# DreamScreen V6 & V7 UltraWeave AT Screen Materials



## Kain

@Lygren

Have a few questions! 

1. Looking at the DreamScreen V6 UltraFrame, the smallest size you can get for a 2.35:1 frame is 130" according to the website. Will it be possible to make a 2.35:1 frame that is 8 ft (horizontally) wide? If so, will it be a custom job?

2. What options do I have for holding the DreamScreen V6 UltraFrame up? Poll stands? Is it possible to mount four rods at each corner of the frame and attached it to the front wall with enough space behind it for the LCR speakers? It will look like it is "hovering" in the air (i.e. no visible stands) when viewing straight on.

3. If I have a 2.35:1 8 ft horizontally wide DreamScreen V6 UltraWeave AT screen, can I sit 8 ft away from it? Would that be too close for a screen of that size?

4. How close can you sit from the DreamScreen V6 UltraWeave AT screen without being able to see the weave and other screen artifacts?


----------



## Lygren

Kain said:


> @Lygren
> 
> Have a few questions!
> 
> 1. Looking at the DreamScreen V6 UltraFrame, the smallest size you can get for a 2.35:1 frame is 130" according to the website. Will it be possible to make a 2.35:1 frame that is 8 ft (horizontally) wide? If so, will it be a custom job?
> 
> 2. What options do I have for holding the DreamScreen V6 UltraFrame up? Poll stands? Is it possible to mount four rods at each corner of the frame and attached it to the front wall with enough space behind it for the LCR speakers? It will look like it is "hovering" in the air (i.e. no visible stands) when viewing straight on.
> 
> 3. If I have a 2.35:1 8 ft horizontally wide DreamScreen V6 UltraWeave AT screen, can I sit 8 ft away from it? Would that be too close for a screen of that size?
> 
> 4. How close can you sit from the DreamScreen V6 UltraWeave AT screen without being able to see the weave and other screen artifacts?


Hi @Kain! 

1. The sizes from the webshop is indeed the stocked / produced ones, but any size could be custom made. The delivery time would depend on how your order corresponds with the next production run. Normally we do one major run every 4-6 months, and now, for example, we did a production 2 months ago and would probably do our next run in January 2017. 

2. The included attachment profiles are for wall mounting. However, on the flip side of the screen, normally used for spacing the bottom section, there are two M3 machine screw holes. You can use these to attach hooks and fasten it to the ceiling. We might come up with a custom ceiling mount for a later date though, as we do understand some clients might not want to build the baffled wall and rather float is as is the case for you... Not sure when though.

3.-4. The weave is very very tight on the UltraWeave V6, this is really one of our major advantages and also one of the main reasons for the now patented technique we use; utilising several layers of reflective fabric, each with their own specific traits. The front layer, a superbly fine weaved one, is basically replicating the random coating of a regular (plastic, non-AT) screen, it is that fine. For my private cinema, I am seated about 9-10 feet away from my 11 feet screen, and the structure of the weave is really no issue at all, it is that fine. However, you need to take into account potential screen door from your projector though, I am using a JVC RS400 that boasts extremely tight pixels with almost no gap at all (93% fill rate I believe), but I guess this is not a screen related issue though...


----------



## Kain

Thanks.


----------



## Kain

One more quick question...

If I have the V6 UltraWeave screen with the V6 UltraFrame, could I create a custom solution for floating the screen in front of the front wall by mounting it somehow to the front wall? Note, I won't have a baffle wall or anything. The speakers will be free-standing behind the screen.


----------



## Lygren

Kain said:


> One more quick question...
> 
> If I have the V6 UltraWeave screen with the V6 UltraFrame, could I create a custom solution for floating the screen in front of the front wall by mounting it somehow to the front wall? Note, I won't have a baffle wall or anything. The speakers will be free-standing behind the screen.


Sure, you could just make a wooden extension attached in the wall and hook up the screen directly to that. However, you would need to also install a bottom extension that simply would "push" the frame into position as it might otherwise easily tilt somewhat being attached only at the top. I´m sure you´ll figure out a solution having the screen frame present though...


----------



## Kain

Great, thanks.


----------



## jjcook

Kain said:


> 3. If I have a 2.35:1 8 ft horizontally wide DreamScreen V6 UltraWeave AT screen, can I sit 8 ft away from it? Would that be too close for a screen of that size?
> 
> 4. How close can you sit from the DreamScreen V6 UltraWeave AT screen without being able to see the weave and other screen artifacts?


