be encountered from light bouncing off a wall, ceiling, or floor close to the screen then in practise the screens inherent qualities will help maintain the attributes you list.



Yes, exactly. It's all those caveats that are important. "better black levels and shadow detail" are not qualities inherent to the screen. Rather, characteristics of the screen can help one realize better black levels (and better ANSI) _under certain conditions_ - depending on room reflectivity, the projector, picture settings, ambient light etc.


This is supposed to be a place were we educate ourselves about the science and realities of how our equipment works. Unless we make these distinctions, at least sometimes, people will not be educated, but instead will pick up fallacious concepts (which I don't think helps anyone).


The Stewart Firehawk has similar attributes as the HCHP screen, insofar as it is a darker substrate, has gain coating, rejects off axis light and aims the light toward the viewer (although in an angular reflective manner). So someone not understanding how projection works may want to say "The Firehawk will inherently give you deeper black levels, better shadow detail and better image depth."


Yet the image on my _1.3 gain white screen_ (Stewart ST-130) is better in all those respects (black level, shadow detail, image pop and depth) than on a projector demo I watched on Stewart Firehawk screen, last week.


Why? It has to do with the combination of screen, screen size, room reflectivity, projector, picture settings etc.


This would be puzzling if one had the misunderstanding that black levels and shadow detail were inherently better on a specialty darker screen (like the Firehawk or HCHP). But it makes complete sense when we understand that those PQ's aren't inherent to screens themselves, but to the combination of variables that we need to understand when setting up a projection system.


(BTW, the idea that dark specialty screens "inherently" produce deeper blacks and a more dimensional image seems so widespread that even people who do AV for a living can fall for it. For instance, a local large AV retailer/installer company had raved for quite a while about the image they were getting using the Black Diamond screens with their clients. They thought the screens made black levels and image depth look amazing, and they talked about this as if these were attributes of the screen itself. Then they came to my house and saw the JVC projector - a product they sell as well - in my room, on my regular 1.3 gain white screen and were completely blown away. Said they'd never seen anything quite like it in terms of pretty much all the PQ parameters and made them start re-thinking their views on screens again. Why? I have a room optimized to get the best out of the projected image...which reminded them that many of the qualities they were imparting to the Black Diamond screens weren't inherent to the screen, but were the result of all the variables of room/projector etc).


Hughman, I'm not telling you things you don't know, of course. I'm just making a pitch for the educational virtues of being more precise in how we talk about these things. At least occasionally I think it's worth untangling these concepts from the way many of us describe equipment on this forum.


Cheers,


----------



## cpage

given the same projector, environment, and screen would a darker screen not produce a deeper black?


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cpage* /forum/post/21230075
> 
> 
> given the same projector, environment, and screen would a darker screen not produce a deeper black?



But also a lesser white--just like having a dimmer projector.


----------



## darinp2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cpage* /forum/post/21230075
> 
> 
> given the same projector, environment, and screen would a darker screen not produce a deeper black?



With the same projector settings it would for absolute black, but it gets a little complicated depending on things like whether talking about black when the whole screen is supposed to be black, or black in bright mixed images.


As an example of a case that might not be obvious as far as the effects on blacks, consider a screen with 1.0 gain against a screen that is the same in most ways except 2.0 gain and using a projector that has a lens iris (but not a dynamic iris) . If the images with the 1.0 gain screen are too dim to close the iris down then the brighter screen could actually end up with better absolute blacks at the same white level because closing an iris in the projector can improve the on/off CR (which by definition means darker absolute black for the same white level).


Years ago a Sharp projector with a High Power screen could give a good real world example of this since the bright mode for the projector could be a little more than 1000:1, while the dimmer high contrast mode could be close to 4000:1. In many setups the high contrast mode was just too dim for people if they didn't use a screen with gain and so they would have to give up deeper absolute blacks if they didn't go with a higher gain screen.


The High Contrast High Power should be one of the best screens out there for retaining ANSI CR (so retaining dark blacks in bright mixed images) to a viewer sitting in a high gain position in a room with reflections and rejecting off axis ambient light. For ANSI CR it has 2 properties to help, the directionality and the gray layer. Much like the Firehawk from years ago, except with retro-reflectivity in the High Power and a more aggressive gain layer.


The Optoma Graywolf was the best screen I've had for retaining ANSI CR, but the screen itself was very visible. The HCHP is much better in that regard and seems like a great screen for just the right setup. With the gain dropping even faster than the white HP as a person gets off angle it definitely has its limits though. I'll mention that as with the white HP I doubt there is some magic angle where the screen is all of a sudden unacceptable when it was acceptable a few degrees away. It is just a curve with drop-off.


--Darin


----------



## greg1292




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/21228259
> 
> 
> Interesting.. did you calibrate your projector off the screen using a high quality meter since installing the HCHP? It would be interesting to see how much if any the brightness needs to be change and if there is any major color shift.



I did need to change the color to 0 settings and I use Arts (RGB) settings from the review of the RS2 and did need to redo the gamma settings. Brightness 0 and contrast 5 seems to work best with the HCHP for me. Before with the HP color -9,contrast -2,brightness 4 and a different gamma setting.


I don't have a meter but the picture is richer and more film like with the HCHP.

Not a screen expert and don't know what these numbers mean in terms of

coming to your own conclusion but am very happy with my purchase.


----------



## JJW03

After reading countless post on multiple forums on screens I have decided to get the HCHP screen. My questions is were can you buy this screen with the HCHP material, I havent found a retailer selling it. I have found plenty of retailers selling the HP but not the HCHP. If this has already been addressed I appoligize, I am new to the projector world as this will be my very first system. Thanks for your help.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JJW03* /forum/post/21247525
> 
> 
> After reading countless post on multiple forums on screens I have decided to get the HCHP screen. My questions is were can you buy this screen with the HCHP material, I havent found a retailer selling it. I have found plenty of retailers selling the HP but not the HCHP. If this has already been addressed I appoligize, I am new to the projector world as this will be my very first system. Thanks for your help.



I have bought 2 HP screens over the years from AVS--best prices I've ever seen, great service, and they take your order for whatever size and material you want.


----------



## noah katz

I've also bought two HP's from AVS, service you can count on


----------



## cpage




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/21250321
> 
> 
> I've also bought two HP's from AVS, service you can count on



Just ordered this screen myself.. Moving from HP 2.8. Will post my impressions once the screen arrives. And while I trust and respect AVS, the price I received on this screen was significantly less than what AVS was asking.


----------



## ksbarnz

Count me in as a soon to be owner. I went with a 133 inch HCHP. I have a dedicated theater room with a Panasonic AE-7000u. Hopefully it is a big improvement from my matte white elite screens screen.


----------



## eishg

Hi,


Im about to buy one of these to go with the new epson 3010, im looking to get a 77 inch model and shelf mount it.


I asked about this to one sales guy to get a quote, this is what they told me:


"For a manual roller screen of this size I would advise you to steer clear of a high gain surface. The surface on a small roller screen will never be completely flat and this can cause noticeable variations in brightness in the image and possibly spoil your viewing pleasure"


is this true?


----------



## greg1292

My HCHP 120" is straight as an areo with no waves. The material is thick and heavy

should not have a problem.


----------



## eishg

my celing is 7 foot 4 inches high.

if i mount my projector to the ceiling will i lose much gain ?


----------



## ksbarnz

Just installed my new da-lite high contrast high power screen. Two words: Awesome Sauce. I have a Panasonic AW-7000 projector. The image is brighter, clearer and has much more pop than my old matte white screen. I can light up a 133 inch screen with the lamp on eco and the picture set to rec 709 and the image is bright and clear. Another big plus is that 3d is much much brighter when compared to my old screen. If your viewing set up fits it's limitations I highly recommend it!


----------



## greg1292




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ksbarnz* /forum/post/21308131
> 
> 
> Just installed my new da-lite high contrast high power screen. Two words: Awesome Sauce. I have a Panasonic AW-7000 projector. The image is brighter, clearer and has much more pop than my old matte white screen. I can light up a 133 inch screen with the lamp on eco and the picture set to rec 709 and the image is bright and clear. Another big plus is that 3d is much much brighter when compared to my old screen. If your viewing set up fits it's limitations I highly recommend it!



Happy for you and could of not said it any better


----------



## eishg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Drexler* /forum/post/21222972
> 
> 
> I have just ordered one and will write up a comparison to a normal 2.4 HP in a white livingroom when it arrives. That should be in two weeks or so.



have you had a chance to review it?


----------



## Kilgore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ksbarnz* /forum/post/21308131
> 
> 
> Just installed my new da-lite high contrast high power screen. Two words: Awesome Sauce. I have a Panasonic AW-7000 projector. The image is brighter, clearer and has much more pop than my old matte white screen. I can light up a 133 inch screen with the lamp on eco and the picture set to rec 709 and the image is bright and clear. Another big plus is that 3d is much much brighter when compared to my old screen. If your viewing set up fits it's limitations I highly recommend it!



How are the black levels compared to the matte white?


----------



## ksbarnz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kilgore* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> How are the black levels compared to the matte white?



blacks seem much better to me. One thing I noticed is that this screen really limits the light reflecting off the walls. Before with the white screen the walls would light up. Now it is much more of a focused beam of light to my theater seats and a lot less light scatter.


----------



## ksbarnz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eishg* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
> Im about to buy one of these to go with the new epson 3010, im looking to get a 77 inch model and shelf mount it.
> 
> 
> I asked about this to one sales guy to get a quote, this is what they told me:
> 
> 
> "For a manual roller screen of this size I would advise you to steer clear of a high gain surface. The surface on a small roller screen will never be completely flat and this can cause noticeable variations in brightness in the image and possibly spoil your viewing pleasure"
> 
> 
> is this true?



With a screen that small and the 3010 being a light canon you might find the HCHP makes the image too bright. Have you looked into a low gain gray screen? Maybe the high contrast cinema vision?


----------



## salehdidit

I am having a hard time deciding between these three (2.8 vs the two 2.4s) I plan to have a 110" wide scope screen, with both projector (undecided atm, probably a JVC or Panasonic) and seats at 17'. The screen will be almost touching the ceiling and the two walls on either side - walls and ceiling are all off-white.


Seating will be a 7' wide couch, with most of the viewing 4' wide.


The projector will be about 14" above eye level and 10" above the bottom of the screen, with eye level thus below the screen (sometimes even more so for minors).


My biggest issues are the walls (otherwise light controlled room), and the seating width and height.


thanks in advance


----------



## Drexler




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eishg* /forum/post/21308449
> 
> 
> have you had a chance to review it?



I have received the screen, but been too busy to really write anything up.


The main difference I noted compared to HP2.4 was that the colors seemed to be more vivid. I guess it can have something to do with less reflections bouncing back on the screen and washing out (or diluting) the colors on the screen.


Black level wise, I can't say I notice much difference. However, this is from memory alone, which makes it a bit unreliable. No night and day difference at least. Maybe the walls and ceiling being lighted up more from the HP2.4 aids in keeping my pupil dilated and this helps perceiving dark greys as blacks. I guess a measurement would show that I in reality have better blacks on screen.


The viewing angles are not as bad as I have feared from watching the screen sample. The sample indicated that the picture would be unwatchable more than a meter or so to the side, but it isn't so. Even sitting far off to the side produces a watchable image, albeit far less punchy and bright. From my 3.5 m viewing distance I would say four people could fit more or less in the sweet spot, another two with dimmer views but still absolutely OK PQ and two more with less enjoyable picture on the far sides. I guess not having anything to compare (as you do with a screen sample) makes you less sensitive to any brightness drop with the full screen.


Even though it directs light it still throws around quite a lot so the ceiling and walls light up quite a bit. It's nothing like a back-projection TV where the image almost disappears when viewing from the side.


Homogeneity is great from all viewing angles and distances. No hotspotting detected. The screen structure is very fine, but visible in bright material. However, MUCH less so than for instance a Firehawk.


All in all I'm very satisfied.


I will try to take some pics with different screen materials as comparison when I get the time.


BR


----------



## G-Rex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Drexler* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> I have received the screen, but been too busy to really write anything up.
> 
> 
> The main difference I noted compared to HP2.4 was that the colors seemed to be more vivid. I guess it can have something to do with less reflections bouncing back on the screen and washing out (or diluting) the colors on the screen.
> 
> 
> Black level wise, I can't say I notice much difference. However, this is from memory alone, which makes it a bit unreliable. No night and day difference at least. Maybe the walls and ceiling being lighted up more from the HP2.4 aids in keeping my pupil dilated and this helps perceiving dark greys as blacks. I guess a measurement would show that I in reality have better blacks on screen.
> 
> 
> The viewing angles are not as bad as I have feared from watching the screen sample. The sample indicated that the picture would be unwatchable more than a meter or so to the side, but it isn't so. Even sitting far off to the side produces a watchable image, albeit far less punchy and bright. From my 3.5 m viewing distance I would say four people could fit more or less in the sweet spot, another two with dimmer views but still absolutely OK PQ and two more with less enjoyable picture on the far sides. I guess not having anything to compare (as you do with a screen sample) makes you less sensitive to any brightness drop with the full screen.
> 
> 
> Even though it directs light it still throws around quite a lot so the ceiling and walls light up quite a bit. It's nothing like a back-projection TV where the image almost disappears when viewing from the side.
> 
> 
> Homogeneity is great from all viewing angles and distances. No hotspotting detected. The screen structure is very fine, but visible in bright material. However, MUCH less so than for instance a Firehawk.
> 
> 
> All in all I'm very satisfied.
> 
> 
> I will try to take some pics with different screen materials as comparison when I get the time.
> 
> 
> BR



Excellent review. You said the HCHP reflects less light to the floor and ceiling than a normal 2.4 HP. How much less? Can you estimate a % improvement? I know my 2.8 HP reflects lots of light.


You stated the HCHP has a very fine screen structure. Do you think it's fine enough to not impede the resolution of a 4k projector?


This last question is directed to anyone on the board who knows the answer : Will a 1.0 or 1.3 angular reflective screen light up the room walls and ceiling less or more than a retroreflective HP?


Thanks


----------



## Pete




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *G-Rex* /forum/post/21323221
> 
> 
> Will a 1.0 or 1.3 angular reflective screen light up the room walls and ceiling less or more than a retroreflective HP?



More..


----------



## ccotenj




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greg1292* /forum/post/21228236
> 
> 
> As far as black diamond which I sell is the light rejection king but I don't
> 
> like the increased artifacts intoduced into the screen by the 1.4BD.



can you (or others) comment a bit more on this? i'm replacing a 1.4 g3 bd screen now (doesn't play well with my pj in 3d, plus want a bit bigger screen) and am trying to decide between a hp or a hphc... one of the things i'd like to eliminate is the visible screen structure of the bd in bright scenes... while it's not overly bothersome, i wouldn't mind it going away on the new screen... side note to rich: you were right about this...


furthermore, if anyone would like to comment on "which one"... i can position my pj "properly" for the screen, it's easy enough to drop my shelf a couple feet and get it in the proper plane... also, i only have 2 seats (reclining couch), so i do not think viewing cone should be an issue...


i use my pj for everything... sports and movies only (and mythbusters







)...


the screenwall and the front 6 feet of my room is black, including ceiling (rest of it is grey walls with white ceiling)... blackout curtains over windows and door... i have track lights over the seating position that i use when watching sports, varying from "full on" to "pretty dim" (usually "reasonably dim" most of the time) depending on my mood, i'm not fond of sitting in the dark for that... movies watched in darkness...


i'm leaning towards the high contrast due to the "sports in light" requirement, and that is at least 75% of my usage...


i have some samples on the way, but wouldn't mind some "real world experience" input from owners...










tia.


----------



## airscapes

I think what you see in this thread is all there is.. HCHP just came out this year.. and anyone on here that bought it posted here..


----------



## Drexler




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Drexler* /forum/post/21322663
> 
> 
> From my 3.5 m viewing distance I would say four people could fit more or less in the sweet spot, another two with dimmer views but still absolutely OK PQ and two more with less enjoyable picture on the far sides. I guess not having anything to compare (as you do with a screen sample) makes you less sensitive to any brightness drop with the full screen.



After having played with the viewing angles one more time I think I would have to adjust my comment slightly. Three people in width in the sweet spot (in a sofa), two extra with less bright image, and people further out than that will get a watchable but dull image. You can of course fit more people in the sweet spot if you have several rows.


----------



## Drexler




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ccotenj* /forum/post/21333526
> 
> 
> can you (or others) comment a bit more on this? i'm replacing a 1.4 g3 bd screen now (doesn't play well with my pj in 3d, plus want a bit bigger screen) and am trying to decide between a hp or a hphc... one of the things i'd like to eliminate is the visible screen structure of the bd in bright scenes... while it's not overly bothersome, i wouldn't mind it going away on the new screen... side note to rich: you were right about this...



The screen structure is the same on the HP2.4 and the HCHP. And it's very subtle, you can't compare it to a BD.


With only two seats, I would go for the HCHP. You won't need the wider viewing cone and you would get more vivid colors.



> Quote:
> furthermore, if anyone would like to comment on "which one"... i can position my pj "properly" for the screen, it's easy enough to drop my shelf a couple feet and get it in the proper plane... also, i only have 2 seats (reclining couch), so i do not think viewing cone should be an issue...



The HP is a bit less fuzzy with placement, but if you only have two seats you won't have any trouble with either.



> Quote:
> i use my pj for everything... sports and movies only (and mythbusters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )...
> 
> 
> the screenwall and the front 6 feet of my room is black, including ceiling (rest of it is grey walls with white ceiling)... blackout curtains over windows and door... i have track lights over the seating position that i use when watching sports, varying from "full on" to "pretty dim" (usually "reasonably dim" most of the time) depending on my mood, i'm not fond of sitting in the dark for that... movies watched in darkness...
> 
> 
> i'm leaning towards the high contrast due to the "sports in light" requirement, and that is at least 75% of my usage...



Neither are good in ambient light. The light rejection is about the same as an ordinary white screen (i.e. none). Only difference is that you get a brighter image as if you were having a brighter projector.


Still, watching mythbusters or sports lights up my room quite a lot so there is no sitting in the dark with this kind of program material in my room at least. Someone with very dark walls and ceiling might have a problem however. I don't think it will be an issue for you. The screen will light up your room quite a bit and you can also use the track lights if they're directed away from the screen.


----------



## ccotenj

^^^


thanks for the detailed reply...







food for thought...


----------



## darinp2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Drexler* /forum/post/21334872
> 
> 
> Neither are good in ambient light. The light rejection is about the same as an ordinary white screen (i.e. none). Only difference is that you get a brighter image as if you were having a brighter projector.



If the unwanted light is coming from an off-angle and the projected light from a good angle for the viewer then the high power screens should do a fair amount better than an ordinary white screen as far as rejecting that light (maintaining the contrast ratio that the projector puts out). Of course, it is easy to have too much ambient light for just about any screen to handle, although some have extremely low gain for some angles and so do well at rejecting light from there.


For reflected light from the screen the HCHP should be one of the best screens around for maintaining ANSI CR in a light colored room when sitting in a good viewing position for it, since the screen has both directionality and a gray layer to help reject those reflections when they come back to the screen.


--Darin


----------



## Hughman

Just to add to Darins post, here are two images I posted on page two of this thread showing the potential ambient light rejection attributes of the HCHP as compared to a HP 2.8, HP 2.4, da-mat, all taped to a 1 ish gain screen. The HCHP is the smaller central screen, 2.8 just above, 2.4 just below and the da-mat lower left. Just want to illustrate, again, that statements such as Drexlers do not accurately repesentative the HCHP's ambient light rejecting attributes.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Drexler* /forum/post/21334872
> 
> 
> Neither are good in ambient light. The light rejection is about the same as an ordinary white screen (i.e. none). Only difference is that you get a brighter image as if you were having a brighter projector



The photo with lights on is with a total of 6 on high, two up front you can see in the photo, two mid room, and two in the back corners. The pj is off, no flash is used therefore all light reflected from the screens is ambient emanating from around the room with weighting to the front lights.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *darinp2* /forum/post/21338944
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> For reflected light from the screen the HCHP should be one of the best screens around for maintaining ANSI CR in a light colored room when sitting in a good viewing position for it, since the screen has both directionality and a gray layer to help reject those reflections when they come back to the screen.
> 
> 
> --Darin



I would, though, caution persons to check out the HCHP with samples from Dalite to verify that its very narrow viewing cone doesn't lead to brightness variation from their viewing position. Even though I have basically just one viewing position, since I sit rather close (1.0 SW) to a large screen, my RS20 has to be ~ 4-5 ft behind my head (so that I can do the zoom method for 2.35, going to a 144"W pic).


In my case, the samples of HCHP showed brightness fall off at the left and right edges of the screen; maybe not noticeable on viewing real material, but it was definitely noticeable with a white screen. The HP2.4, though, was perfectly uniform in brightness (due to its somewhat wider viewing cone). Also, since I have black absorbing material on the ceiling and side walls (out ~8ft from the screen wall), I am not concerned with the more side wall reflected light the HP2.4 might have over the HCHP.


----------



## Drexler




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *darinp2* /forum/post/21338944
> 
> 
> If the unwanted light is coming from an off-angle and the projected light from a good angle for the viewer then the high power screens should do a fair amount better than an ordinary white screen as far as rejecting that light (maintaining the contrast ratio that the projector puts out). Of course, it is easy to have too much ambient light for just about any screen to handle, although some have extremely low gain for some angles and so do well at rejecting light from there.--Darin



One might think it does in theory, but IRL it doesn't.


You get an improved contrast ratio due to the image being brighter, but that's about it. The screen is not darker than a normal 1.0 gain white screen when exposed to light from the sides (well the HCHP is ever so slightly darker due to its light grey substrate). However comparing a HP or HCHP in side light to a FireHawk and we're talking night and day differences.


I will take some shots and post when I get back from work.


BR


----------



## darinp2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Drexler* /forum/post/21340495
> 
> 
> One might think it does in theory, but IRL it doesn't.
> 
> 
> You get an improved contrast ratio due to the image being brighter, but that's about it.



I disagree.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Drexler* /forum/post/21340495
> 
> 
> The screen is not darker than a normal 1.0 gain white screen when exposed to light from the sides ...



The 2.8 gain white drops to around .6 or .5 gain at large angles. If you have a light colored room and get secondary reflections then it will complicate things, but the 2.8 gain High Power does have lower gain for the first reflection from side light at a big angle than a true 1.0 gain screen to a center viewer. The high gain for on-axis light doesn't magically appear, it comes with lower gain than 1.0 gain for certain angles.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Drexler* /forum/post/21340495
> 
> 
> (well the HCHP is ever so slightly darker due to its light grey substrate).



Of course it depends on your definition of "ever so slightly" but I would say that the HCHP has much lower gain for side light from a big angle than a true 1.0 gain screen. I could measure it probably this weekend, but I don't think there is any way it is even .5 gain (it would be lower than that for a viewer in the center).


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Drexler* /forum/post/21340495
> 
> 
> However comparing a HP or HCHP in side light to a FireHawk and we're talking night and day differences.



I could see that with certain angles where the Firehawk hotspots so much that it is a viewer on the opposite side from the side light and at the same angle who gets most of that gain. If the side light was a little to the side instead of way to the side then the Firehawk can actually show pretty high gain for that light to a viewer sitting in the center and looking at that side of the screen. This is if the angle works out with high gain to that spot on the screen with the angular-reflective Firehawk. This is a case where I would expect the HCHP to have less of an issue.


In the past I measured ANSI CR retention in my setup with off-white walls and the Optoma Graywolf (retro-reflective and gray for 1.4 gain rating) resulted in higher ANSI CR measurements for a viewer in a high gain position compared to my Firehawk in the same room. I expect that the HCHP would do about as well as the Graywolf or even better for this test in the same room, but I haven't measured it yet.


I'm not sure that I have the numbers perfectly right, but I recall that the Graywolf resulted in something like 140:1 ANSI CR to a center position in this off-white colored room, where I would expect a basic matte white would end up at less than 50:1 ANSI CR based on other measurements. This was I believe using a projector that put out over 500:1 ANSI CR.


--Darin


----------



## ccotenj

glad i asked the question and prompted a discussion...










for reference, a couple pics of the room... the windows and door have blackout curtains, they aren't shown, i took these while i was painting...


----------



## Drexler

darinp2


After examining it again: Looking at light only coming from the side I think you're right with the HCHP at least. It is significantly darker than white screens and the Firehawk is very dependent on the seating position. However, the 2.4 and 2.8 HP don't fare as well.


This is the setup: A diffuse light is shining from the side at the screen.
Attachment 230754 


The screen is the HCHP


Samples from left to right:

FireHawk G3

HP2.4

HP2.8

Studiotek 130

Da-lite Matte white gain 1.0

Firehawk.


The pics are taken from different sides of the couch:
Attachment 230751 
Attachment 230752 


As you say, the Firehawk samples have very different brightness, which of course is due to their angular reflective nature. However, the HP2.4 and 2.8 samples are only slightly darker than the white screens.


----------



## ccotenj

ok, my samples of both the hp and hphc arrived today...


played around with them for awhile... big difference from the bd (plus my 3d issue doesn't exist, yay!)...


both of my seats will be within the 20 degree viewing cone for the hphc (measuring from the sides of the couch gives a potential 15 degree "maximum", assuming i remember my high school geometry right







) once i lower the projector to the correct level...


any real advantage at that point to going with the "regular" over the hc?


i'm leaning towards the hc... blacks defintely wash out less with ambient with it...


thanks again for all the commentary...


----------



## ccotenj

fwiw...


i ordered the hphc from mike at avs today...


reports to come...


----------



## ksbarnz

I've started to notice some issues with my HCHP screen and was wondering if any other owners were experiencing what I am. On bright scenes the image is not uniformly bright. There are slightly darker spots all over the screen. I have already had the screen replaced once due to this and the replacement had the same issue. You can see what I am referring to in the pics of a 100 percent white window being shown. It is almost as if the screen is dirty. Other than this issue I love the screen but I am worried my third screen (second replacement) will have the same issue. I am thinking of going with the regular high power instead. I sent the pics to da-lite and they said to have the screen replaced again. My non-scientific guess is that the reflective surface is not uniform across the screen and the darker spots are where the gray back is showing through.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ksbarnz* /forum/post/21357547
> 
> 
> I've started to notice some issues with my HCHP screen and was wondering if any other owners were experiencing what I am. On bright scenes the image is not uniformly bright. There are slightly darker spots all over the screen. I have already had the screen replaced once due to this and the replacement had the same issue. You can see what I am referring to in the pics of a 100 percent white window being shown. It is almost as if the screen is dirty. Other than this issue I love the screen but I am worried my third screen (second replacement) will have the same issue. I am thinking of going with the regular high power instead. I sent the pics to da-lite and they said to have the screen replaced again. My non-scientific guess is that the reflective surface is not uniform across the screen and the darker spots are where the gray back is showing through.



I noticed brightness falloff of the HCHP when testing samples I received from Dalite (put up at the corners of my intended screen), which I attributed to the much narrower viewing cone compared to the std HP2.4 (which did not show this falloff). For this reason I got the std HP.


Now this may be because I sit rather close to a large screen (11 ft from a 12 ft wide one), so the pj has to be ~ 5-6 ft behind my head. The relevant viewing angle (between the 2 lines from pj and eye to a point on the screen) thus varies at various points on the screen more so than if the pj were close up behind my head. So I decided that I needed the std HP which works better for my situation.


----------



## ksbarnz

I haven't noticed any difference in uniformity specifically at the corners. I sit 17' back, projector is 19' back and 1' above my head, so that might have something to do with it. The darker spots are across the entire screen, middle and sides. I saw from a previous post that you have a dedicated theater room with black curtains on the walls beside the screen as well as the wall behind your seating. I too have this setup. Black velvet curtains 4' out of each side of the screen,. black rug 5' out from the screen and the entire back wall is covered in black curtains. My walls and ceiling are also dark gray.


My biggest reason for going with the HCHP was it being a gray screen and it helping with the perceived black levels. I have a sample of the regular HP which I tested out a little bit last night. I didn't notice much difference in a 0 - 20 ire test pattern between the HCHP and the regular sample. Now one thing I did notice about the HCHP compared to my matte white screen is that it was very good at limiting reflections from the screen to the walls, which might be the contributing factor to the improved black levels. Maybe the regular HP with its slightly larger viewing cone will still possess these properties? I love the HCHP screen, but am worried about getting another with the same problem. I'm also wondering if the regular HP will provide just as good an image in my setup.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ksbarnz* /forum/post/21357827
> 
> 
> ... Now one thing I did notice about the HCHP compared to my matte white screen is that it was very good at limiting reflections from the screen to the walls, which might be the contributing factor to the improved black levels. Maybe the regular HP with its slightly larger viewing cone will still possess these properties? ...



I imagine that the std HP will have more reflections from side walls, but as you noted, I have absorbing side wall and ceiling coverings, so for me that is not an issue.


I think both the std HP and HCDP 2.4's are excellent screens. I even like mine better than my earlier HP2.8--which I also liked very much--in that I think the new HP gives a smoother image.


----------



## ksbarnz

So I take it you do not experience the issues I am on bright images on your regular hp? Is a 100 percent white window completely white?


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ksbarnz* /forum/post/21358444
> 
> 
> So I take it you do not experience the issues I am on bright images on your regular hp? Is a 100 percent white window completely white?



Yes, very uniform brightness.


----------



## isingh

Can any of you suggest me here what to do in this situation ? I am planing to buy the Epson 6500UB refurb unit and I was looking around for screens, then found one which is known as Optoma Panoview 106" Fixed Frame Graywolf II Projector Screen, the description says VELVET FIXED FRAME SCREEN, GRAYWOLF II GRAY GLASS BEADED SCREEN and 1.8 GAIN. Do you guys think this a good screen ? I have no idea what I might be getting here ? My room is ok for light as I mostly watch in night time only. Any suggestions will be appreciated. Thanks


----------



## Kilgore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *isingh* /forum/post/21360128
> 
> 
> Can any of you suggest me here what to do in this situation ? I am planing to buy the Epson 6500UB refurb unit and I was looking around for screens, then found one which is known as Optoma Panoview 106" Fixed Frame Graywolf II Projector Screen, the description says VELVET FIXED FRAME SCREEN, GRAYWOLF II GRAY GLASS BEADED SCREEN and 1.8 GAIN. Do you guys think this a good screen ? I have no idea what I might be getting here ? My room is ok for light as I mostly watch in night time only. Any suggestions will be appreciated. Thanks



You should create a new thread in the main Screen forum and ask. This thread is all about the Da-Lite High Contrast High Power screen.


----------



## The Sandman

Few questions about this screen:

Where is can you but this?

How much does it cost for it in a manual pull down and fixed frame?

How would this do in a room that has light gray ceilings and yellow walls? Would it make the room to bright?

Im using an epson 8350 with about a 13 foot throw image about 100 inches.


----------



## ccotenj

^^^


you can call one of the avs guys... i've bought a lot of stuff from mike (his number is 585-671-2968)... they have competitive pricing and awesome customer service...


he can also advise you as to what it is going to do in terms of lighting up your room... i would hazard a guess that given the limited viewing cone, it will light up your room far less than a "normal" screen...


just as a fwiw... i was pretty amazed at the difference (not with this screen, but with another light rejecting type screen) how much of an improvement i got when i painted my white walls grey... and then even more of a difference when i made the whole front of the room black...


----------



## ccotenj

a quick update...


mine came yesterday (kudos to mike, 5 days from order to delivery, with 2 of them being over the weekend)... 110" 16x9...


pieced it together in about an hour... the little tool they include to help pull the snaps into place came in REAL handy for getting the last of the snaps attached... stuck it up on the wall... i'd describe installation as "relatively simple", i did it myself in about an hour, with assistance from swmbo to hang it on the bracket... some of the screws on the corners were "fun" to get in correctly, and screwing the bottom brackets to the frame was impossible by hand (for me, anyway), but went in easily with an impact driver (_carefully used_)... note to self: ensure screen is centered on wall BEFORE screwing bottom brackets to wall... excitement got the better of me and i forgot this part...







was an easy enough fix though...


i have not yet moved my pj down to "optimal" height (hopefully that will happen later today), so it is still about 30" too high... i was too lazy to do that yesterday...







plus i wanted to play with it...


ran an autocal... all numbers good there, with the exception of a very large blue oversaturation at 75% that i need to figure out... that's for another thread though... one note on that though, the radiance/chromapure autocal/d3 combination may be the coolest "geek toy" i've ever owned... and being a lifetime geek, that's saying something...










initial impressions...


- this thing is BRIGHT... looking at the numbers after dialing in 6500k at 100% ire, twice as bright as the bd 1.4 it replaced... it will be interesting to see what i get when i move the pj down and get black curtains upon the back wall... pretty darn good picture with track lights "full on" in back of room...


- very little screen structure noticeable... only on very bright scenes does it show itself, and even then, it's minimal... if it hadn't been something i was specifically looking for and trying to produce, it's likely i wouldn't have noticed it upon initial viewing... swmbo (who, fwiw, isn't the "normal wife", she's pickier than i when it comes to a/v, my waf is the opposite of most







) REALLY liked this... literally 15 seconds after sitting down, the first words out of her mouth were "the sparklies are gone"... big win for me there...


- fired up espn 3d to watch the football game... worked very well... besides the brightness difference (which allowed me to reduce the shutter timing and almost eliminate the ghosting), it's nice to be able to move my head around without causing the interactions i was getting from the bd... sat there and watched the whole game... i know many think 3d is a gimmick (and it must be admitted, i used to feel that way too), but dang, it is COOL!


more to come later after i move pj and spend some time with it (and get past the "my new toy is so cool" new owner stage







), but color me very happy with this choice...







thanks to all who posted input...


now all i gotta do is sell the bd and i'll be REAL happy...


----------



## raymondeast

does anyone own the new epson 5010 and a high power screen?


----------



## ksbarnz

Well, I ended up going with a regular HP screen (non high contrast) as my replacement to the two HCHP screens I had uniformity issues with, dark patches on bright images.


This regular HP has a similar issue except it is no where near as noticeable as the HCHP. The regular HP appears brighter and blacks appear to be the same between the two screens. I guess my dedicated theater room has something to do with it.


Since I saw the issue on 3 different screens and it appears on both the HP and HCHP screen, I am guessing the darker areas of the screen on bright images are where the reflective beads are not as thick and I am seeing the white or gray of the screen itself. Hopefully no other HCHP owners experience the issues I did.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ksbarnz* /forum/post/21357547
> 
> 
> I've started to notice some issues with my HCHP screen and was wondering if any other owners were experiencing what I am. On bright scenes the image is not uniformly bright. There are slightly darker spots all over the screen. I have already had the screen replaced once due to this and the replacement had the same issue. You can see what I am referring to in the pics of a 100 percent white window being shown. It is almost as if the screen is dirty. Other than this issue I love the screen but I am worried my third screen (second replacement) will have the same issue. I am thinking of going with the regular high power instead. I sent the pics to da-lite and they said to have the screen replaced again. My non-scientific guess is that the reflective surface is not uniform across the screen and the darker spots are where the gray back is showing through.



This issue sounds so familiar with one I had a few years back with my Da-Lite HCCV screen.

I still own an HCCV screen, but shortly after I installed it, I started noticing vertical streaks during bright scenes, like when the camera panned across the sky, or a bright snowy scene.

Ultimately Da-Lite replaced the screen. They said there was an issue with the coating.

Now it sounds like another model is having the same sort of issues.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ksbarnz* /forum/post/21488788
> 
> 
> Well, I ended up going with a regular HP screen (non high contrast) as my replacement to the two HCHP screens I had uniformity issues with, dark patches on bright images.
> 
> 
> This regular HP has a similar issue except it is no where near as noticeable as the HCHP. The regular HP appears brighter and blacks appear to be the same between the two screens. *I guess my dedicated theater room has something to do with it.*
> 
> 
> Since I saw the issue on 3 different screens and it appears on both the HP and HCHP screen, I am guessing the darker areas of the screen on bright images are where the reflective beads are not as thick and I am seeing the white or gray of the screen itself. Hopefully no other HCHP owners experience the issues I did.



Just currious... how do you figure your dedicated room is the issue. Do you have total light control from outside light?


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ccotenj* /forum/post/21361999
> 
> 
> ^^^
> 
> 
> you can call one of the avs guys... i've bought a lot of stuff from mike (his number is 585-671-2968)... they have competitive pricing and *awesome customer service...*
> 
> he can also advise you as to what it is going to do in terms of lighting up your room... i would hazard a guess that given the limited viewing cone, it will light up your room far less than a "normal" screen...
> 
> 
> just as a fwiw... i was pretty amazed at the difference (not with this screen, but with another light rejecting type screen) how much of an improvement i got when i painted my white walls grey... and then even more of a difference when i made the whole front of the room black...



I'll attest to that...

AVS took care of me when Da-Lite wouldn't.


----------



## ksbarnz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Just currious... how do you figure your dedicated room is the issue. Do you have total light control from outside light?



Yes my room is 100% light controlled with dark walls and ceiling as well as black velvet curtains beside the screen and at the back of the room. Since it is 100% light controlled I am betting this is why I do not see a percieved difference in black levels between the HCHP and HP screen.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ksbarnz* /forum/post/21491780
> 
> 
> Yes my room is 100% light controlled with dark walls and ceiling as well as black velvet curtains beside the screen and at the back of the room. Since it is 100% light controlled I am betting this is why I do not see a percieved difference in black levels between the HCHP and HP screen.



That would be correct. The HC and any non white screen is meant to help in none light controlled rooms. By reducing the color of the screen to a light gray you help blacks when there is some light illuminating the screen from a source other than the projector. Remember Black is just the screen color with no light shining on it.. so a white screen in a completely dark room is the same color as a gray screen in a completely dark room.. add some light from reflections or other source and the gray screen will look darker than the white..


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/21491805
> 
> 
> That would be correct. The HC and any non white screen is meant to help in none light controlled rooms. By reducing the color of the screen to a light gray you help blacks when there is some light illuminating the screen from a source other than the projector. Remember Black is just the screen color with no light shining on it.. so a white screen in a completely dark room is the same color as a gray screen in a completely dark room.. add some light from reflections or other source and the gray screen will look darker than the white..



I'm questioning that... unless the light from non-projected sources is brighter in spots across the screen. If so, then until he addresses the ambient light issue, he might as well experiment with painting his wall and save himself some money because he's dealing with an issue that can never be totally corrected until the ambient light is addressed.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/21495674
> 
> 
> I’m questioning that... unless the light from non-projected sources is brighter in spots across the screen. If so, then until he addresses the ambient light issue, he might as well experiment with painting his wall and save himself some money because he’s dealing with an issue that can never be totally corrected until the ambient light is addressed.



Not sure which post your are referring to, I was responding to the post above mine..