I had been sitting at distance 1:1 with width of my 2.35 Falcon Vision HD screen (2.4x image height) and the size was very comfortable -- in fact I'm moving to a screen 1.2x width to distance (2.0x image height) which can be sometimes too immersive for some.

The Dreamscreen V6 material is my top choice for close viewing distances; see thread linked in my signature for more detailed opinion. I'm building my own screen and will be ordering the material once the frame and masking system is close to finished.


----------



## Lygren

jjcook said:


> I had been sitting at distance 1:1 with width of my 2.35 Falcon Vision HD screen (2.4x image height) and the size was very comfortable -- in fact I'm moving to a screen 1.2x width to distance (2.0x image height) which can be sometimes too immersive for some.
> 
> The Dreamscreen V6 material is my top choice for close viewing distances; see thread linked in my signature for more detailed opinion. I'm building my own screen and will be ordering the material once the frame and masking system is close to finished.


Glad to hear you like the V6 fabric, jjcook!  I guess there are pros and cons with most screen solutions, and I will not try to tell people the V6 is the Holy Grail of screens, but I have to say we are very happy with the performance this fabric is able to provide in the typical "dedicated" cinema room and hopefully it will catch some speed in the US as well so that we can start providing various types of frames as well. Still, building a DIY frame is really a great solution, in Norway, where we´re from, a lot of our clients build their screens from ground up, ranging from motorised 4-way masking DIY systems (!!) to more basic wooden constructions. In any case, the rather flexible V6 fabric is well suited for these types of projects!


----------



## thxman

jjcook said:


> I had been sitting at distance 1:1 with width of my 2.35 Falcon Vision HD screen (2.4x image height) and the size was very comfortable -- in fact I'm moving to a screen 1.2x width to distance (2.0x image height) which can be sometimes too immersive for some.
> 
> The Dreamscreen V6 material is my top choice for close viewing distances; see thread linked in my signature for more detailed opinion. I'm building my own screen and will be ordering the material once the frame and masking system is close to finished.


I have Falcon Vision Horizon screen material now and I am moving the V6 (keeping my current frame). I could not agree more on the V6 being excellent for sitting closer to the screen. I am 10 feet from 130" wide (2.35:1 AR) and despite the very tight weave on the Vision Horizon material, the V6 rises the bar significantly. Not only because the weave is virtually gone, but you don't see the "sparkles" and black backing greatly reduces light reaching behind the screen.


----------



## Kain

How would the V6 compare to the Stewart StudioTek 100 micro-perf from a video/picture quality point-of-view?


----------



## Ellebob

Personally, I think the microperf gives better picture quality but trades off some audio quality and cost. Also, many of the woven screens allow closer eating distances. Seating needs to be at least 10 feet away from a microperf before you stop noticing the perforations.


----------



## mmiles

What is the gain experience n the V6?


----------



## Ericglo

Ellebob said:


> Personally, I think the microperf gives better picture quality but trades off some audio quality and cost. Also, many of the woven screens allow closer eating distances. Seating needs to be at least 10 feet away from a microperf before you stop noticing the perforations.


For me, I disagree. I have never liked any of the microperfs that I have seen.


----------



## Craig Peer

Ericglo said:


> For me, I disagree. I have never liked any of the microperfs that I have seen.


I was of the same opinion until I installed an RS500 in a forum member's dedicated theater recently. They had a microperf'd StudioTek 130 G3. It looked really good in my opinion. That said, the V6 material looks outstanding. Certainly was impressed seeing it at Cedia.


----------



## Tom Bley

Craig Peer said:


> I was of the same opinion until I installed an RS500 in a forum member's dedicated theater recently. They had a microperf'd StudioTek 130 G3. It looked really good in my opinion. That said, the V6 material looks outstanding. Certainly was impressed seeing it at Cedia.


How far away would you say you were sitting from the microperf'd StudioTek 130 G3? And, how far away were his speakers from the back of the screen? I've heard they need at least a foot.


----------



## Craig Peer

Tom Bley said:


> How far away would you say you were sitting from the microperf'd StudioTek 130 G3? And, how far away were his speakers from the back of the screen? I've heard they need at least a foot.