This one
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post21491780 


And just stating the way a non white (gray screen) help to increase perceived contrast by being a darker color to start... the poster I was responding to has a light contorted room and could not see any contrast improvement with the HCHP.. which would be expected..


----------



## ksbarnz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> I'm questioning that... unless the light from non-projected sources is brighter in spots across the screen. If so, then until he addresses the ambient light issue, he might as well experiment with painting his wall and save himself some money because he's dealing with an issue that can never be totally corrected until the ambient light is addressed.



Not sure if you are referring to my post but ambient light is not an issue in my setup. No windows, dark walls and ceiling, and dark velvet fabric on parts of my walls.


----------



## noah katz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ksbarnz* /forum/post/21496309
> 
> 
> Not sure if you are referring to my post but ambient light is not an issue in my setup. No windows, dark walls and ceiling, and dark velvet fabric on parts of my walls.



Maybe part of the reason is that ambient light is a somewhat ambiguous term.


I believe that most take it as meaning a light source other than the pj, whereas some include light from the screen reflecting from room surfaces and back to the screen.


----------



## Mike Garrett




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/21497581
> 
> 
> Maybe part of the reason is that ambient light is a somewhat ambiguous term.
> 
> 
> I believe that most take it as meaning a light source other than the pj, whereas some include light from the screen reflecting from room surfaces and back to the screen.



In dedicated rooms, most of the time the largest light source in the room is the screen.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AV Science Sales 5* /forum/post/21498797
> 
> 
> In dedicated rooms, most of the time the largest light source in the room is the screen.



If the room is truly 'dedicated' it should have light absorbing material on the side walls and ceiling, at least out ~ 6 ft or more from the screen wall. The ProtoStar material is the best there is, but any kind of black material is useful.


----------



## Xavier1

So I can't decide between the plain High Power, and the High Contrast High Power.


What is the concensus on this HCHP, are the issues with this screen a deal breaker? Have any compared samples to the HP 2.4 and prefered one or the other?


I'm looking to get a 92" screen for 2d/3d to use in a completely light controlled room. Walls are dark grey, however the ceiling is white (I'll install some black felt to cover the portion directly above the screen.


I'll be using it with a Acer 3D DLP. I'm looking a boost for brightness in 3D over my painted wall, but still have a good picture in 2D.


Any suggestions are welcome.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xavier1* /forum/post/21656346
> 
> 
> So I can't decide between the plain High Power, and the High Contrast High Power.
> 
> 
> What is the concensus on this HCHP, are the issues with this screen a deal breaker? Have any compared samples to the HP 2.4 and prefered one or the other?
> 
> 
> I'm looking to get a 92" screen for 2d/3d to use in a completely light controlled room. Walls are dark grey, however the ceiling is white (I'll install some black felt to cover the portion directly above the screen.
> 
> 
> I'll be using it with a Acer 3D DLP. I'm looking a boost for brightness in 3D over my painted wall, but still have a good picture in 2D.
> 
> 
> Any suggestions are welcome.



I got samples of both, putting them up on the wall at the 4 corners of my newly planned screen. In my case I found the HCHP to show noticeably brightness fall off at the extreme sides of the screen. But I sit quite close to a very large screen, so the pj has to be back a ways behind my head; the narrower viewing angle of the HCHP thus really came into play for my configuration, while for the std HP2.4 it did not. And since I have light absorbing material of side walls and ceiling, the wider viewing angle of the std HPhad no down sides for me.


I can only recommend that you get samples of both from Dalite and check it out for your own situation.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xavier1* /forum/post/21656346
> 
> 
> So I can't decide between the plain High Power, and the High Contrast High Power.
> 
> 
> What is the concensus on this HCHP, are the issues with this screen a deal breaker? Have any compared samples to the HP 2.4 and prefered one or the other?
> 
> *I'm looking to get a 92" screen for 2d/3d to use in a completely light controlled room. Walls are dark grey, however the ceiling is white (I'll install some black felt to cover the portion directly above the screen.*
> 
> 
> I'll be using it with a Acer 3D DLP. I'm looking a boost for brightness in 3D over my painted wall, but still have a good picture in 2D.
> 
> 
> Any suggestions are welcome.



I would go with the standard. You want as much light as possible with 3D from what I am told. You would also want a white screen in a room such as yours not a gray screen. Get the samples and take a look for your self.

I have a small HP 2.8 and have compared the 2.4 and the HCHP 2.4 on my 2.8 and would pick the 2.4 over the HC in a dark room. Fortunately I have the 2.8 which I like better than either of the currently available HP screens.


----------



## Drexler

I have both the HP2.4 and the HCHP at home. IMO the HCHP is better in a reflective room if you can handle the viewing angles. If your eyes are not more than 3-4 ft away from the lens at my throw (about 12 feet) the image looks absolutely amazing (I have a 3 seat sofa and all seats are in the sweetspot). However, if you are further out than that brightness and image punch/saturation drops rapidly. Also, if you sit far ahead of the projector the image suffer from non-uniformity issues like millerwill reported. Close to the PJ the image looks perfectly uniform though.


Summary. The HCHP will suffer less from reflections and retain a slightly better contrast and color saturation. However, the HP would be a better choice if you have wide seats or the PJ far from the seating position.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Drexler* /forum/post/21658883
> 
> 
> I have both the HP2.4 and the HCHP at home. IMO the HCHP is better in a reflective room if you can handle the viewing angles. If your eyes are not more than 3-4 ft away from the lens at my throw (about 12 feet) the image looks absolutely amazing (I have a 3 seat sofa and all seats are in the sweetspot). However, if you are further out than that brightness and image punch/saturation drops rapidly. Also, if you sit far ahead of the projector the image suffer from non-uniformity issues like millerwill reported. Close to the PJ the image looks perfectly uniform though.
> 
> 
> Summary. The HCHP will suffer less from reflections and retain a slightly better contrast and color saturation. However, the HP would be a better choice if you have wide seats or the PJ far from the seating position.



This is very consistent with all my observations.


----------



## Xavier1

Drexler, Millerwill, and airscapes, thank you all for your input. As my room is not reflective, I'll probably end up going with the regular HP. I will try the samples first as suggested however.


Brighter light output for 3D is the main reason for getting a screen, as I've been quite happy with my painted white wall otherwise.


----------



## Chewbacco

I've read all posts on this thread and thanks for so much information. I would appreciate any input of my final decision, just in case I missed something.

I've got a 850 ansi lumen 11S2 that will be 14.2 feet away from a 106" x 45" viewing area wide HCHP screen(115" diag). I'm sitting 13.5 feet from the

screen with the projector 2.5 ft up from me. My room is totally light controlled with no light reflections.

I the only thing I'm not to sure of is, would the ftl be the same from a grey screen as a white screen with the same gain?

I think this setup will work but it's my final setup and I want to be sure..Thanks for any thoughts


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chewbacco*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/270#post_22157593
> 
> 
> I've read all posts on this thread and thanks for so much information. I would appreciate any input of my final decision, just in case I missed something.
> 
> I've got a 850 ansi lumen 11S2 that will be 14.2 feet away from a 106" x 45" viewing area wide HCHP screen(115" diag). I'm sitting 13.5 feet from the
> 
> screen with the projector 2.5 ft up from me. My room is totally light controlled with no light reflections.
> 
> I the only thing I'm not to sure of is, would the ftl be the same from a grey screen as a white screen with the same gain?
> 
> I think this setup will work but it's my final setup and I want to be sure..Thanks for any thoughts


If the gain is the same, the ftL will be the same.

 

One thing I would suggest you be sure of is whether or not the HC version of the new HP2.4 will have a wide enough viewing angle for you.   I got samples of the HC and the std HP2.4, and for my 144"W screen, sitting 11ft away, found that even in the sweet spot--with the projector ~ 3-4 ft behind my head (and a ft or 2 above it)--the HC version gave noticeable brightness fall off at the left and right edges of the screen.   The std HP2.4 was uniform in brightness over the whole screen.

 

Also, if you have good light control as you describe, I don't see the point of going with the HC version.

 

Anyway, just my thoughts.   If you haven't gotten samples of both the std and HC versions of the HP2.4 and put them up at the 4 corners of your screen area, I would strongly recommend that you do so, to verify the uniform brightness issue.


----------



## Chewbacco




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/270#post_22157638
> 
> 
> 
> If the gain is the same, the ftL will be the same.
> 
> 
> One thing I would suggest you be sure of is whether or not the HC version of the new HP2.4 will have a wide enough viewing angle for you.   I got samples of the HC and the std HP2.4, and for my 144"W screen, sitting 11ft away, found that even in the sweet spot--with the projector ~ 3-4 ft behind my head (and a ft or 2 above it)--the HC version gave noticeable brightness fall off at the left and right edges of the screen.   The std HP2.4 was uniform in brightness over the whole screen.
> 
> 
> Also, if you have good light control as you describe, I don't see the point of going with the HC version.
> 
> 
> Anyway, just my thoughts.   If you haven't gotten samples of both the std and HC versions of the HP2.4 and put them up at the 4 corners of your screen area, I would strongly recommend that you do so, to verify the uniform brightness issue.


I thought that would be the case, but the grey vs white material threw me. I have several samples of both versions and I've tested them. I really like the rich color saturation of the HC and the deeper black level, although every thing is calibrated to the 2.8 I taped them to.

I appreciate your thoughts millerwill, the sweet spot will be smaller than I'd like, but then it's seldom more than my wife and I sitting in the middle, but uniform brightness also sound good..food for thought.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chewbacco*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/270#post_22158060
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that would be the case, but the grey vs white material threw me. I have several samples of both versions and I've tested them. I really like the rich color saturation of the HC and the deeper black level, although every thing is calibrated to the 2.8 I taped them to.
> 
> I appreciate your thoughts millerwill, the sweet spot will be smaller than I'd like, but then it's seldom more than my wife and I sitting in the middle, but uniform brightness also sound good..food for thought.


Sounds like you've already considered everything I mentioned!    With your viewing distance and screen size the I agree that the smaller viewing angle of the HC screen will probably not be an issue as it was for me.    Also, with a JVC RS20 before, and now a Sony SXRD (1000ES), the o/f CR is higher than for a dlp, so again the HC screen may be a better choice for you than for me.

 

Good luck; sounds like it's going to be a beautiful setup!


----------



## Chewbacco




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/270#post_22158155
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you've already considered everything I mentioned!    With your viewing distance and screen size the I agree that the smaller viewing angle of the HC screen will probably not be an issue as it was for me.    Also, with a JVC RS20 before, and now a Sony SXRD (1000ES), the o/f CR is higher than for a dlp, so again the HC screen may be a better choice for you than for me.
> 
> 
> Good luck; sounds like it's going to be a beautiful setup!


Thanks so much. I've tried to do my homework before posting, but it's good to talk with folks with the same interests and air out your thoughts. I'm pretty excited, a little bit of remodeling and the I'm jumping into the fire!!







.


----------



## calibos

Hi Guys,


I'm in the preliminary planning stages of a quasi dedicated Home Theater Room in a loft conversion. A Murphy Bed needs to go in the room and it can only be on the wall the projector needs to be on. I want a High Gain screen like the 2.4 HP's for use with 3D and a PTAE7000. These means I want the PJ as close to eye level as possible. Table or ceiling mounting is not possible. Centering the AE7000 lens in relation to the screen is not possible as that point is within the foot print of the Murphy bed in the Folded away position. Giving away some Gain to enable mounting the PJ higher on top of the Custom Murphy Bed wall to wall unit is not possible because that puts the PJ Lens out of the Vertical foot print of the screen which prevents the Auto Aspect ratio switching for my 100" Wide Cinemascope screen.


After some research I see that the Horizontal lens shift of this PJ is +or- 26%. I assume this means 26 inches on a 100" wide screen. If my assumption is correct this means I could mount the PJ on a shelf of the unit just above head height and offset from the centre line of the screen 26 inches which is outside the foot print of the Murphybed. While I need to ask the guys in the AE7000 thread whether this horzontal lens shift offset will affect the Auto aspect ratio switching, you are the guys to ask about the affect on gain.


The room is 124" wide. The large couch that butts up against the murphy bed is 122" wide. The screen is 100" Wide. The PJ lens will be about 15' back from the screen. The eye position seated is about 14" back from the screen. In short, the seating area is within the boundaries of the screen width and 14' back.


I did a previous test using the gain calculator which I have since lost on my PC and can't find which gave me 2.2 gain for the hot seat with a centered PJ over the head. Inputting that into the Projector Central calc gave me approx. 32 foot Lamberts with the AE7000. Thats pretty amazing !!

















However, what effect would moving the PJ 26 inches offset from the centerline have on gain. Does the hotseat just shift to the outside seat of the couch on that side but the far side still stays within the 30º cone. Or does the cone shift with the PJ (even though the screen didn't move in relation to the seating) which puts the seat on the far side of the couch outside of the cone??


----------



## calibos

LOL. No sooner do I post than I find the gain calculator. I've inputted the HP2.4 figures. What should I change for the HCHP. Actually do I need the HC or would it siut the room. Screen is mounted 1ft from the floor so top of screen is about 4ft away from the bulk of the ceiling except for the top left side due the the sloping loft ceiling. Walls probably will be coffee coloured.


anyway, here is a screen shot of the calc for my room. Have I input everything correctly and what inputs should I change for the HCHP.











Its certainly lookin' good. 2.14-2.01 gain from one side of the couch to the other with the PJ offset from the centreline by 26"


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *calibos*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/270#post_22168430
> 
> 
> Hi Guys,
> 
> I'm in the preliminary planning stages of a quasi dedicated Home Theater Room in a loft conversion. A Murphy Bed needs to go in the room and it can only be on the wall the projector needs to be on. I want a High Gain screen like the 2.4 HP's for use with 3D and a PTAE7000. These means I want the PJ as close to eye level as possible. Table or ceiling mounting is not possible. Centering the AE7000 lens in relation to the screen is not possible as that point is within the foot print of the Murphy bed in the Folded away position. Giving away some Gain to enable mounting the PJ higher on top of the Custom Murphy Bed wall to wall unit is not possible because that puts the PJ Lens out of the Vertical foot print of the screen which prevents the Auto Aspect ratio switching for my 100" Wide Cinemascope screen.
> 
> After some research I see that the Horizontal lens shift of this PJ is +or- 26%. I assume this means 26 inches on a 100" wide screen. If my assumption is correct this means I could mount the PJ on a shelf of the unit just above head height and offset from the centre line of the screen 26 inches which is outside the foot print of the Murphybed. While I need to ask the guys in the AE7000 thread whether this horzontal lens shift offset will affect the Auto aspect ratio switching, you are the guys to ask about the affect on gain.
> 
> The room is 124" wide. The large couch that butts up against the murphy bed is 122" wide. The screen is 100" Wide. The PJ lens will be about 15' back from the screen. The eye position seated is about 14" back from the screen. In short, the seating area is within the boundaries of the screen width and 14' back.
> 
> I did a previous test using the gain calculator which I have since lost on my PC and can't find which gave me 2.2 gain for the hot seat with a centered PJ over the head. Inputting that into the Projector Central calc gave me approx. 32 foot Lamberts with the AE7000. Thats pretty amazing !!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, what effect would moving the PJ 26 inches offset from the centerline have on gain. Does the hotseat just shift to the outside seat of the couch on that side but the far side still stays within the 30º cone. Or does the cone shift with the PJ (even though the screen didn't move in relation to the seating) which puts the seat on the far side of the couch outside of the cone??


I suggest that you get some 4 screen sample pieces (about 1 ft sq) of the HCHP and also of the regular HP.    Put them up at the 4 corners of where you plan your screen to be and see how it looks with various pj locations that are possible for you.     It's good to try to do it all via theoretical calculations, but to be SURE do the experiment!


----------



## malichai

I have a 120" 1.85:1 brilliant white Carada (1.3 gain) in my living room which has absolutely no light control and a massive bay window that runs the length of the 20' room. Main viewing is 20' from the screen with the projector 3' above our head. I'm going to swap out my screen for a 2.35:1 screen because I'm not always in the mood to watch movies in my theater. I need all the brightness I can get in my living room, so was looking at going high power. Would you suggest the HCHP or the regular HP?


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *malichai*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/270#post_22650018
> 
> 
> I have a 120" 1.85:1 brilliant white Carada (1.3 gain) in my living room which has absolutely no light control and a massive bay window that runs the length of the 20' room. Main viewing is 20' from the screen with the projector 3' above our head. I'm going to swap out my screen for a 2.35:1 screen because I'm not always in the mood to watch movies in my theater. I need all the brightness I can get in my living room, so was looking at going high power. Would you suggest the HCHP or the regular HP?


It depends on the the viewing angles that will be relevant in your situation.   I sit ~ 1.0 SW for my screen (~12 ft for a 12 ft wide screen, with the projector lens at ~ 16 ft from the screen and projecting just above my head), and from the a center seat I found (from samples I got from Dalite) that the HPHC material showed a noticeably dimmer image at the extreme edges of the screen, while the normal HP2.4 showed no such dimming.    I thus got the std HP2.4 material and have been extremely pleased with it.

 

I note, though, that I have no external light coming into the room.


----------



## airscapes

First off neither of these is magic.. gota loss the window light or you won't get much improvement over your current screen.

That said, you gota lower the projector to gain anything much more than you currently have.

Order samples of the 2 fabrics and see which one is brightest in your room.


----------



## nicholfd

I ended up purchasing a 106" High Contras High Power screen after reading through this thread. I have some general questions about my new theatre room setup. To avoid getting this thread off-track, I started a new thread:
New Epson 5020 owner, Da-Lite HCHP 106" screen w/room, zoom, offset & placement questions 


If anyone has the time or interest, please take a look at my thread and provide feedback.


Thanks!


----------



## dougri

Anyone have the gain curve of the HCHP or the adjustments for the gain calculator spreadsheet?


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dougri*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/270#post_22700866
> 
> 
> Anyone have the gain curve of the HCHP or the adjustments for the gain calculator spreadsheet?




Here is the gain curve for the old 2.8 HP compared to the new 2.4 HP, but not the HC version.    The HC2.4 has a much narrower viewing cone than the standard 2.4.    I got samples of both of these new 2.4 screens and found that the HC version showed noticeably fall off in brightness on the L and R sides of the screen.    This is probably because I have a pretty large screen, 12 ft wide, and sit pretty close, 12 ft.     

 

For this reason, though, I got the std 2.4HP and have been delighted with it; it gives an even smoother pic than my older HP2.8 screen, which was already very good in this regard.    However I have external light in the room, and light absorbing material on ceiling and side walls around the screen.


----------



## sarangiman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/270#post_22701093
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the gain curve for the old 2.8 HP compared to the new 2.4 HP, but not the HC version.    The HC2.4 has a much narrower viewing cone than the standard 2.4.    I got samples of both of these new 2.4 screens and found that the HC version showed noticeably fall off in brightness on the L and R sides of the screen.    This is probably because I have a pretty large screen, 12 ft wide, and sit pretty close, 12 ft.
> 
> 
> For this reason, though, I got the std 2.4HP and have been delighted with it; it gives an even smoother pic than my older HP2.8 screen, which was already very good in this regard.    However I have external light in the room, and light absorbing material on ceiling and side walls around the screen.



Where'd you get those curves & does one exist for the HCHP? Did you generate these yourself?


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sarangiman*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/270#post_22701316
> 
> 
> 
> Where'd you get those curves & does one exist for the HCHP? Did you generate these yourself?