I should have taken some measurements. I think it was about a 135" diagonal 2.35:1 screen, and I was anywhere from 10' to 14' or 15' at various times. No clue about speaker distance from the screen.


----------



## arcticfly

How does the bass from big 18" subs at reference level affect the picture? Should these drivers be on the side of the screen optimally?


----------



## Lygren

arcticfly said:


> How does the bass from big 18" subs at reference level affect the picture? Should these drivers be on the side of the screen optimally?


I can answer for the UltraWeave V6 at least; I have never seen even the slightest movement on the fabric from huge drivers placed in the back of the screen (18 inch Alcons subs @ reference ++ for example). As the acoustical transparency of the V6 is very high as a cause of the multiple layered design, it basically functions as a regular front speaker fabric... By other words, as for the V6; should not be a concern!


----------



## ARROW-AV

arcticfly said:


> How does the bass from big 18" subs at reference level affect the picture? Should these drivers be on the side of the screen optimally?


Me personally, with the only exception being in the instance where there is insufficient width of room dimensions to accommodate, I would always install the subs into the front left and right corners either side of the screen anyway, because irrespective of the effect on the audio and the projected image by positioning the subs behind the screen (which if the screen material is decent AT should be negligible to entirely nonexistent as is the case with the V6 material), this will always yield superior audio performance by the subs due to being situated in the corners of the room, plus it produces cool-looking aesthetics to the extent that I even use specialist rectangular framing lighting to illuminate them when the projector is not in use, as shown in these illustrations for example... So why hide your awesome looking big 18" subs behind the screen when you can show them off in an 'In-Your-Face' design style! :


----------



## ARROW-AV

I have ordered a large roll (4.5m x 2m) of the DreamScreen V6 UltraWeave AT Screen material, which we will be installing into an appropriate frame and then carrying out some fully comprehensive testing and evaluation exercises using multiple different makes and models of projectors. 

The DreamScreen V6 UltraWeave AT Screen material is one of a very short short-list of AT materials that we will be evaluating.

I will be sure to feedback and post on here our findings.


----------



## coolgeek

It seems like the biggest size you can get won't give you a 200 inch diagonal 16:9 screen. I wonder if they are going to make a bigger version soon?


----------



## Lygren

coolgeek said:


> It seems like the biggest size you can get won't give you a 200 inch diagonal 16:9 screen. I wonder if they are going to make a bigger version soon?


We´re working on a "XL" version now with a height of about 118 inches. Should be available within Q1 2017 if everything moves according to plan...


----------



## ARROW-AV

coolgeek said:


> It seems like the biggest size you can get won't give you a 200 inch diagonal 16:9 screen. I wonder if they are going to make a bigger version soon?





Lygren said:


> We´re working on a "XL" version now with a height of about 118 inches. Should be available within Q1 2017 if everything moves according to plan...


So, that would in fact give you up to 241 inch diagonal 16:9 screen coolgeek. Big enough? 
.


----------



## coolgeek

ARROW-AV said:


> So, that would in fact give you up to 241 inch diagonal 16:9 screen coolgeek. Big enough?
> .


Very nice indeed!!!


----------



## erkq

ARROW-AV said:


> ...
> So why hide your awesome looking big 18" subs behind the screen when you can show them off in an 'In-Your-Face' design style! :
> ...


Some of us prefer everything hidden so as not to distract from the presentation. All my equipment is in another room including the projector. LCR speakers are behind the screen and the eight 15" IB subs are under the shelf that holds the speakers... invisible. Just the screen and seats, man!


----------



## coolgeek

erkq said:


> Some of us prefer everything hidden so as not to distract from the presentation. All my equipment is in another room including the projector. LCR speakers are behind the screen and the eight 15" IB subs are under the shelf that holds the speakers... invisible. Just the screen and seats, man!


This is what I like... Speakers are invisible... The room is all everyone sees... I like to see the jaws dropping from my friends when they 'hear' the sound seemingly coming out of nowhere... They always ask, 'where are the speakers'...


----------



## ChopShop1

Sorry if I've missed this somewhere esle.....is the V6 only available as material/DIY, or is there a complete screen option?


----------



## erkq

ChopShop1 said:


> Sorry if I've missed this somewhere esle.....is the V6 only available as material/DIY, or is there a complete screen option?