From post #482 in the thread "Da-lite Hi Power New or Old what did you get?" in the 'Screens' forum.   I've not seen such a curve for the HCHP.


----------



## dougri

Dalite today told me they'd email the chart to me. If they come through, I'll post it here.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dougri*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/270#post_22701764
> 
> 
> Dalite today told me they'd email the chart to me. If they come through, I'll post it here.


Thanks!   Will be interesting to see it in comparison to the others.


----------



## dougri

Thanks to the fine folks at Da-Lite for providing the gain curve:


----------



## sarangiman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dougri*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/270#post_22719726
> 
> 
> Thanks to the fine folks at Da-Lite for providing the gain curve:



Jeez. The HCHP levels off at half the gain of the HP? Seems a little unbelievable, given the measurements I made of HCHP (grey) vs HP (black) vs. Elite 1.1 matte white (dotted black) material from my seating position ('Position on Screen' axis indicates the portion of the screen I'm viewing from my sitting position... -10 is actually upper left corner and +10 is upper right corner):

 


I'll try & quantitate some off axis viewing gains though later tonight.


----------



## dougri

Are we sure those other charts came from Da-Lite? I guess I could ask for the regular (2.4) HP chart since this one was a bit surprising.


----------



## sarangiman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dougri*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/270#post_22720008
> 
> 
> Are we sure those other charts came from Da-Lite? I guess I could ask for the regular (2.4) HP chart since this one was a bit surprising.



Yeah the other ones (HP & original HP 2.8) look like they were plotted in Excel & don't look like they came from Da-Lite. Could you ask for a HP trace straight from Da-Lite?


The one I posted was my own; I made measurements shooting RAW with my Canon 5D Mark III.


I'm making some measurements right now from fairly off-axis. My previous chart measured the difference in gain at the extreme corners from the center seating position, which might not be that off-axis (hence the HCHP may not look so bad in my experiment).


Now that I'm shooting well off-axis, the HCHP does look like its gain drops *a lot*. I'll have some actual numbers momentarily.


----------



## dougri




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sarangiman*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/270#post_22720032
> 
> 
> Yeah the other ones (HP & original HP 2.8) look like they were plotted in Excel & don't look like they came from Da-Lite. Could you ask for a HP trace straight from Da-Lite?



Done... Will post when I receive it.


----------



## airscapes

To see the hchp drop off, just order a sample of hchp and hp, hangem on your screen and look.. it is very obvious.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/300#post_22720281
> 
> 
> To see the hchp drop off, just order a sample of hchp and hp, hangem on your screen and look.. it is very obvious.


I agree; noticed it pretty substantially even though I sit right at screen center, and the pj is centered and projecting just over my head, at closest throw.     That's why I choose to go with the regular HP2.4, and have been very pleased.

 

However I do have a fully light controlled room, with no ambient light issues; so didn't have to try to manage with the HC version.


----------



## sarangiman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/300#post_22720792
> 
> 
> 
> I agree; noticed it pretty substantially even though I sit right at screen center, and the pj is centered and projecting just over my head, at closest throw.     That's why I choose to go with the regular HP2.4, and have been very pleased.
> 
> 
> However I do have a fully light controlled room, with no ambient light issues; so didn't have to try to manage with the HC version.



Well, if you look at my traces of HCHP (grey) vs HP (black) for the upper left/right corners vs. the center from my center seating position, you can see that the HCHP doesn't drop off any more than the HP:

 


Now, this is in *my* setup (110' screen, 15' throw, 12' seating distance), so I understand YMMV. But it doesn't seem to me that the materials are that different within a reasonable viewing cone. The HCHP is, of course, lower gain throughout the entire screen (contrary to what the 2.4 gain rating would have you believe... actually on axis, center, I measured 2.9 gain over the Elite 1.1 screen for the HP & 2.7 for the HCHP).


However, I do agree that the off-axis gain does drop precipitously for HCHP. I shot some samples of HCHP & HP squares overlaid on top of an Elite Matte White (1.1 gain) screen from pretty far off-axis.

*HCHP:*
 

*HP:*
 


Here are the gains (calculated by dividing HP or HCHP signal by Matte White signal for any given portion of the screen) of the HP vs HCHP material as a function viewing angle (leftmost, center, & rightmost patches had viewing angles of 35º, 40º, and 50º, respectively, to my camera):

 


Here are the raw signals quantitated for the patches of HP, HCHP, and the Matte White 1.1 gain material:

 


You'll see that, for whatever reason, the Matte White screen itself drops precipitously for the right-most patch... some of this is due to the projector's vignetting, I know, but I don't know why it drops off faster than the HP/HCHP materials for that rightmost patch. For that reason, the calculated gain for the HP/HCHP materials actually increases for the rightmost patch relative to center. But it's slight, at any rate.


So, essentially, here's what we have for 40º off-axis gain:

*HP*: 0.85
*HCHP*: 0.65


Guess I'm no longer that surprised at the drop in gain to ~0.5 for the HCHP material. Hmm, not ideal. Re-thinking my decision to get the HCHP. In previous tests I did find its ability to reject ambient light better (duh). In other words, it maintained a higher actual contrast (brightest white/blackest black) than a HP patch in a scenario where the 120" Matte White 1.1 screen was scattering white light everywhere in my not-so-light-controlled room (white ceilings, light walls/floors). Here are my numbers for contrast gained by HP vs HCHP screens (over the Matte White screen) amidst light scatter from Matte White 1.1 screen:

*HP: 2.2x* more contrast than Matte White 1.1 screen
*HCHP: 2.5x* more contrast than Matte White 1.1 screen


Note this is a worst-case scenario: a completely white scene with one small black patch. In fact, my raw contrast numbers for this scene were:

*Elite Matte White 1.1:* 15.4
*HP:* 33.9
*HCHP:* 38.4


As is often the case, it's one big optimization problem


----------



## millerwill


When I compare the falloff curves of the HP2.4 and the HCHP2.4, I see that their falloff is fairly close out to ~ 15 deg, and then the HCHP falls off much more rapidly than the HP, going down to  ~0.5 and ~1.0, respectively, by ~ 35 deg.


----------



## dougri

Da-Lite provided another curve, but it is for the 2.8HP... have requested the 2.4 HP as well...

 


and the previously posted HCHP for reference:


----------



## millerwill


Thanks, dougri; very useful!    So at wider angles (>/=35 deg) the old HP2.8 falls to ~ 0.75 gain, the new HP2.4 to ~ 1.0, and the HCHP2.4 to ~ 0.5.    The is consistent with Dalite's description of the new HP2.4 having better gain at wider angles than the original HP2.8; but the HCHP has less.


----------



## dougri

And finally, all three curves straight from the horse's mouth (albeit the 2.4HP without tagged values):


Older High Power 2.8:
 


Newer High Power 2.4:
 


and High Contrast High Power 2.4:


----------



## dougri

Composite Chart for Reference/Comparison:


----------



## dougri

So, from this, I guess I can conclude if all my seating is within 20 degree viewing angle and I've got light walls and windows that the HCHP is probably the best choice between the newer HPs? And if you have seats out past 20 degrees viewing angle that are important, than the HP2.4 is the right choice? For those without ambient light issues, and seats within 15 degrees viewing angle, the original HP2.8 is the clear winner for brightness addicts. Sound like good rules of thumb? Of course, when you have the PJ either far in front or behind the viewing position, screen uniformity comes into play as well... pretty quickly for seats away from screen center (which would presumably favor the newer HP2.4).


----------



## sarangiman

Thanks a ton dougri!


All this makes a lot of sense to me. Initially I saw no problem with the HCHP vs. the HP b/c I was measuring from within a reasonable viewing cone. When I started making comparisons well outside of this cone is when I suddenly noticed dramatic drops in brightness for the HCHP.


For example, here's my calculations of gain from RAW photos I shot (vs. an Elite Matte White 1.1 gain screen, which was used as the reference to divide the HCHP/HP signals by) for the upper left corner (-10 on x-axis), center (0 on x-axis), and upper right corner (+10 on x-axis) viewed from the center seating position:

 


As you can see, the gains don't really change much between HCHP & HP for the corners. So the HCHP is not causing any additional vignetting compared to the HP. The HCHP does, however, have a lower gain in my setup... maybe b/c the projector is a little off-center & above my head?


----------



## sarangiman

The reason I wanted to go with the HCHP was b/c of its (potential) ability to reject ambient light. Not light coming from windows & such, but just reflections off side walls & ceilings.


So I wanted to quantitate just how much it can help. Here's a little experiment I ran:


I made a 1080p file in Photoshop that was mostly white, with a black bar on bottom. I projected this onto a 110" HCHP screen, onto which HP patches were strategically placed in the center (amidst the white) & along the bottom bar (amidst the black). This way I could quantify the contrast each of these materials could maintain by taking the white & dividing it by the black.

*Picture of my test (brights have been dimmed & darks have been brightened for ease of viewing):*
 


I averaged a small square patch (same size patch for all samples) of pixels within the white/black HP squares, & within regions just to the left of these HP squares for the HCHP white/black measurements. Here are my raw numbers (pretty reliable as this is RAW capture which is mostly linear, within a certain range anyway):

*HP* White/Black = 4806/55 = *87.4*
*HCHP* White/Black = 4070/43 = *94.7*


So, the HCHP maintains better contrast.


Put another way, if we compare the blacks, the HCHP reaches 43/55 = *78% the black level of HP*.


Guess that's not entirely trivial? The question is if you wish to sacrifice viewing cone for this enhanced black level in rooms that are not well light-controlled.


Would appreciate any thoughts/feedback. My HCHP screen arrives tomorrow & I can swap out just the material for HP for a reasonable fee within the first 30 days.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dougri*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/300#post_22724398
> 
> 
> So, from this, I guess I can conclude if all my seating is within 20 degree viewing angle and I've got light walls and windows that the HCHP is probably the best choice between the newer HPs? And if you have seats out past 20 degrees viewing angle that are important, than the HP2.4 is the right choice? For those without ambient light issues, and seats within 15 degrees viewing angle, the original HP2.8 is the clear winner for brightness addicts. Sound like good rules of thumb? Of course, when you have the PJ either far in front or behind the viewing position, screen uniformity comes into play as well... pretty quickly for seats away from screen center (which would presumably favor the newer HP2.4).


I tend to agree with your conclusions:   if ambient light is a serious consideration, then one should really check out the HCHP.    If not, I think the HP is clearly better.

 

I found this out myself about a yr ago when I replaced my HP2.8 for a larger screen.     I thought I wanted to go with the new (at that time) HCHP, and ordered samples of it and the also new HP2.4.    Much to my surprise, I found the HCHP samples placed at the furthest left and right sides of what my new screen was planned to be (12 ft wide, viewed from ~ 12 ft away) were considerably dimmed compared to samples at the central part of the screen.   (This is likely due to the very large screen and close viewing distance, which leads to fairly wide viewing angles even though I sit at the lateral center of the screen.)   With the HP2.4 (non-HC) samples there was essentially no dimming.    Since I have no ambient light to worry about (and also light absorbing material on ceiling and side walls out ~ 8 ft from the screen wall), I thus made the obvious choice for the non-HC HP2.4.     I find that it gives extremely uniform brightness over the whole screen.

 

The morale to my experience is that one can be guided by these very useful figures, but BE SURE to order samples from Dalite and put them up at the extreme positions of the screen you are planning for to be sure.


----------



## dougri




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/300#post_22724713
> 
> 
> 
> I found the HCHP samples placed at the furthest left and right sides of what my new screen was planned to be (12 ft wide, viewed from ~ 12 ft away) were considerably dimmed compared to samples at the central part of the screen.   (This is likely due to the very large screen and close viewing distance, which leads to fairly wide viewing angles even though I sit at the lateral center of the screen.)   With the HP2.4 (non-HC) samples there was essentially no dimming.
> 
> 
> I find that it gives extremely uniform brightness over the whole screen.
> 
> 
> The morale to my experience is that one can be guided by these very useful figures, but BE SURE to order samples from Dalite and put them up at the extreme positions of the screen you are planning for to be sure.



If you don't mind my asking, what is your throw in comparison to your viewing distance? Your experience is consistent with what you would expect from a retroreflective screen as the viewing distance and throw distance diverge... and the effect becomes apparent more quickly with the HCHP. In the unrealistic, ideal case of the PJ lens being at your eyes, the gain will be the same across the entire screen... as you move the projector in any direction from that point, there will start to be variations is screen gain determined largely by the angle between: 1) the line connecting the PJ lens with a given point on the screen, and 2) the line connecting an eye and that same point on the screen (yes, there will be a minor, imperceptible difference in gain between each eye). Did you try viewing the HCHP from very near the projector lens? I'd expect very uniform brightness in that case for all the HP screens... with differences becoming rapidly apparent as you move away from the PJ lens in any direction (up/down, forward/back, right/left).


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dougri*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/300#post_22726888
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't mind my asking, what is your throw in comparison to your viewing distance? Your experience is consistent with what you would expect from a retroreflective screen as the viewing distance and throw distance diverge... and the effect becomes apparent more quickly with the HCHP. In the unrealistic, ideal case of the PJ lens being at your eyes, the gain will be the same across the entire screen... as you move the projector in any direction from that point, there will start to be variations is screen gain determined largely by the angle between: 1) the line connecting the PJ lens with a given point on the screen, and 2) the line connecting an eye and that same point on the screen (yes, there will be a minor, imperceptible difference in gain between each eye). Did you try viewing the HCHP from very near the projector lens? I'd expect very uniform brightness in that case for all the HP screens... with differences becoming rapidly apparent as you move away from the PJ lens in any direction (up/down, forward/back, right/left).


Your analysis is exactly right:   the relevant angle is that from the pj lens to a point on the screen, and from that point to your eye.

 

My projector (Sony1000ES) has a very small min throw ratio (1.27), and I'm right at that limit.   So for my 12ft wide screen the pj lens is a bit over 15 ft from the screen.    And I sit close (~12 ft from screen), so the angle I describe above is ~20 deg (IIRC) to points on the screen at the L and R edges; the angle is obviously 0 deg for points at the center of the screen.     And just as you suggest, that is the reason for the brightness falloff I observe with the HCHP.     If I move my chair further back, e.g., to ~ 14 ft, and thus have my eyes closer to the pj lens, then the brightness is uniform over the whole screen.    

 

But I like to sit close, for the 'total immersion' feeling.    Ideally, I would like a projector with a min throw ratio of 1.0; then I could sit at my desired 1.0 SW distance and have the pj just behind (and just above) my head.   The HCHP would work for me in that case.   

 

PS   Just re-did the calculation, and the angle for points at the L & R edges of the screen is only 5 deg.   According to the graphs you showed, this would give a gain of ~2.0 with the HCHP, and ~ 2.2 with the HP, both having a gain of 2.4 for points at the center of the screen.    As I noted in a previous post, the safest way to decide is to get samples of each material from Dalite, tape them up on the wall at various positions on the prospective screen, to check for brightness variation.


----------



## sarangiman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/300#post_22727020
> 
> 
> PS   Just re-did the calculation, and the angle for points at the L & R edges of the screen is only 5 deg.   According to the graphs you showed, this would give a gain of ~2.0 with the HCHP, and ~ 2.2 with the HP, both having a gain of 2.4 for points at the center of the screen.    As I noted in a previous post, the safest way to decide is to get samples of each material from Dalite, tape them up on the wall at various positions on the prospective screen, to check for brightness variation.



In my experience, the HP always has a higher gain than the HCHP. If you post a HCHP & HP patch next to each other on the center of the screen, isn't the HP brighter? It is for me. You guys seriously don't see this?


Within my center seating position, sitting 1.25x screen width away from the 110" (diagonal) screen, there's absolutely no difference in fall-off (at corners) for HCHP vs. HP.


----------



## dougri




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sarangiman*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/300#post_22727588
> 
> 
> In my experience, the HP always has a higher gain than the HCHP. If you post a HCHP & HP patch next to each other on the center of the screen, isn't the HP brighter? It is for me. You guys seriously don't see this?
> 
> Within my center seating position, sitting 1.25x screen width away from the 110" (diagonal) screen, there's absolutely no difference in fall-off (at corners) for HCHP vs. HP.



I'd be interested to know your exact setup to see just how accurate the gain charts are compared to your experience... from my rough calculations with the PJ behind the viewers and just high enough (or offset enough) to clear the viewers' heads, or the PJ just low enough to be out of the line of sight to the screen, the minimum angle between the closest viewer and the center of the screen is about 7 degrees.... which just happens to be the largest gain difference between HP and HCHP from 0-15 degrees. The difference in gain is a smidge more than 10% at 7 degrees... and they actually are much closer in gain at 15 degrees. Relative gain differences between screens are very noticable when placed side by side, and keep in mind, for a given screen, the difference in gain just due to the interocular distance of 2.5" is about .05


----------



## dougri

What is interesting to me is that for seating within about 15 degrees, the HCHP might actually have better uniformity, albeit at slightly lower gain while doing a slightly better job with ambient light as well. For my living room, with the PJ on a pedestal behind an 'L' shaped sofa, and a second row of seating at barstools about 100" behind the PJ (and within 10 degrees viewing angle), the HCHP from the charts has better uniformity. I'll have to order some more samples and see if that bears out in reality. Certainly with larger viewing angles, the HCHP is pretty bad, but that may not bite me with my odd setup.


----------



## sarangiman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dougri*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/300#post_22728313
> 
> 
> What is interesting to me is that for seating within about 15 degrees, the HCHP might actually have better uniformity, albeit at slightly lower gain while doing a slightly better job with ambient light as well. For my living room, with the PJ on a pedestal behind an 'L' shaped sofa, and a second row of seating at barstools about 100" behind the PJ (and within 10 degrees viewing angle), the HCHP from the charts has better uniformity. I'll have to order some more samples and see if that bears out in reality. Certainly with larger viewing angles, the HCHP is pretty bad, but that may not bite me with my odd setup.



Interesting. Yeah I also saw in one of my charts that technically the uniformity of the HCHP was slightly higher than the HP... but I just thought this might be error in measurements. It wasn't dramatic, at any rate.


My set up: my HW50 is just about 12" above eye level, sitting on a curio/bookshelf. 110" HCHP screen, sitting distance is 10ft (so 1.25x SW). Projector is slightly to the right behind my head, so I do need a little lens shift toward the left.


I just find it interesting that in most of my measurements, the HCHP is just a steady 0.2 lower than HP in gain. Except for my 50º viewing angle measurement, where it was 0.25 lower than the HP. Of course, HCHP's smaller viewing cone is exactly what allows it to reject more stray light, so I still think it can be useful. I find myself generally wanting blacker blacks for bright scenes, which is when room reflections kill the contrast. I don't care too much about the narrow viewing cone since it appears that for the a row of 4 people sitting on my couch, the drop-off on either end of the couch is the same for HP as HCHP... just that the overall gain is lower. And the only time I care about 0.2 lower gain is for 3D; the Sony projector is bright!


Fun stuff, and thanks for some of those numbers/calculations, dougri. Happy Holidays!


----------



## noah katz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dougri*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/300_50#post_22726888
> 
> 
> ...screen gain determined largely by the angle between: 1) the line connecting the PJ lens with a given point on the screen, and 2) the line connecting an eye and that same point on the screen ...



Is this the angle used in Dalite's gain curves, or is it just the angle between a perpendicular through the center of the screen and an off-axis viewing position?


----------



## sarangiman

Update: I received my HCHP screen & put it up. It has a really distracting texture that shows up as vertical & horizontal striations across the entire screen. Visible in pans with skies, and especially visible when playing video games (since there's constant motion & a general lack of contrast/fine detail in a lot of games). Ugh. Did they never fix this problem? Is it even possible to get a HCHP screen without these problems?


Also makes me wonder-- does the HP screen have these striations as well, just harder to see b/c it's brighter?


Are the striations due to the gray, or the little beads? It's weird that it's mostly horizontal & vertical... must be a remnant of some coating process.


Otherwise, it's gorgeous. I actually decided I like the fact that it has really bad gain at extreme angles... b/c this means that my ceilings & walls near the screen just get much less light than they would with a HP screen. And since I decided the black velvet curtains around the screen were just too ugly, I need a screen like the HCHP.


If anyone's curious, for a completely white image with a small black square (i.e. worst-case light scattering scenario):
At the center of the screen: without the curtains I get *92%* the contrast I get with curtains
At the edges of the screen: without the curtains I get *82%* the contrast I get with curtains (more contrast cost at edges b/c they're closer to the ceiling or wall)


Meanwhile, I get a 333% boost in contrast (for this worst-case completely bright scene scenario) just going from the matte white 1.1 scree to the HCHP.


So... meh. I hate the curtains, so am taking a contrast hit










Happy New Year!


----------



## airscapes

Don't settle for distracting lines and texture.. get on the phone today and start screaming!


----------



## sarangiman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/300#post_22772013
> 
> 
> Don't settle for distracting lines and texture.. get on the phone today and start screaming!



Ha. Well I don't think screaming helps  But I did call up Da-Lite & the dealer & they'll swap out the screen for either HCHP or HP. My dilemma is: do I keep swapping out HCHP screens until I get one without texture (_*does a HCHP screen without texture even exist??*_), or do I just get a HP?


IF the HCHP actually has more of a gain drop-off at extreme angles than the HCHP, it's just going to send much less light at my walls/ceilings than the HP. Just look at how dark the HCHP patches look off-angle compared to matte white (1.1 gain):

*HCHP patches on Matte White 1.1 screen:*
 


Compare that to...

*HP patches on Matte White 1.1 screen:*
 


So, yeah... that's exactly what HCHP has going for it.


But here's what the texture on my HCHP screen looks like (contrast has been drastically exaggerated for you to see):
 

Link: http://cl.ly/LuTw/HCHP-Texture.jpg 


Those vertical patterns you see are exactly what show up during viewing.


I'm wondering what the problem is. It's not like you can't make a grey screen without texture. What about a grey screen with microbeads is giving Da-Lite a hard time? Or do HP screens also have this sort of texture/pattern, just less easy to see due to it being so bright (doesn't really make sense, actually)?


----------



## sarangiman

Also, I did a quick HCHP vs. HP comparison tonight at extreme viewing angles to see how much better the HCHP is at scattering *less* light to extreme angles (i.e. stuff that'd hit walls/ceilings). I took measurements of an HP patch placed on top of the HCHP screen at the center, and took measurements of the HCHP material immediately to one side of the HP patch (not idea, but should be close enough).


Here's a graph of the ratio of HCHP to HP intensity at different viewing angles (measured with protractor):

 


Straight on, the HCHP shows ~*84% the intensity of the HP*. This is pretty much what I consistently see in my setup.


However, at 70º, the HCHP shows *69% the intensity of the HP*. *That's a 15% drop in comparative intensity between HCHP and HP as we moved from 0º to 70º viewing angle*. I believe one could interpret this as meaning that the HCHP, compared to HP, may roughly scatter 15% less light to walls/ceilings at a 70º angle (in my setup, anyway). Do you agree? So this, in addition to its grey base, could help maintain better contrast in light-colored rooms.


The question is: is this 15% worth the headache of trying to find a HCHP surface without texture?










P.S. I still, consistently, get different results from Da-Lite's numbers re: HCHP vs HP gain at different angles. They claim the HCHP drops to ~0.5 gain at extreme angles while HP maintains a gain of 1 even at those extreme angles. I actually see the HP material dip to lower than 1.0 gain even at 35º, and the HCHP never dips below ~69% the intensity of the HP. Again, the Da-Lite graphs would have you believe the HCHP drops to 50% the intensity of the HP at extreme angles... I just don't see it dipping that low in my setup/measurements.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sarangiman*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/300#post_22776260
> 
> 
> Also, I did a quick HCHP vs. HP comparison tonight at extreme viewing angles to see how much better the HCHP is at scattering *less* light to extreme angles (i.e. stuff that'd hit walls/ceilings). I took measurements of an HP patch placed on top of the HCHP screen at the center, and took measurements of the HCHP material immediately to one side of the HP patch (not idea, but should be close enough).
> 
> Here's a graph of the ratio of HCHP to HP intensity at different viewing angles (measured with protractor):
> 
> 
> Straight on, the HCHP shows ~*84% the intensity of the HP*. This is pretty much what I consistently see in my setup.
> 
> However, at 70º, the HCHP shows *69% the intensity of the HP*. *That's a 15% drop in comparative intensity between HCHP and HP as we moved from 0º to 70º viewing angle*. I believe one could interpret this as meaning that the HCHP, compared to HP, may roughly scatter 15% less light to walls/ceilings at a 70º angle (in my setup, anyway). Do you agree? So this, in addition to its grey base, could help maintain better contrast in light-colored rooms.
> 
> The question is: is this 15% worth the headache of trying to find a HCHP surface without texture?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P.S. I still, consistently, get different results from Da-Lite's numbers re: HCHP vs HP gain at different angles. They claim the HCHP drops to ~0.5 gain at extreme angles while HP maintains a gain of 1 even at those extreme angles. I actually see the HP material dip to lower than 1.0 gain even at 35º, and the HCHP never dips below ~69% the intensity of the HP. Again, the Da-Lite graphs would have you believe the HCHP drops to 50% the intensity of the HP at extreme angles... I just don't see it dipping that low in my setup/measurements.


Can you measure (or estimate) the angle between the two lines, one from the projector to a spot on the center of the screen, and from your eye to that same point?    I.e., even 'straight on', this angle will not be 0 because the pj is not exactly where your eye is.


----------



## sarangiman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/300#post_22777885
> 
> 
> Can you measure (or estimate) the angle between the two lines, one from the projector to a spot on the center of the screen, and from your eye to that same point?    I.e., even 'straight on', this angle will not be 0 because the pj is not exactly where your eye is.



The HP patch was placed pretty much right on axis with the lens. I, of course, had to shoot the 0º shot slightly off-axis... maybe like 5º? The other angle numbers should be accurate, as I used the protractor to measure the angle between the camera and the line normal to the HP patch; the latter being right on axis with the lens... so, I don't see how those numbers would be any different.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sarangiman*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/300#post_22778981
> 
> 
> 
> The HP patch was placed pretty much right on axis with the lens. I, of course, had to shoot the 0º shot slightly off-axis... maybe like 5º? The other angle numbers should be accurate, as I used the protractor to measure the angle between the camera and the line normal to the HP patch; the latter being right on axis with the lens... so, I don't see how those numbers would be any different.


OK, tx; you're probably right.    However, if you look at the gain curves (from Dalite, I believe), the ratio of the HPHC to HP gain at 5 deg is ~ .85 to .9, about what you reported above for the ratio of your 'straight on' measurement.


----------



## sarangiman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/300#post_22779318
> 
> 
> 
> OK, tx; you're probably right.    However, if you look at the gain curves (from Dalite, I believe), the ratio of the HPHC to HP gain at 5 deg is ~ .85 to .9, about what you reported above for the ratio of your 'straight on' measurement.



Ah, good point. Thanks for pointing that out.


But my ratios don't hold for the rest of the viewing angles. Da-Lite says the HCHP drops to half the gain of the HP way off-axis; I only see at worst a drop-off of ~0.7, not 0.5. Maybe this is because of scattered light or who knows what!


Do you think 15% less scattered light at extreme angles is significant? Really hard to judge, I guess. I suppose I should just get the HP screen and quantitate what the worst case contrast is using my previous method I used for the HCHP screen (white screen with one small black square)... only problem is that I'd likely be stuck with the HP screen once I get it.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sarangiman*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/300#post_22779410
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, good point. Thanks for pointing that out.
> 
> But my ratios don't hold for the rest of the viewing angles. Da-Lite says the HCHP drops to half the gain of the HP way off-axis; I only see at worst a drop-off of ~0.7, not 0.5. Maybe this is because of scattered light or who knows what!
> 
> Do you think 15% less scattered light at extreme angles is significant? Really hard to judge, I guess. I suppose I should just get the HP screen and quantitate what the worst case contrast is using my previous method I used for the HCHP screen (white screen with one small black square)... only problem is that I'd likely be stuck with the HP screen once I get it.


OK, useful info; I agree that it's always good to check things out for your own situation rather than just accept published values.

 

Hard for me to say about the 15% difference you ask about.    In my case (but maybe not close enough to yours to be relevant--12 ft wide screen, viewed from ~ 12 ft), I noticed a significant brightness drop off at the L and R edges of the screen with the HPHC samples, even when sitting pretty much at screen center; with the HP samples the brightness was much more uniform out to the edges (as one would expect because of the wider viewing cone).   I thus decided to go with the HP material and have been extremely pleased with it; it is even smoother than an earlier HP2.8 screen that I had (but was smaller--the reason I replaced it!), which was already very good in this regard.

 

However I do have black absorbing material on the ceiling and side walls out to ~ 9 ft from the screen wall, so there is no issue at all from side wall or ceiling reflections.

 

One of the fun parts of setting up ones HT is the careful research and analysis that one must go through to find the most acceptable solution for their own specific situation.


----------



## sarangiman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/300#post_22779653
> 
> 
> 
> OK, useful info; I agree that it's always good to check things out for your own situation rather than just accept published values.
> 
> 
> Hard for me to say about the 15% difference you ask about.    In my case (but maybe not close enough to yours to be relevant--12 ft wide screen, viewed from ~ 12 ft), I noticed a significant brightness drop off at the L and R edges of the screen with the HPHC samples, even when sitting pretty much at screen center; with the HP samples the brightness was much more uniform out to the edges (as one would expect because of the wider viewing cone).   I thus decided to go with the HP material and have been extremely pleased with it; it is even smoother than an earlier HP2.8 screen that I had (but was smaller--the reason I replaced it!), which was already very good in this regard.
> 
> 
> However I do have black absorbing material on the ceiling and side walls out to ~ 9 ft from the screen wall, so there is no issue at all from side wall or ceiling reflections.
> 
> 
> One of the fun parts of setting up ones HT is the careful research and analysis that one must go through to find the most acceptable solution for their own specific situation.



Oh wow, you have like a ~165" diagonal screen (if it's 16:9)? Mine's only 8ft wide (110" diagonal), so no wonder I don't see any difference at the corners between the HCHP vs HP material, whereas you do!


9ft out! Wow! I only had curtains ~2ft out, which still helped quite a bit with contrast at the edges. Helped tremendously with the matte white screen; less so w/ the HCHP given it scatters much less light to begin with.


Sure I agree it's fun... to a certain point. But at this point with all the problems I've experienced (replacement of HW50 due to bad lens, new HW50 flickers, HCHP material has texture, etc.), it's quite frustrating to say the least. Furthermore, I move a lot, so it's no efficient for me to optimize for any one given scenario. So one may argue I'm trying to build a home theater experience in a space I shouldn't. Fair enough. So I'm just trying to optimize for the fact that I'll typically be in smaller spaces with lots of light-colored walls/ceilings. Hence why I went for the (relatively) smaller 110", and the HCHP material.


I just can't seem to find a way to make the black velvet around the screen look decent. I used rods sticking out 2ft from the screen on either corner, then attached the middle top portion of the velvet to the ceiling with small magnets (to create a 'draping' effect). Without the middle attachment, the velvet just drops too low (the two posts on the corners can't tension the fabric enough to keep it straight across the top of the screen). I feel like the only real solution is to paint the walls/ceilings nearby, or put dark tiles on them. Which is difficult for city condo living.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sarangiman*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/300#post_22779695
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wow, you have like a ~165" diagonal screen (if it's 16:9)? Mine's only 8ft wide (110" diagonal), so no wonder I don't see any difference at the corners between the HCHP vs HP material, whereas you do!
> 
> 9ft out! Wow! I only had curtains ~2ft out, which still helped quite a bit with contrast at the edges. Helped tremendously with the matte white screen; less so w/ the HCHP given it scatters much less light to begin with.
> 
> Sure I agree it's fun... to a certain point. But at this point with all the problems I've experienced (replacement of HW50 due to bad lens, new HW50 flickers, HCHP material has texture, etc.), it's quite frustrating to say the least. Furthermore, I move a lot, so it's no efficient for me to optimize for any one given scenario. So one may argue I'm trying to build a home theater experience in a space I shouldn't. Fair enough. So I'm just trying to optimize for the fact that I'll typically be in smaller spaces with lots of light-colored walls/ceilings. Hence why I went for the (relatively) smaller 110", and the HCHP material.
> 
> I just can't seem to find a way to make the black velvet around the screen look decent. I used rods sticking out 2ft from the screen on either corner, then attached the middle top portion of the velvet to the ceiling with small magnets (to create a 'draping' effect). Without the middle attachment, the velvet just drops too low (the two posts on the corners can't tension the fabric enough to keep it straight across the top of the screen). I feel like the only real solution is to paint the walls/ceilings nearby, or put dark tiles on them. Which is difficult for city condo living.


My screen is 12 ft W for 2.35 (and thus ~61" H); for 16x9 (actually 17x9 for my Sony VW1000) it is 136"x72".

 

The light absorbing material is ProtoStar material (used to line telescopes; check its website), and I attached with push pins since I first put it up temporarily, just to see how it would work; it worked so well that I've simply left it this way; very simple.    And yes it is REMARKABLE how much it enhances contrast, even if you have some external light (which I usually don't).       According to reports on the Forum, you get the major effect if it only goes ~ 4 ft from the screen wall, but in my room it made sense to bring to out further.   

 

With your size screen I understand that you don't have brightness falloff with the HPHC, so it is a more viable option for you.    However I do note that the HP2.4 material is EXTREMELY artifact-free; it is creamy smooth and just 'disappears'.


----------



## sarangiman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/300#post_22779862
> 
> 
> My screen is 12 ft W for 2.35 (and thus ~61" H); for 16x9 (actually 17x9 for my Sony VW1000) it is 136"x72".
> 
> 
> The light absorbing material is ProtoStar material (used to line telescopes; check its website), and I attached with push pins since I first put it up temporarily, just to see how it would work; it worked so well that I've simply left it this way; very simple.    And yes it is REMARKABLE how much it enhances contrast, even if you have some external light (which I usually don't).       According to reports on the Forum, you get the major effect if it only goes ~ 4 ft from the screen wall, but in my room it made sense to bring to out further.
> 
> 
> With your size screen I understand that you don't have brightness falloff with the HPHC, so it is a more viable option for you.    However I do note that the HP2.4 material is EXTREMELY artifact-free; it is creamy smooth and just 'disappears'.



Not hard to believe; as per my previous calculations: ith my curtains out 2ft from the wall it boosted the contrast around the edges *22%* for a worst-case scenario image (all white, with one small black square). 9% at the center (which is less affected by scattered light).


I imagine the effect would be even higher for HP material, which'll scatter more to begin with.


Using your push-pins, were you able to keep the material pretty tensioned on the ceiling/wall? So as to avoid it drooping? I suppose if it were tensioned & flat on the ceilings/walls, it'd look more acceptable to me. I see I can also get the 0.04" 'FlockBoard', which I assume would be nice & rigid? Tack that to the ceiling? If it's light, I may be able to get away with a few small nails in the ceiling & some neodymium magnets...


----------



## sarangiman

millerwill-- did you get the board or just the 'self adhesive hi-tack flocked light trap' material ( http://www.fpi-protostar.com/hitack.htm )? If the latter, are tacks (how many?) enough to hold it up? Is it really light? Does it stay relatively straight (unlike velvet cloth, which just droops everywhere)?


Now you've got me pretty interested in this combo of HP with the ProtoStar material. Like I said, if it's just straight/flat on the ceilings/walls, I guess it wouldn't look so bad. Do you have a picture of your home theater setup?


Thank you!


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sarangiman*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/330#post_22779930
> 
> 
> millerwill-- did you get the board or just the 'self adhesive hi-tack flocked light trap' material ( http://www.fpi-protostar.com/hitack.htm )? If the latter, are tacks (how many?) enough to hold it up? Is it really light? Does it stay relatively straight (unlike velvet cloth, which just droops everywhere)?
> 
> Now you've got me pretty interested in this combo of HP with the ProtoStar material. Like I said, if it's just straight/flat on the ceilings/walls, I guess it wouldn't look so bad. Do you have a picture of your home theater setup?
> 
> Thank you!


The ProtoStar material is truly remarkable; it is essentially the same kind of black felt that covers the Dalite screen frame.     I use the 'zoom method' for 2.35, and the 'black bars' that are projected above and below the screen when its zoomed out 12 ft wide totally disappear with this material (which I also have on the screen wall that is not covered by the screen itself).

 

Re ProtoStar, I tried the 'flock board' but found its backing too heavy and thick.    So I used the 'self adhesive' material, that you can get 30" wide (IIRC) and of arbitrary length.    But I LEAVE THE PLASTIC BACKING SHEET ON IT, i.e., I don't use the adhesive aspect of it, and attach it to the ceiling and side walls with push pins (using ones with black plastic heads, so they are essentially invisible).   I suppose you could peal off the backing and use the adhesive to hold it in place.    But it is SO STICKY that it would be very hard to work with in large sheets.   This material is light weight enough that it is no problem for it to be held with the push pins (which was not true for the heavier 'flock board').     [I did cover the sides of my speakers that catch reflected light from the screen with ProtoStar, and for these I did peal off the plastic backing and use the adhesive to cover the relevant sides of the speakers.    With these smaller pieces, it was easy enough to work with.    But the adhesive is VERY STICKY, so I think it would be very hard to do this for the ceiling.    Also, since I first tried this out a a test, I didn't want to make an irreversible commitment, and thus used the push pins; and since they worked well, I just went with them.]


----------



## sarangiman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/330#post_22780145
> 
> 
> 
> The ProtoStar material is truly remarkable; it is essentially the same kind of black felt that covers the Dalite screen frame.     I use the 'zoom method' for 2.35, and the 'black bars' that are projected above and below the screen when its zoomed out 12 ft wide totally disappear with this material (which I also have on the screen wall that is not covered by the screen itself).
> 
> 
> Re ProtoStar, I tried the 'flock board' but found its backing too heavy and thick.    So I used the 'self adhesive' material, that you can get 30" wide (IIRC) and of arbitrary length.    But I LEAVE THE PLASTIC BACKING SHEET ON IT, i.e., I don't use the adhesive aspect of it, and attach it to the ceiling and side walls with push pins (using ones with black plastic heads, so they are essentially invisible).   I suppose you could peal off the backing and use the adhesive to hold it in place.    But it is SO STICKY that it would be very hard to work with in large sheets.   This material is light weight enough that it is no problem for it to be held with the push pins (which was not true for the heavier 'flock board').     _
> _



Awesome, thanks very much for the input. Yeah I can't use the adhesive sticker because I move a lot. Did you have to use a ton of them to hold it up, & does it still look relatively flat/flush with the ceiling with just the tacks?