As far as I know it's DIY. Building a screen isn't that hard. Some use this system: https://www.8020.net/

I just used wood, "L" brackets and black paint. Mine is 10 years old now.

EDIT: And I should also point out, mine is relatively large... a 10' wide 16:9.


----------



## Lygren

Frames are only available at dreamscreen.eu currently (for EU customers), but we are continously discussing if frames should be made available for US customers as well (via AVScience.com). However, if you really don't fancy the idea of either retrofitting your existing frame or DIY, please contact AVScience.com for a quote on any frame from DreamScreen.eu and we will certainly work with AVS in finding you a best possible price for the preferred frame! Motorised masking frames will be made available throught Q1 2017 by the way... 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ChopShop1

Thank you for the responses guys. I'll talk with Mike at AVS


----------



## Dirk44

I hope i find the time to replace the xd with the V6 at this weekend.
In the same time i go up from 14" to 19" curve in the my 150" screen


----------



## coolgeek

Dirk44 said:


> I hope i find the time to replace the xd with the V6 at this weekend.
> In the same time i go up from 14" to 19" curve in the my 150" screen


Can't wait for your review on the difference between the XD and the V6


----------



## Scott B

Lygren said:


> Frames are only available at dreamscreen.eu currently (for EU customers), but we are continously discussing if frames should be made available for US customers as well (via AVScience.com). However, if you really don't fancy the idea of either retrofitting your existing frame or DIY, please contact AVScience.com for a quote on any frame from DreamScreen.eu and we will certainly work with AVS in finding you a best possible price for the preferred frame! Motorised masking frames will be made available throught Q1 2017 by the way...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Very interested in finding out more about DreamScreens upcoming motorised masking screens. I have been wanting to invest in one for several years but the cost has always put me off. I almost pulled the trigger on a Carada motorised masking screen as their pricing was significantly less than other options, however, Carada is no longer offering masking screens.


----------



## Lygren

Scott B said:


> Very interested in finding out more about DreamScreens upcoming motorised masking screens. I have been wanting to invest in one for several years but the cost has always put me off. I almost pulled the trigger on a Carada motorised masking screen as their pricing was significantly less than other options, however, Carada is no longer offering masking screens.


Developing motorised masking that actually does not cost half a car while maintaining performance and connectivity is actually quite challenging. We have had several masking models up through, both (quite inexpensive) manual variants and motorised (quite expensive) ones, but we have yet to find the perfect "cost / performance" combo. Hopefully for our next revision we will succeed in doing so to a greater extent albeit the number of versions will be limited at first, starting off with a regular two way 16:9 -> 2.35:1 version. Controllable using IR, RS232 or cordless trigger.

Also, mr. @CINERAMAX is developing a Hi-End frame of his own that would accommodate the V6 material. Not much info yet in terms of availability, but I am sure this frame will be excellent both in terms of stability (Somfy motor ++) and craftsmanship (made in the US).


----------



## CINERAMAX

available right now but waiting for V6 Magnum.


----------



## Lygren

CINERAMAX said:


> available right now but waiting for V6 Magnum.


AjAj Capt´n, it´s still in the works (and just for the record; it´s the "XL" version of the V6 he is referring to, 118 inches height instead of current 79 inch), hopefully ready sooner rather than later (ETA first samples in 2-3 weeks)...!


----------



## CINERAMAX

It just happens that I have this 17 foot wide frame from My Old 2012 RealD 4k PH lab in Miami sitting at Alan's, synchronicity points to new lab in Miami for the Pimps of Immersive cinema during 2017 more and more.


----------



## Scott B

Lygren said:


> Developing motorised masking that actually does not cost half a car while maintaining performance and connectivity is actually quite challenging. We have had several masking models up through, both (quite inexpensive) manual variants and motorised (quite expensive) ones, but we have yet to find the perfect "cost / performance" combo. Hopefully for our next revision we will succeed in doing so to a greater extent albeit the number of versions will be limited at first, starting off with a regular two way 16:9 -> 2.35:1 version. Controllable using IR, RS232 or cordless trigger.
> 
> Also, mr. @CINERAMAX is developing a Hi-End frame of his own that would accommodate the V6 material. Not much info yet in terms of availability, but I am sure this frame will be excellent both in terms of stability (Somfy motor ++) and craftsmanship (made in the US).