My floor is also light colored & reflects a lot of light. Think the material you got will lie flat on the floor (say with a slip-pad)? Or is it going to curl/move around a lot? Thanks.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sarangiman*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/330#post_22780235
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome, thanks very much for the input. Yeah I can't use the adhesive sticker because I move a lot. Did you have to use a ton of them to hold it up, & does it still look relatively flat/flush with the ceiling with just the tacks?
> 
> My floor is also light colored & reflects a lot of light. Think the material you got will lie flat on the floor (say with a slip-pad)? Or is it going to curl/move around a lot? Thanks.


My room is ~ 14 ft W, so I used the 30" W sheets cut to this length, and used push pins on each side of these sheets about every 3-4 ft.    And yes, it makes the covering quite flush/flat; it absorbs light so completely that any small ripples are totally invisible.    Putting it up on the ceiling is of course the hardest, and it's very useful to have someone help you keep it straight, etc; it's quite easy for the side walls.

 

Re the floor, I don't think this material would work well for it; it really wouldn't take any foot traffic.     I have hardwood floors, but a large darkish oriental rug covering most of it and don't have any reflections from it.     [My room is not a specially constructed 'screening room' type HT, but simply a former master BR, 14x17.5, that I've just taken over for my 'HT'.]


----------



## sarangiman

That's great info millerwill-- thanks! Is the material easy to cut (with scissors)?


My 'HT' is in my main living room, since I just have a 2BR condo. Hence why I'm reluctant to put up dark stuff everywhere. But ProtoStar on the ceiling and an oriental rug on the floor are totally doable. There's no left wall but the right wall is extremely close to the screen (1-2ft), so that'll likely be a problem. I feel it'll be ugly coated with the ProtoStar material.


Here's my room (note the remarkable scatter with matte white 1.1 gain material):
 


Funny, in this case, I feel like a left wall would've been nice... at least then I could've symmetrically coated both walls with the ProtoStar material. Then combined with the ceiling, it would've created a nice 'box' effect.


P.S. With the 110" screen, since it's considerably smaller than the 120" screen pictured above, I moved the entire screen down quite a bit. So there are less ceiling reflections. I also hate looking up at a screen during viewing.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sarangiman*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/330#post_22780356
> 
> 
> That's great info millerwill-- thanks! Is the material easy to cut (with scissors)?
> 
> My 'HT' is in my main living room, since I just have a 2BR condo. Hence why I'm reluctant to put up dark stuff everywhere. But ProtoStar on the ceiling and an oriental rug on the floor are totally doable. There's no left wall but the right wall is extremely close to the screen (1-2ft), so that'll likely be a problem. I feel it'll be ugly coated with the ProtoStar material.
> 
> Here's my room (note the remarkable scatter with matte white 1.1 gain material):
> 
> 
> Funny, in this case, I feel like a left wall would've been nice... at least then I could've symmetrically coated both walls with the ProtoStar material. Then combined with the ceiling, it would've created a nice 'box' effect.
> 
> P.S. With the 110" screen, since it's considerably smaller than the 120" screen pictured above, I moved the entire screen down quite a bit. So there are less ceiling reflections. I also hate looking up at a screen during viewing.


Yep, easy to cut with scissors.    Looks like the absence of a left wall will eliminate much reflection from that side, and that it should be relatively straight-forward to put up ProtoStar on the ceiling and right wall.    Have fun!


----------



## sarangiman

Shoot I forgot about the 'Draper Contrast Radiant' screen ( http://www.draperinc.com/filedownload.asp?pathname=ProjectionScreens\TechDataSheets&filename=OptiView_Contrast_Radiant_CH2700E.pdf ). I got a sample & it was very similar to the HCHP material (despite it having a claimed 2.7 gain & 30º viewing angle); look at the patch labeled 'Draper' below:

 


Does anyone here have experience with the Draper surface? Perhaps it doesn't have the texture problems of the HCHP?


----------



## sarangiman

Seriously, why are there like no threads on the Draper Contrast Radiant screen? I even have a feeling their tensioning method is much better than Da-Lite's. For example, look at the corner of my Cinema Contour Da-Lite screen... I can't get rid of the ripples there, & I can see it in my projected image:

 


I've tried unsnapping it at various corners & re-tensioning/snapping corners. Nope. The upper left & bottom right both have these ripples. And, yes, I can see them in projected content, if I'm looking for them anyway. Which of course now I am 


The Draper system uses a rod that spans the entire length. Seems smarter to me.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sarangiman*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/330#post_22780630
> 
> 
> Seriously, why are there like no threads on the Draper Contrast Radiant screen? I even have a feeling their tensioning method is much better than Da-Lite's. For example, look at the corner of my Cinema Contour Da-Lite screen... I can't get rid of the ripples there, & I can see it in my projected image:
> 
> 
> I've tried unsnapping it at various corners & re-tensioning/snapping corners. Nope. The upper left & bottom right both have these ripples. And, yes, I can see them in projected content, if I'm looking for them anyway. Which of course now I am
> 
> The Draper system uses a rod that spans the entire length. Seems smarter to me.


The Draper product does look interesting.   You'll just have to find out what you can about it to see if it delivers on what it advertises.

 

I agree that the wrinkles in your Cinema Contour Dalite screen look unacceptable.      (I have the DaSnap frame and have a very even, smooth result.)    You might want to see about getting Dalite to send you a replacement.


----------



## sarangiman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/330#post_22780652
> 
> 
> 
> The Draper product does look interesting.   You'll just have to find out what you can about it to see if it delivers on what it advertises.
> 
> 
> I agree that the wrinkles in your Cinema Contour Dalite screen look unacceptable.      (I have the DaSnap frame and have a very even, smooth result.)    You might want to see about getting Dalite to send you a replacement.



Yeah, but rather than fuss with X number of HCHP screen surface replacements, I'm wondering if it wouldn't be more efficient for me to return the entire Cinema Contour HCHP screen ($1200), and just buy the Draper screen ($1000). I don't even know if I can do that without raising a fuss.


Really, the problem is: if Da-Lite released the HCHP screen, we viewers should NOT be beta-testers/QC. Every time I swap out the HCHP surface for another one, I have to:

Take down my old screen, & unsnap the screen from the frame
Wrap up the old screen material meticulously
Unwrap the new screen material meticulously
Attach it to the frame, a huge PIA given the tension you have to apply during snapping.
Re-mount the entire frame
Watch a bunch of content to see if there's texture
Ship the old one back
Stay home on day of delivery of new screen, and carry it in myself b/c CEVA Logistics is a piece of crap company who won't even deliver the screen any further than they feel like parking their truck.


That should not be my job. I already have a job. Did Da-Lite create QC jobs so I don't have to do this nonsense?


This screen was $1200. Not $0. You'd think I'd be paying for some level of QC.


----------



## dougri




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/300#post_22771057
> 
> 
> Is this the angle used in Dalite's gain curves, or is it just the angle between a perpendicular through the center of the screen and an off-axis viewing position?



As you state, but shouldn't the bend angle and viewing angle be the same in the special case of a retro-reflective screen with the source of illumination directed along the screen normal at the center of the screen? They would really be throwing us all for a loop if the source of illumination was off-axis!


edit: also assuming same behavior for vertical displacement since no vertical gain chart is provided for any of the HP screens (i.e. as is the case for some of the 'optical' screens designed to reject overhead or side-lighting).


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sarangiman*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/330#post_22780669
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but rather than fuss with X number of HCHP screen surface replacements, I'm wondering if it wouldn't be more efficient for me to return the entire Cinema Contour HCHP screen ($1200), and just buy the Draper screen ($1000). I don't even know if I can do that without raising a fuss.
> 
> Really, the problem is: if Da-Lite released the HCHP screen, we viewers should NOT be beta-testers/QC. Every time I swap out the HCHP surface for another one, I have to:
> 
> Take down my old screen, & unsnap the screen from the frame
> Wrap up the old screen material meticulously
> Unwrap the new screen material meticulously
> Attach it to the frame, a huge PIA given the tension you have to apply during snapping.
> Re-mount the entire frame
> Watch a bunch of content to see if there's texture
> Ship the old one back
> Stay home on day of delivery of new screen, and carry it in myself b/c CEVA Logistics is a piece of crap company who won't even deliver the screen any further than they feel like parking their truck.
> 
> That should not be my job. I already have a job. Did Da-Lite create QC jobs so I don't have to do this nonsense?
> 
> This screen was $1200. Not $0. You'd think I'd be paying for some level of QC.


I understand the hassle!   I have never had a problem with the screen material, but the first HP2.8 I bought came with the wrong frame size (not Dalite's error, but it was written down wrong by the AVS salesman), and the present HP2.4 came without the black material covering the frame (as I had ordered).     Packing up and returning these was a hassle, but I must admit that Dalite dealt with it very well, instantly airfreighting the replacements, etc., and paying for all the extra shipping.

 

I have no info about Draper, but I'll bet you can find out a lot by googling them and reading some, probably here on the Forum.     Another much less expensive gray, retro-reflective screen is Optoma's Graywolf, but in the past I read much about its 'texture' problems; not sure if it has been improved or not.    Again, I would do a lot of reading about it before committing.


----------



## sarangiman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/330#post_22782062
> 
> 
> I understand the hassle!   I have never had a problem with the screen material, but the first HP2.8 I bought came with the wrong frame size (not Dalite's error, but it was written down wrong by the AVS salesman), and the present HP2.4 came without the black material covering the frame (as I had ordered).     Packing up and returning these was a hassle, but I must admit that Dalite dealt with it very well, instantly airfreighting the replacements, etc., and paying for all the extra shipping.
> 
> 
> I have no info about Draper, but I'll bet you can find out a lot by googling them and reading some, probably here on the Forum.     Another much less expensive gray, retro-reflective screen is Optoma's Graywolf, but in the past I read much about its 'texture' problems; not sure if it has been improved or not.    Again, I would do a lot of reading about it before committing.



I had the Optoma GreyWolf... it's bad enough that I'm spending $1200 to upgrade







So, yeah, the texture was terrible. It did a good job of rejecting ambient light/reflections though, while concentrating light to the center.


I just can't find any info about Draper, anywhere. Nothing on AVS either. You can see I started a thread here last night... no responses yet:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1449462/draper-contrast-radiant-vs-da-lite-high-contrast-high-power-hchp 


A close inspection of the Draper vs. the HCHP shows that they appear to be the same exact material... the underlying weave/texture is the same between the two. Gain/color & everything else appears to be the same. So I wonder if it's sourced from the same manufacturer... hence there's reason to believe it might have the same issues as the HCHP.


----------



## airscapes

Didn't you say they would swap out the HCHP for the HP.. I think you will find the HP is a better choice than the HCHP..


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/330#post_22783730
> 
> 
> Didn't you say they would swap out the HCHP for the HP.. I think you will find the HP is a better choice than the HCHP..


I agree with this.


----------



## sarangiman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/330#post_22783730
> 
> 
> Didn't you say they would swap out the HCHP for the HP.. I think you will find the HP is a better choice than the HCHP..



A grey screen is preferable for a room with light-colored walls/reflections b/c scattered light reflected back on the screen is amplified less than a white screen. Not to mention the narrower viewing cone of HCHP scatters less light than HP to begin with.


Thanks, Mark, for pointing me to the following article explaining some of this:
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_13_2/feature-article-contrast-ratio-5-2006-part-1.html


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sarangiman*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/300_100#post_22784197
> 
> 
> A grey screen is preferable for a room with light-colored walls/reflections b/c scattered light reflected back on the screen is amplified less than a white screen. Not to mention the narrower viewing cone of HCHP scatters less light than HP to begin with.
> 
> Thanks, Mark, for pointing me to the following article explaining some of this:
> http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_13_2/feature-article-contrast-ratio-5-2006-part-1.html



So fix the walls.. I own the older HP 2.8 and have had the 2.4 (sent it back for the 2.8) and looked at HCHP samples (would never buy it).. you would be happy with the 2.4 and if not, fix the walls and ceiling. You don't have to do much just the first couple of feet.

Having a crappy picture due to the poor quality of finish with the HC will be far worse than any reflection form the walls on the standard HP, but good luck with whatever you end up with.


----------



## sarangiman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/330#post_22784991
> 
> 
> So fix the walls.. I own the older HP 2.8 and have had the 2.4 (sent it back for the 2.8) and looked at HCHP samples (would never buy it).. you would be happy with the 2.4 and if not, fix the walls and ceiling. You don't have to do much just the first couple of feet.
> 
> Having a crappy picture due to the poor quality of finish with the HC will be far worse than any reflection form the walls on the standard HP, but good luck with whatever you end up with.



Since I currently still move around a lot (city condo living), it's hard to fix the walls & ceilings; however, I do intend to give the ProtoStar material a try (thanks millerwill). I tried triple black velvet curtains, which really help, but they're ugly & they still leave contrast to be desired with a white screen.


Regardless, that's not even my point. I didn't know that the grey HP material *has* to have texture. Why should it if the HP doesn't and when non-textured grey screens exist?


One can't argue that a grey screen won't help with contrast, and I'm saying I need all the help I can get with contrast... hence my search for a high gain grey screen (high gain b/c I do enjoy the brightness, especially as a lamp ages, and because the limited viewing cone helps scatter less light compared to light sent to the viewer's eyes). I'm wondering if a non-textured high gain grey screen even exists at this point, either in the form of a better copy of the HCHP or the Draper Contrast Radiant.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sarangiman*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/330#post_22785098
> 
> 
> 
> Since I currently still move around a lot (city condo living), it's hard to fix the walls & ceilings; however, I do intend to give the ProtoStar material a try (thanks millerwill). I tried triple black velvet curtains, which really help, but they're ugly & they still leave contrast to be desired with a white screen.
> 
> Regardless, that's not even my point. I didn't know that the grey HP material *has* to have texture. Why should it if the HP doesn't and when non-textured grey screens exist?
> 
> One can't argue that a grey screen won't help with contrast, and I'm saying I need all the help I can get with contrast... hence my search for a high gain grey screen (high gain b/c I do enjoy the brightness, especially as a lamp ages, and because the limited viewing cone helps scatter less light compared to light sent to the viewer's eyes). I'm wondering if a non-textured high gain grey screen even exists at this point, either in the form of a better copy of the HCHP or the Draper Contrast Radiant.


I think the problem is the combo of high gain and gray, in a retro-reflective screen.     E.g., I think the Stewart Firehawk, a gray screen with ~1.3 gain, doesn't have texture issues, but it is not retro-reflective and requires a fairly large throw distance to avoid hotspotting.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/300_100#post_22785180
> 
> 
> 
> I think the problem is the combo of high gain and gray, in a retro-reflective screen.     E.g., I think the Stewart Firehawk, a gray screen with ~1.3 gain, doesn't have texture issues, but it is not retro-reflective and requires a fairly large throw distance to avoid hotspotting.



That high gain coating appears to be sprayed on the current 2.4 gain HP products, and I think with the gray under it, the manufacturing process shows up. There is no guarantee the HP won't have streaks as is evident by the issues others have had. Some of those were corrected by cleaning other were not. Have you asked Dalite or whomever you purchased the HCHP from if you can try cleaning it to see if the surface imperfections are removed?


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/330#post_22785689
> 
> 
> 
> That high gain coating appears to be sprayed on the current 2.4 gain HP products, and I think with the gray under it, the manufacturing process shows up. There is no guarantee the HP won't have streaks as is evident by the issues others have had. Some of those were corrected by cleaning other were not. Have you asked Dalite or whomever you purchased the HCHP from if you can try cleaning it to see if the surface imperfections are removed?


I don't have the HCHP, but the regular HP2.4; it is creamy smooth, and essentially 'disappears', even moreso (IMHO) that the original HP2.8, which was also excellent in this regard.


----------



## sarangiman

Wait, there have been complaints of the HP having texture/streaking as well?? I don't recall ever seeing complaints of the HP material.


But then again, I wouldn't be surprised, because... I don't see why spraying the microbeads on a white vs. a grey surface would make a difference. If it's uneven bead coating, then that should show up on the white surface as well, unless you argue that the white surface renders such a bright image that your eyes don't really pick it up. But that argument seems specious when you consider the texture is *easiest* to see in very bright scenes on the HCHP material (literally, white scenes). So it doesn't seem to me like brightness helps mask the texture; on the contrary, brightness seems to increase my perception of the texture.


So... if all HP screens are texture-free, I'd expect it was the grey base coat that is uneven in the HCHP material. Really at this point we'd need to talk to an engineer at Da-Lite...


In case anyone's curious, here's an almost microscopic shot I took of the HP surface:
 


Just for fun







The HCHP surface looks similar at these magnifications; I'm guessing it's just the underlying base that's different? Although, that wouldn't explain the faster fall-off in gain of the HCHP material, so maybe there's some difference in the beads/density of coating?


BlackDiamond is out for me b/c the texture/sheen of that material is ridiculous to my eyes.


The FireHawk was reasonable; no texture, but its rather wide viewing cone scattered a lot of light to the ceilings in the Magnolia in Seattle where I checked one out.


I may ask my dealer to swap out the HCHP screen altogether for a Draper Contrast Radiant; but unmounting/shipping these huge screens is a nuisance. I'd really love to read at least one report of someone with the Contrast Radiant... but I can't seem to find any.


Re: cleaning. Interesting. Perhaps I should give that a try!


----------



## airscapes

Here is a picture of the HP 2.8 (sample) and the new 2.4 HP when I discovered Dalite had changed the HP screen material and gain without telling the public or their customer service people back in 2010.

Left picture is old HP 2.8 right is current 2.4. In person you can see the difference in manufacturing better than the photos..


----------



## sarangiman

Cool! How did you take those?


If those are the same scale, look like the new material has smaller beads. I didn't notice much size difference between the beads of the HP & HCHP material in my own shots, but I also didn't have quite this level of magnification.


----------



## sarangiman

Oh, jeez, there's complaints of texture problems on the HP as well... doesn't seem like it's any better than the HCHP:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/773065/high-power-a-review-part-1/3630 


Must be the coating process; probably has nothing to do with the grey base... which makes sense to me, as I mentioned earlier.


So it's a QC problem with all the HP materials? Wonder if Draper fares any better...


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sarangiman*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/330#post_22788308
> 
> 
> Oh, jeez, there's complaints of texture problems on the HP as well... doesn't seem like it's any better than the HCHP:
> http://www.avsforum.com/t/773065/high-power-a-review-part-1/3630
> 
> Must be the coating process; probably has nothing to do with the grey base... which makes sense to me, as I mentioned earlier.
> 
> So it's a QC problem with all the HP materials? Wonder if Draper fares any better...


From my observations, the HP2.4 doesn't have such issues, as does the HCHP.     But of course I haven't seen more than my own screen.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sarangiman*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/300_100#post_22788275
> 
> 
> Cool! How did you take those?



I have a $99 machinist microscope and rigged a wooden stand with a hunk of foam to put the camera lens on.. it isn't easy with a camera that does not have a manual focus..

Yes the manufacturing process between the old 2.8 and 2.4 was very different. The 2.8 had larger beads, closely packed and probably embedded in the substrate. The 2.4 has different sized beads that appear to be in a white emulsifier. This give the 2.4 mush more white area (there was no white in the 2.8) so the base gain is higher than the 2.8 and off axis is a little brighter. The reason for the switch according to one sales manager at Dalite was to address quality control problems... but if you ask me it was about a cheaper product and obviously they have just as many issues if not more.

Here is the post from 2010
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1213577/da-lite-hi-power-new-or-old-what-did-you-get/0_100


----------



## BobL

Many manufacturers including Da-lite went to a smaller bead coatings a number of years ago because with the higher resolution (1080P) the pixels distort more when they are smaller than the bead. This might not happen with the HP and a large screen but does with smaller screen sizes.


The HP and HCHP are two different gains. Although, they have the same overall gain the HCHP starts with a gray base. So it is probably about a .85 gain screen with ~3.0 gain coating. That's why it has a smaller viewing cone.


----------



## sarangiman

What BobL says makes sense. I'd expect the HCHP to have a different coating than the HP since it has a narrower viewing cone. So maybe the beads do have a problem to begin with (even for HP), but are more problematic when you need a higher gain coating?


I'll try cleaning the screen tomorrow with ethanol & microfiber cloths, as airscapes suggested.


Has no one seen a Draper screen? Are they even well regarded?


----------



## noah katz

I just learned in this thread http://www.avsforum.com/t/1449462/draper-contrast-radiant-vs-da-lite-high-contrast-high-power-hchp/0_50 that last year Draper introduced what many have wanted from Dalite - a gray high-gain (2.7) retroreflective screen

http://www.cepro.com/images/products/162_spec_sheet_OptiView_Contrast_Radiant_CH2700E.pdf


----------



## sarangiman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/360#post_22794885
> 
> 
> I just learned in this thread http://www.avsforum.com/t/1449462/draper-contrast-radiant-vs-da-lite-high-contrast-high-power-hchp/0_50 that last year Draper introduced what many have wanted from Dalite - a gray high-gain (2.7) retroreflective screen
> http://www.cepro.com/images/products/162_spec_sheet_OptiView_Contrast_Radiant_CH2700E.pdf



Um, yeah. That's my thread over there










And Da-Lite has had this HCHP screen for some time now. Clearly it's not very popular; possibly for good reason.


Btw, the HCHP screen I got is, in fact, extremely dirty. You can tell b/c if you wipe a small portion with denatured alcohol, it becomes brighter there. But it's really hard to wipe properly & get all the dirt/residue off. I really don't think this should be the buyer's job.


Despite the dirt/residue, the underlying streaking pattern still appears to be there. Sheesh. Fail.


----------



## dougri




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sarangiman*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/360#post_22796324
> 
> 
> Um, yeah. That's my thread over there
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Da-Lite has had this HCHP screen for some time now. Clearly it's not very popular; possibly for good reason.
> 
> Btw, the HCHP screen I got is, in fact, extremely dirty. You can tell b/c if you wipe a small portion with denatured alcohol, it becomes brighter there. But it's really hard to wipe properly & get all the dirt/residue off. I really don't think this should be the buyer's job.
> 
> Despite the dirt/residue, the underlying streaking pattern still appears to be there. Sheesh. Fail.



He was probably referring to the higher gain (spec-wise the Draper CR seems like a grey 2.8HP instead of a grey 2.4HP)... just need more info/reviews.


----------



## noah katz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sarangiman*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/350_50#post_22796324
> 
> 
> And Da-Lite has had this HCHP screen for some time now.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dougri*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/350_50#post_22796408
> 
> 
> He was probably referring to the higher gain (spec-wise the Draper CR seems like a grey 2.8HP instead of a grey 2.4HP)... just need more info/reviews.



Yes, the big news, at least to me, is the retroreflective Draper.


----------



## sarangiman

Ok. In my measurements, the Draper 2.7 grey (Contrast Radiant) has exactly the same gain as the HCHP 2.4, but I haven't measured the off-angle gains (Draper claims the Contrast Radiant has a half-angle of 15º, which I believe is more than the Da-Lite HCHP).


The Radiant 2.7 (white) actually has lower gain than the Da-Lite HP 2.4.


I'll post some pictures when I get a chance.


----------



## dougri




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sarangiman*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/360#post_22797150
> 
> 
> Ok. In my measurements, the Draper 2.7 grey (Contrast Radiant) has exactly the same gain as the HCHP 2.4, but I haven't measured the off-angle gains (Draper claims the Contrast Radiant has a half-angle of 15º, which I believe is more than the Da-Lite HCHP).
> 
> The Radiant 2.7 (white) actually has lower gain than the Da-Lite HP 2.4.
> 
> I'll post some pictures when I get a chance.



Interestingly, they are claiming 15 degrees as the "viewing cone", but it is certainly not the half-peak-gain point:


----------



## dougri




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sarangiman*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/360#post_22797150
> 
> 
> Ok. In my measurements, the Draper 2.7 grey (Contrast Radiant) has exactly the same gain as the HCHP 2.4, but I haven't measured the off-angle gains (Draper claims the Contrast Radiant has a half-angle of 15º, which I believe is more than the Da-Lite HCHP).
> 
> The Radiant 2.7 (white) actually has lower gain than the Da-Lite HP 2.4.
> 
> I'll post some pictures when I get a chance.



BTW, how does one measure peak gain on a retroreflective screen without blocking the projection?


----------



## sarangiman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dougri*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/360#post_22797303
> 
> 
> Interestingly, they are claiming 15 degrees as the "viewing cone", but it is certainly not the half-peak-gain point:



Actually, seems to me they're claiming the half-gain angle is 15º, which it is, b/c at 15º you get a gain of ~1.25, which is roughly half of 2.7 (ok looks like they cheated a little & the half-gain angle should be 14º b/c that's where it's ~1.3). Which makes the *viewing cone* 30º.


If you look back at post 296 (your own post), the half-gain angle is 20º (Da-Lite lists the HCHP as having a 20º viewing half angle).
http://cdn.avsforum.com/6/66/66eaf78f_HCHP.PNG 


So that'd mean the Draper Contrast Radiant has an even narrower viewing cone than the HCHP. In my shots, it seems to perform very similar to HCHP, but, again, I didn't compare them at all angles. I can try that later tonight... shooting the Contrast Radiant over the HCHP at various angles.


As for measuring peak gain: you're right, I can never quite measure 0º. But I get really close by standing right behind/above the projector & using a zoom lens. Honestly though it's probably more like a 5º viewing angle.


----------



## noah katz

sarangiman,


So what do you think of the Draper's surface texture compare to the Dalite's?


----------



## sarangiman

I only have a small sample of the Draper. You can't tell anything from small samples. The small sample of HCHP looks fantastic! Not the 110" screen though.


As I mentioned earlier, there's not much 'sheen' or texture to the small samples (like there is for typical glass-beaded surfaces). In fact, I bet in a double-blind study you wouldn't be able to tell which sample is which... they look that similar to me.


I'm just curious if Draper screws it all up when you get to the full screen size. Also curious as to why Da-Lite is shipping hella dirty screens to begin with. My $350 Elite screen was worlds cleaner.


----------



## noah katz

Interesting, thanks.


From some quick googling it looks like the Draper is 2-3X the price of HP, so one would expect better QC.


----------



## sarangiman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/360#post_22802719
> 
> 
> Interesting, thanks.
> 
> From some quick googling it looks like the Draper is 2-3X the price of HP, so one would expect better QC.



Have any links? I can't find any online reseller that lists the Draper Radiant/Contrast Radiant surfaces. Big Screen Center appears to be a sham...


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sarangiman*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/300_100#post_22802831
> 
> 
> Have any links? I can't find any online reseller that lists the Draper Radiant/Contrast Radiant surfaces. Big Screen Center appears to be a sham...


Have you call AVS to see if they sell them?

I really don't understand why you just don't have Dalite send you another HCHP if you are bound and determined to have a gray screen.. you paid for it, and it is not made correctly.. it is defective and you should have it replaced.. The streaking aside, there is problems with the way it fits the frame in the 2 corners, that is not acceptable. Or are you going to send it back and get a full refund?


----------



## noah katz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sarangiman*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/350_50#post_22802831
> 
> 
> Have any links? I can't find any online reseller that lists the Draper Radiant/Contrast Radiant surfaces. Big Screen Center appears to be a sham...


 https://www.google.com/search?q=draper+ch2700e&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a


----------



## dougri

if focusedtechnology is legit, their prices are pretty much in line with those for HP and a bit less than HCHP. Where do you see 2-3X the price for the same screen type (e.g. luma2 vs ModelC)?


----------



## ksbarnz

sarangiman, how old is your HCHP screen? At the beginning of 2012 I too went through 3 HCHPs which had the exact same issues you are showing before switching to the regular 2.4 HP. It too had the problems but not as bad as the HCHP so I decided to keep it. About two months ago I decided to swap it out one more time with da-lite before my one year warranty was over. The new HP they sent me is perfect. No streaks, darker areas, anything. You might think about giving them a call and trying one more time. They might have fixed the issue. Either that or I just got extremely lucky!


----------



## sarangiman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ksbarnz*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/360#post_22805549
> 
> 
> sarangiman, how old is your HCHP screen? At the beginning of 2012 I too went through 3 HCHPs which had the exact same issues you are showing before switching to the regular 2.4 HP. It too had the problems but not as bad as the HCHP so I decided to keep it. About two months ago I decided to swap it out one more time with da-lite before my one year warranty was over. The new HP they sent me is perfect. No streaks, darker areas, anything. You might think about giving them a call and trying one more time. They might have fixed the issue. Either that or I just got extremely lucky!



Jesus. 4 swaps. Who has time/energy for that? Where's the QC?


And Noah, if anything, the Draper screens seem less expensive than the Da-Lite screens. Though I can't find any prices for the fixed frame (Onyx series) Contrast Radiant.


Also, I did a viewing angle test last night for the Draper vs. the Da-Lite. I put a patch of Draper Contrast Radiant over the center of my HCHP screen. According to Draper & Da-Lite's gain vs. viewing angle graphs, one would assume the Draper has a narrower viewing cone. For example, at a 20º viewing angle, the Draper Contrast Radiant apparently has a gain of ~0.75 while the HCHP has a gain of 1.2.


Well, turns out, in my own tests, the *Draper Contrast Radiant has a similar, if not slightly larger, viewing cone compare to the HCHP*, as it holds a *similar/higher gain at all viewing angles than the HCHP*. _Edit: 1/11/13: This may be due to the fact that my HCHP screen is dirty._


Pics coming soon...


----------



## sarangiman

Here's the evidence that the Draper Contrast Radiant actually has a similar or slightly wider viewing cone than the HCHP, despite the graphs provided by the respective companies (perhaps testing methodologies aren't standardized)... this shot was taken well off-axis; Draper Contrast Radiant sample is taped on top of my 110" HCHP screen:

*Draper Contrast Radiant sample patch on top of HCHP screen:*
 


I took a bunch of shots at various angles, moving from ~5º to ~90º. I did this for both a patch of Draper Contrast Radiant on top of the HCHP screen, as well as a patch of Draper Radiant on top of the HCHP screen. I shot RAW images then quantitated the brightness values (modest size squares were sampled for good averaging of pixels). Here is the data, below. 100% would mean equal brightness between HCHP and the enumerated Draper screen material. Less than a 100% means the HCHP is dimmer than the enumerated Draper material (90% means it's 90% as bright as the Draper material). You can see that the HCHP does fall off faster than the Draper Contrast Radiant, and obviously falls off much faster than the Draper Radiant (HP equivalent).

 


Please note the *viewing angles are really rough estimates*, so don't pay any attention to them. The *general trend* is that I went from 5º to 90º off the projector axis.


So, I don't trust the viewing cone numbers from the manufacturers, based on these samples/screens. Draper appears to be better. I'm in a good mind to try out a Draper screen... be the guinea pig, so to speak, since it seems literally no one on these forums have any experience with the Draper Radiant/Contrast Radiant screens...

*Caveat: I don't know how much of the lower brightness values of the HCHP screen is due to being dirty...*


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sarangiman*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/300_100#post_22809395
> 
> 
> Draper appears to be better. I'm in a good mind to try out a Draper screen... be the guinea pig, so to speak, since it seems literally no one on these forums have any experience with the Draper Radiant/Contrast Radiant screens...



That would be great! No one has tired it because the HP was always the bomb with the happy campers (std HP not this HC thing). Now things have changed and even the quality of the HP is in the crapper, but so far, you are the first person who apparently can afford to just buy another screen rather than send back the defect for another. I know you don't want to spend a lot of time messing around with screens as you have said, but do you have enough room someplace in your home to do a side by side comparison of the Draper and Dalite if you buy another screen?


----------



## dougri




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sarangiman*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/360#post_22807723
> 
> 
> ...Though I can't find any prices for the fixed frame (Onyx series) Contrast Radiant....



focusedtechnology and nerds.net appear to carry the onyx line with 'veltex'... with the former pricing the 133" 16:9 @ $1359.


----------



## sarangiman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/360#post_22809622
> 
> 
> That would be great! No one has tired it because the HP was always the bomb with the happy campers (std HP not this HC thing). Now things have changed and even the quality of the HP is in the crapper, but so far, you are the first person who apparently can afford to just buy another screen rather than send back the defect for another. I know you don't want to spend a lot of time messing around with screens as you have said, but do you have enough room someplace in your home to do a side by side comparison of the Draper and Dalite if you buy another screen?



Ha! Uh, no. I was thinking of returning the HCHP screen altogether, since it's new. And trying the Draper. Not buying two screens.


The Draper seems to have a better tensioning system anyway, that I assume would never cause the ripples I'm seeing in the two locations due to the snaps on the Da-Lite.


----------



## airscapes

I See, well we are all interested in how it turns out!


----------



## noah katz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dougri*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/350_50#post_22805526
> 
> 
> if focusedtechnology is legit, their prices are pretty much in line with those for HP and a bit less than HCHP. Where do you see 2-3X the price for the same screen type (e.g. luma2 vs ModelC)?



I was doing some sloppy googling and saw $3500 for an electric 147" (or whatever the next size is above 133"), vs. the $1300 I paid for a 62x128 HP electric.


Maybe the Draper was a fancy tensioned one or something.


sarangiman, your results are very odd, as it seems to defy physics that the CR has higher gain at all angles.


----------



## sarangiman

I took the liberty of overlaying Draper's own traces of their Radiant & Contrast Radiant gain vs. viewing angle curves. I then changed the colors of the traces/viewing angle diagrams for easy viewing:

*Draper Radiant vs. Contrast Radiant*

 


Now this is more like what I expect out of a white retroreflective vs. grey retroreflective screen, as long as each screen received roughly the same depth/number of reflective beads. The viewing cone should really only change (get narrower) if the grey retroreflective screen got more beads or has a higher gain coating over the grey.


The Draper screens look like they have about the same coating, just with a white or grey base (the gain curves literally only/mostly shift up/down; the cone remains relatively unchanged). The viewing cone only changes from 34º to 30º going from white to grey screens.


Da-Lite lists their viewing cones as 60º and 40º for HP and HCHP, respectively.


I'm not sure how these numbers work out, though, since Da-Lite lists their half-gain (2.4-->1.2) happening at 20º for HCHP, while Draper lists their half-gain as 15º (2.7-->1.2, yeah slightly less than half-gain) for their Contrast Radiant. Yet, when I go far off-angle, the Draper Contrast Radiant has at least as much, if not more, gain than the HCHP.


Hence, I went with my own measurements, and am swapping out my Da-Lite HCHP for a Draper Contrast Radiant (fixed frame, permanently tensioned: Onyx line). Guess I'll be the guinea pig here!


Since I did the experiment of brightness vs. viewing angle for a patch of Draper Contrast Radiant over the HCHP screen, after I get the Draper screen, I'll do the reverse experiment: a patch of HCHP on top of the Draper screen










To once again summarize the results of my Draper Contrast Radiant patch over the HCHP screen experiment, if I calculate the fall-off of each screen relative to the original 5º angle brightness, and normalize the numbers such that the 5º viewing angle shot of the HCHP has a gain of 2.2 (which is what I consistently measure for my setup when comparing the HCHP vs. a matte white screen), then these are the gain curves I get for HCHP & Draper Contrast Radiant:

 


As you can see, in my setup, the Draper Contrast Radiant at least holds up as well to viewing angle as the HCHP; in fact, it holds up better. Finally, once again, I don't know if this is because my HCHP screen is dirty or something...


Actually, rather than speculate, I'll just redo the experiment tonight with a patch of HCHP sample to see if the HCHP patch holds up better than my 110" HCHP screen.


----------



## sarangiman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/360#post_22813751
> 
> 
> sarangiman, your results are very odd, as it seems to defy physics that the CR has higher gain at all angles.



Could you be more specific? Yes the Draper CR has slightly higher gain (or the same, depending on experimental error, which I didn't quantitate, b/c really I actually do have better things to do with my time







) than the Da-Lite HCHP at all angles. Why would this defy physics?


Look at my latest post. The viewing cone barely changes when you go from Draper Contrast Radiant (HCHP equivalent) to Radiant (HP equivalent). It's possible that Draper didn't bother putting a higher gain coating on their grey screen than their white (which'd also explain its lower gain relative to the white retroreflective equivalent). Hence it may hold up relatively well with off-axis viewing angles.


At least as well as the HCHP. That's all I'm saying.


Btw I saved $102 by going with the Draper over the Da-Lite (same fixed frame version). So, it's slightly cheaper, if anything.


----------



## sarangiman

I redid a test tonight to quantitate gains of HP, HCHP, Draper Contrast Radiant, & Draper Radiant using the patches only (instead of my full HCHP 110" screen). Will quantitate all that and post back tomorrow.


As it turns out, preliminarily just looking at the photos, my 110" HCHP screen has lower gain than the HCHP sample patch Da-Lite sent me. Most likely due to my NEW screen being really dirty (well, that's one explanation anyway)...


Hence re-quantitation of my gain curves is required using just the sample patches. More tomorrow.


----------



## noah katz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sarangiman*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/350_50#post_22813804
> 
> 
> Could you be more specific? Yes the Draper CR has slightly higher gain (or the same, depending on experimental error, which I didn't quantitate, b/c really I actually do have better things to do with my time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) than the Da-Lite HCHP at all angles. Why would this defy physics?



Actually you're correct as you explained in your previous post - it's the difference in grayness.


Too bad the CR isn't what I thought - an even more directional retroreflective screen.


My situation is exactly what they describe as benefiting from that, a long narrow room with small viewing angles and poor light control.


----------



## sarangiman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/360#post_22815616
> 
> 
> Actually you're correct as you explained in your previous post - it's the difference in grayness.
> 
> 
> Too bad the CR isn't what I thought - an even more directional retroreflective screen.
> 
> 
> My situation is exactly what they describe as benefiting from that, a long narrow room with small viewing angles and poor light control.



Not sure I understand. CR & HCHP sound perfect for your room. Same for me.


If you want a less directional retroreflective screen, get the Draper Radiant or the HP.


The only real problem here is QC of the screens... seems both HCHP & HP have texture & may arrive very dirty (like I said, mine is so dirty has to have significantly less gain than all HCHP sample patches I received from Da-Lite).


What remains to be seen is if Draper's full surfaces are any better.


I'll post some more quantitative graphs from last night's test later today (hopefully). They're very interesting.


----------



## sarangiman

For the sake of not spreading misinformation: a close inspection of the underlying weave/texture of the Draper Contrast Radiant sample & the HCHP sample indicate that they're exactly the same material.


Sorry, previously I'd said they were different; must've been the lighting.


I went back & corrected all my posts.


Sorry about that.


Of course, this worries me now. Perhaps the Draper Contrast Radiant & HCHP are sourced from the same manufacturer... which wouldn't bode well.


----------



## noah katz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sarangiman*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/350_50#post_22816048
> 
> 
> Not sure I understand. CR & HCHP sound perfect for your room. Same for me.



I was hoping the CR was even more directional than the HCHP, but I ought to get a sample first and make sure I come out ahead given my pj location at 7' from the floor and 23' from the screen.


I currently have a HP.


Interesting about the material being the same for both.


----------



## sarangiman

As promised, I'm reporting back with my experience on the Draper Contrast Radiant screen.


The Draper tensioning system is better than Da-Lite's snap system. It applies even texture, so, no possibility of ripples.


But the process of getting that last rod across the last notch will require many people pulling that last section. Careful: if you're just one person, you'll likely injure yourself like I did (cuts + pulled muscles in my hand).


I, personally, might put up with Da-Lite's snap system just to avoid the assembly of the Draper screen. It was a nightmare.


Furthermore, the Draper 'Contrast Radiant' surface has the same problems as the Da-Lite High Contrast High Power (HCHP) material. Draper, it seemed, was less willing to work out the problem with me, & more willing to just take a return. Da-Lite seemed more willing to work with me by getting a manager to QC a screen & check it for issues before shipping it to me. So, I decided to go with a Da-Lite replacement, especially since Seegs108 reported here that his replacement was clean, after specifically asking for inspection for his replacement ( http://www.avsforum.com/t/1455184/hats-off-to-da-lite ).


I'm waiting on the Da-Lite replacement.


In the meantime, here's *one image* that showcases _*all the problems with HCHP/Contrast Radiant screens*_:
 

Full-Size Image: http://cl.ly/NEsV/HCHP&ContrastRadiant-Dirtiness.jpg 


Note the large oval smear (circled in *blue*) near the bottom right of the attached image of the screen. That's what happens when you try to clean the screen. There's some residue being spread around.
Note the rectangles all over the screen that are brighter than the rest of the screen (2 such rectangles are circled in *red*). This was from taking the Da-Lite sample patches that have one line of sticky tape on the back, placing it on the screen, then pulling it off. That process clearly removed some of whatever residue is coating the screen & making it darker than it should be (note: if you place a HCHP sample patch on top of the actual 110" HCHP screen I bought, the actual 110" screen is considerably darker than the sample patch... presumably from whatever residue is coating the screen that is not coating the sample patch of the same material).
Furthermore, I enclose (in a *black box*) one of the obvious vertical streaks that shows up as a darker vertical band during content viewing. Many more of these are obvious during viewing, but are difficult to capture in a photo.
Finally, I circle in magenta a region where you'll find a diagonal rectangular region that's brighter than the rest of the screen, due to the same procedure of attaching/removing the sticky tape from one of the Da-Lite sample patches on the screen. I strategically placed the tape across a darker horizontal band (leads to 'banding') to see if this process of 'cleaning' could get rid of the 'bands'. As you can see, though the tape lightened that region of the screen (presumably from removing whatever dirty residue is on the screen), it did not remove any bit of the horizontal darker band. In other words, I really have no idea where the banding (dark horizontal/vertical streaks) is coming from in the manufacturing process.


Da-Lite/Draper do not even seem to be aware of this problem. So, if you have it, please call up & complain. Fiberglass-based screens should have texture/sparklies, yes, but not the crap enumerated above.


----------



## biliam1982

So I just got mine in today. I won't be able to mount it until this weekend but I pulled it out a little and it looks very white. I'm wondering if they sent me a regular HP and not the HCHP. I'll grab a pic tomorrow.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *biliam1982*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/300_100#post_23369728
> 
> 
> So I just got mine in today. I won't be able to mount it until this weekend but I pulled it out a little and it looks very white. I'm wondering if they sent me a regular HP and not the HCHP. I'll grab a pic tomorrow.



Get your samples out to compare


----------



## biliam1982




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/390#post_23370171
> 
> 
> Get your samples out to compare



Don't have any samples but if my suspicions are correct, I'll have Da-Luite send me some to verify and work from there.


Worst comes to worse, I'll get to compare two full size HP's in my setup!


----------



## levisxy

yeah,I suppose this type of screen fills a need, but it seems like a little too much band-aid for projector shortcomings


----------



## biliam1982

Here's a couple pics I snapped w/ my Galaxy Note. The lightning isn't the best in the garage and the third one has the flash on.


It looks more gray in the pics then in real life.


What do you guys think? Is this the HP or HCHP?


----------



## airscapes

Could be it. Put some printer paper next to it and take a flash picture straight on. the screen should be brighter than the paper.

Photos I have attached are paper, HP 2.8, HCHP 2.4 and HP 2.4 with and without flash.


----------



## biliam1982




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/390#post_23373833
> 
> 
> Could be it. Put some printer paper next to it and take a flash picture straight on. the screen should be brighter than the paper.
> 
> Photos I have attached are paper, HP 2.8, HCHP 2.4 and HP 2.4 with and without flash.



Good idea, thx! I'll try that when I get home.


----------



## biliam1982

Here's some up close and then a little further back. First with flash and then without.

 
 
 
 


Still can't really tell hut if it is the HCHP, I guess I was just expecting a darker substrate. I've emailed Da-Lite to get some samples.


----------



## airscapes

Looks correct to me, darker then paper with no flash and brighter with flash. It is not real dark look at the photos I posted


----------



## cofn42

Getting close to pulling the trigger on the HCHP, but I want to ensure I am gonna get the benefit of it.


My new theater build will the projector about 30" above the first row of heads, projector will be 21' from the screen, and screen size will be 159"


First row will be on a platform 1' off the ground, and screen will be only max 1ft off the ground, so eye level is going to be pretty close to center.


Projector cant be much less than 30" about the first row heads or it will intersect with the front row of seating.


This also puts it at 1'8" from the dead center of the screen.


Thanks


----------



## biliam1982




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cofn42*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/390#post_23548357
> 
> 
> Getting close to pulling the trigger on the HCHP, but I want to ensure I am gonna get the benefit of it.
> 
> 
> My new theater build will the projector about 30" above the first row of heads, projector will be 21' from the screen, and screen size will be 159"
> 
> 
> First row will be on a platform 1' off the ground, and screen will be only max 1ft off the ground, so eye level is going to be pretty close to center.
> 
> 
> Projector cant be much less than 30" about the first row heads or it will intersect with the front row of seating.
> 
> 
> This also puts it at 1'8" from the dead center of the screen.
> 
> 
> Thanks



You need to answer a few more questions to get the amount of gain at eye level then calculate ftl's off the screen based on your projector's measured lumens.


This spreadsheet was created by forum member flboy and is very helpful. I've plugged in all the info you've provided so far and info (that I know to be correct but you should double check it) regarding the screen.

All Screen Gain Calc.xls 43k .xls file


----------



## cofn42




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *biliam1982*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/390#post_23548515
> 
> 
> You need to answer a few more questions to get the amount of gain at eye level then calculate ftl's off the screen based on your projector's measured lumens.
> 
> 
> This spreadsheet was created by forum member flboy and is very helpful. I've plugged in all the info you've provided so far and info (that I know to be correct but you should double check it) regarding the screen.



WOW, that is an awesome tool. Thanks so much!


So here is the Data I popped in:


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)? 20

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


----------



## biliam1982




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cofn42*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/390#post_23548804
> 
> 
> WOW, that is an awesome tool. Thanks so much!
> 
> 
> So here is the Data I popped in:
> 
> 
> 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)? 20
> 
> 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


----------



## cofn42

I am using a Panasonic PTAE-8000.


I got the numbers from projector central's pro calc:

 


Is this correct?


----------



## airscapes

Just remember that 17 is in 2d you need about 3x that amount for 3D to look good.


----------



## cofn42




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/390#post_23549421
> 
> 
> Just remember that 17 is in 2d you need about 3x that amount for 3D to look good.



That seems like quiet an exaggeration no? Seriously 50+ ftl for 3d? I am nowhere near that now and it looks fine.


----------



## airscapes

shutter glasses will cut light as much as 80%

I am only repeating what I have read, I don't do 3D as I wear glasses to see.. Check it out before you commit From what i have read most 3D projectors suggest screen sizes 100" or less for good performance.. hit the projector forums and do some searches on 3D performance..


----------



## cofn42




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/390#post_23550349
> 
> 
> shutter glasses will cut light as much as 80%
> 
> I am only repeating what I have read, I don't do 3D as I wear glasses to see.. Check it out before you commit From what i have read most 3D projectors suggest screen sizes 100" or less for good performance.. hit the projector forums and do some searches on 3D performance..



Ok this is interesting.


So I have been trolling the net to see what we can typically expect for 3d viewing. You are correct in fact that light is typically cut 70 - 80%.


But the odd part is, in most commercial cinemas the recommended brightness for 3d movies is 4.5 - 5.5 fL.


That seems awfully low, but everything I read seems to suggest this is the norm. Now is this the same for home theater? Not sure, still trying to track that down.


So as long as I am hitting about 18 - 20 fL at home from the main seating position, cutting to 3d will be netting me anywhere from 3.6 (at 20%) or 5.4 (at 30%)


I just need to find out home mush the Panasonic active shutter glasses cut the light, may be hard to fully determine as there are multiple settings to boost the light while in 3d mode.


----------



## airscapes

go read thought the owners thread for that model in the projector forum. The HP 2.4 would be the best choice if you can mount the projector just over you seated head height and you reduce the size of the screen a bit.. .. you could always shrink the image with the power lens when watching 3D..


----------



## cofn42




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/390#post_23550604
> 
> 
> go read thought the owners thread for that model in the projector forum. The HP 2.4 would be the best choice if you can mount the projector just over you seated head height and you reduce the size of the screen a bit.. .. you could always shrink the image with the power lens when watching 3D..



Hmm, good idea, never really thought about shrinking it down for 3d, makes sens though.


Sadly I am tied to projector location due to room design, and at this point I am not sure I want to shrink the screen, honestly as long as 2d images look good, and with 18 fL they should, then if I lose a little on the 3d side it is not that big a deal. I watch maybe 1 in 10 movies in 3d, likely even less than that.


I am really going for the "Holy Carp, that screen is massive" effect.







If the trade off is a little less viewing angle and light loss in 3d, that is ok. As long as at the end of the day it is decent in 2d we will be happy, and I am hoping the 2.4 hchp will do that, maybe not to it's full potential due to the crappy placement of a retro ref. but it will certainly offer me a bigger boost than the Pearlescent, and looks like there is nothing much viable between 1.5g and 2.4. Just the 3d Black and 3d Grey at 1.75, but neither is spoke of highly unfortunately.


----------



## Mike Garrett




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cofn42*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/390#post_23549325
> 
> 
> I am using a Panasonic PTAE-8000.
> 
> 
> I got the numbers from projector central's pro calc:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this correct?



You will have plenty of brightness for 3D using a 159" HCHP with the lens of the projector 21" above your head. With 20-9" throw, I would expect around 12FL in 3D brightness. Now this is with a new lamp, so it will dim. If we can help you, let us know.


----------



## cofn42




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AV Science Sales 5*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/390#post_23552485
> 
> 
> You will have plenty of brightness for 3D using a 159" HCHP with the lens of the projector 21" above your head. With 20-9" throw, I would expect around 12FL in 3D brightness. Now this is with a new lamp, so it will dim. If we can help you, let us know.



Awesome!!! thanks for the confirmation on this Mike.


Any chance you could PM me a quote for this kind of screen on a Perm-wall frame?


Thanks again


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cofn42*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/390#post_23552282
> 
> 
> Hmm, good idea, never really thought about shrinking it down for 3d, makes sens though.
> 
> 
> Sadly I am tied to projector location due to room design, and at this point I am not sure I want to shrink the screen, honestly as long as 2d images look good, and with 18 fL they should, then if I lose a little on the 3d side it is not that big a deal. I watch maybe 1 in 10 movies in 3d, likely even less than that.
> 
> 
> I am really going for the "Holy Carp, that screen is massive" effect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the trade off is a little less viewing angle and light loss in 3d, that is ok. As long as at the end of the day it is decent in 2d we will be happy, and I am hoping the 2.4 hchp will do that, maybe not to it's full potential due to the crappy placement of a retro ref. but it will certainly offer me a bigger boost than the Pearlescent, and looks like there is nothing much viable between 1.5g and 2.4. Just the 3d Black and 3d Grey at 1.75, but neither is spoke of highly unfortunately.



I would also suggest that you compare the HPHC to the 'non HC' version, the HP2.4, e.g., by getting samples of each from Dalite and putting them up at the 4 corners of your intended screen. I have a fairly large screen (144" wide), and sit ~ 11 feet from it, and when I put up the HP samples as described, I found out that the narrower viewing cone of the HPHC gave a noticeable brightness drop off at the left and right extremes of the screen, compared to the non-HC version which did not.


So unless you really think you need the HC characteristics, I think its narrower viewing cone can be a limitation if you sit close (e.g., 1.0 to 1.2 SW) to a large screen.


----------



## cofn42




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/390#post_23552947
> 
> 
> I would also suggest that you compare the HPHC to the 'non HC' version, the HP2.4, e.g., by getting samples of each from Dalite and putting them up at the 4 corners of your intended screen. I have a fairly large screen (144" wide), and sit ~ 11 feet from it, and when I put up the HP samples as described, I found out that the narrower viewing cone of the HPHC gave a noticeable brightness drop off at the left and right extremes of the screen, compared to the non-HC version which did not.
> 
> 
> So unless you really think you need the HC characteristics, I think its narrower viewing cone can be a limitation if you sit close (e.g., 1.0 to 1.2 SW) to a large screen.



This is something I was thinking of as well actually.


When running numbers in the sheet Biliam sent if I change the viewable angle from 20 of the HCHP to 30 degrees of the HP my gain at the seating position goes from 1.92 to 2.11.


That extra 1.9g boost means I go from 17 fL to 19 fL.


My thinking was with such a high gain screen the HC would help ink up the blacks a little bit. This is the part that has left me on the fence.


How big a difference does HC make for the blacks vs the brightness tradeoff.


----------



## airscapes

In a dark room none.. in a bright room a little.. Order the samples, every room is different.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cofn42*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/390#post_23553284
> 
> 
> This is something I was thinking of as well actually.
> 
> 
> When running numbers in the sheet Biliam sent if I change the viewable angle from 20 of the HCHP to 30 degrees of the HP my gain at the seating position goes from 1.92 to 2.11.
> 
> 
> That extra 1.9g boost means I go from 17 fL to 19 fL.
> 
> 
> My thinking was with such a high gain screen the HC would help ink up the blacks a little bit. This is the part that has left me on the fence.
> 
> 
> How big a difference does HC make for the blacks vs the brightness tradeoff.



FWIW, here's a plot of the fall-off curves for the various HP screens
HPscreens.png 78k .png file


----------



## biliam1982




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cofn42*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/390#post_23553284
> 
> 
> This is something I was thinking of as well actually.
> 
> 
> When running numbers in the sheet Biliam sent if I change the viewable angle from 20 of the HCHP to 30 degrees of the HP my gain at the seating position goes from 1.92 to 2.11.
> 
> 
> That extra 1.9g boost means I go from 17 fL to 19 fL.
> 
> 
> My thinking was with such a high gain screen the HC would help ink up the blacks a little bit. This is the part that has left me on the fence.
> 
> 
> How big a difference does HC make for the blacks vs the brightness tradeoff.



When asking for samples from Da-Lite, make sure to specifically state how many you want of each. They only sent me one of each.


What's you seating position like in terms of how far to the left or right of the screen center? Will people be seated outside the left or right most portions of the screen?


----------



## abbexexe

Same gain as the regular HP and the necessarily narrow viewing angle.


----------



## max90034

This could be a very basic question: should I consider center of screen or center of projector lense as a reference point when I calculate off center angle for HP screen? I have a situation when I use optical shift in horizontal direction so the center of screen is few ft on the left from the center of the projector lense. In such case is it still better being closer to the projector or it is better being close to the line going to the geometrical center of the screen?


Thanks.


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *max90034*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/390#post_23906252
> 
> 
> This could be a very basic question: should I consider center of screen or center of projector lense as a reference point when I calculate off center angle for HP screen? I have a situation when I use optical shift in horizontal direction so the center of screen is few ft on the left from the center of the projector lense. In such case is it still better being closer to the projector or it is better being close to the line going to the geometrical center of the screen?
> 
> 
> Thanks.



Better to be close to the projector. The retro-reflective character of the HP sends the most light right back where it came from, i.e., the projector, for each point on the screen.


----------



## Dave in Green


I've been reading the AVS Forums for many years without posting.  I can't begin to tell all the regulars here how much I've learned from your educated posts.  The reason I'm posting for the first time is that I just had a "chat" on the Da-Lite website about HCHP, and wanted to share this with everyone.  I'm surprised to have only seen one mention and no discussion on this forum about Da-Lite discontinuing HCHP.  I asked Da-Lite if this was true, and they responded yes.  I asked why, and they said it was due to lack of customer demand.  I asked if they had cleared up the early quality problems with HCHP on later production in case I could find an already-built screen for sale at a dealer, and they responded yes, that later production HCHP was much improved.  WhiIe I don't know if all of that is accurate, I thought it might be useful to mention in this thread.

 

I guess that leaves Draper's Contrast Radiant as the only option for anyone who wants an affordable grey retroreflective screen option.  I haven't actually spoken with anyone at Draper, but the Contrast Radiant is still listed as an option on their website.  From all the comments I've read here, a grey retroflective screen is the best option for my situation, so I guess I'll be dealing with Draper and will post my experience in the main Contrast Radiant thread.


----------



## noah katz

Thanks for the info.


I had read plenty about the HCHP's issues and never heard that they had addressed so assumed they hadn't.


Nor was I aware of the Draper Contrast Radiant, which sounds like the gray HP that many of us had wished for.


A bit curious how it has essentially identical claimed gain and half-gain viewing angle but is gray vs. white.


----------



## Dave in Green


I've read comments right here on the Screens forum that Da-Lite cleaned up the early problems on both the HP 2.4 and HCHP 2.4, and those who bought screens after the first few months did not report problems like the early ones.

 

Draper's Contrast Radiant has also been mentioned in a few threads here on the Screens forum:  Draper Contrast Radiant vs. Da-Lite High Contrast High Power (HCHP), Anyone have experience w/ the Vutec Silverstar or Draper Contrast Radiant?, and a couple of others.

 

Consensus among the few who've compared samples or actual screens seemed to be that the Draper Radiant was very similar to HP 2.4 and the Contrast Radiant very similar to HCHP despite different specs from the two companies, and they were possibly from the same supplier and could be virtually identical.

 

The HCHP/Contrast Radiant discussion here seems to have gone silent, which fits in with Da-Lite telling me they dropped HCHP due to lack of demand.  It's interesting that the discussion here went from the concept of a grey retroflective screen being a "holy grail" for ambient light rejection to apparent indifference about the availability of one.  Hopefully Draper will continue selling the Contrast Radiant to keep alive the option for people like me who really need the qualities it offers.


----------



## Kerlucun

I confirm don't have a problem with my screen HCHP.


----------



## millerwill

I tried samples of the HCHP and the regular HP2.4 and choose the latter because the narrower viewing cone of the HC version led to noticeable drop off in brightness near the L and R edges of the screen.


----------



## stephenbr

I couldn't see any previous comparison/comment in this thread - has anyone had the opportunity to compare the Da-lite HP with the Draper Radiant (CT2900E) and if so what assessment did you make?


----------



## Dave in Green


I believe that sarangiman received samples of both HP 2.4 and Radiant CT2900E and commented that they appeared to be the same.  But I don't recall how much he tested them.


----------



## stephenbr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dave in Green*  /t/1334832/new-high-contrast-high-power-discussion-thread/420#post_24246632
> 
> 
> I believe that sarangiman received samples of both HP 2.4 and Radiant CT2900E and commented that they appeared to be the same.  But I don't recall how much he tested them.



Thanks


----------