Please keep this thread updated with new information regarding the masking screens when it becomes available. My current screen is a 120" wide 16:9 Screen Research CP2 screen that I have had for several years. Ideally I would like to replace it with a larger 140" wide 16:9 screen that offers masking with various stops down to 2.4:1.


----------



## Skylinestar

Currently, I have the Draper Clarion frame. How do I glue the grip rails onto my frame? Is the glue included as well? I'm worried the screen tension will finally rip off the glue.
http://www.draperinc.com/projectionscreens/productdetail/141/clarion


----------



## Lygren

Skylinestar said:


> Currently, I have the Draper Clarion frame. How do I glue the grip rails onto my frame? Is the glue included as well? I'm worried the screen tension will finally rip off the glue.


 @Skylinestar, you´d need to find a 14mm gap somewhere on the back of your frame, like on the second video here: http://dreamscreen.no/collections/p...-screen-fabric-2x4-5m-79-x-177-fit-all-system. 

As for glue, we recommend Casco XtremeFix for our non US customers at 15 Euros per 300ml tube (Swedish company, glue can be purchased directly at DreamScreen.eu alongside the fabric), but if you´re located in the US I´m sure there is a lot of alternatives available that would work as well. I used this one last summer when I fitted some gutters to our Florida vacation home; http://www.homedepot.com/p/Gorilla-9-oz-Construction-Adhesive-8010003/206063265, it stuck quite well provided you give is some time to harden (10+ hours).


----------



## Kain

Would a 7-7.5 ft viewing distance be too close for a projection based setup even with a screen like the V6? Would screen and projector "artifacts" be too obvious?

Edit: What about with this projector: http://www.sony.com/electronics/projector/vpl-vz1000es


----------



## Lygren

Kain said:


> Would a 7-7.5 ft viewing distance be too close for a projection based setup even with a screen like the V6? Would screen and projector "artifacts" be too obvious?
> 
> Edit: What about with this projector: http://www.sony.com/electronics/projector/vpl-vz1000es


In my typical space constrainted room of about 12 x 20 feet in total I´m seated about 8 feet off of my 11 feet wide scope screen on the first row, currently using an Epson 10K laser projector. The fabric will reveal very little artifacts from such a close perimeter, but the content needs to be top notch and the projector a variant of LCOS or perhaps DLP to avoid screen door being visible... From my second "row" I am seated about 12 feets off of the 11 feet screen, and I guess that would be a more optimal distance if I did have more space to spare... So; you could be seated as close as 7-7,5 ft, but optimally - not primarily based on the screen fabric though - I guess some added distance would be beneficial if possible! 

As for that Sony laser, never seen that generation of it, but the previous generation did look very cool. However, I have not studied what potential issues might be apparant on using such a lens, but I guess that´s a better topic for another thread...


----------



## GoCaboNow

Lygren said:


> In my typical space constrainted room of about 12 x 20 feet in total *I´m seated about 8 feet off of my 11 feet wide scope screen on the first row, currently using an Epson 10K laser projector*. The fabric will reveal very little artifacts from such a close perimeter, but the content needs to be top notch and the projector a variant of LCOS or perhaps DLP to avoid screen door being visible... From my second "row" I am seated about 12 feets off of the 11 feet screen, and I guess that would be a more optimal distance if I did have more space to spare... So; you could be seated as close as 7-7,5 ft, but optimally - not primarily based on the screen fabric though - I guess some added distance would be beneficial if possible!
> 
> As for that Sony laser, never seen that generation of it, but the previous generation did look very cool. However, I have not studied what potential issues might be apparant on using such a lens, but I guess that´s a better topic for another thread...


At some point I would like to replace my 10' wide 2.8 high power screen with an 11' wide AT. What lumens are you getting from your Epson and what power do you have to run it at? Low, medium or high IIRC?


My first row is about 10.5' from the screen but I may have to come forward a foot or two to place the speakers behind the screen which would put my layout similar to yours.


----------



## Lygren

The Epson 10k replaced a JVC x5000 (rs400), and I guess if it was not for the laser source I'd rather use the x5000 still...  Have not had the time to calibrate or measure yet, but in my batcave light output is perfectly acceptable at medium laser, although the x5000 outputs significantly more light even at low lamp... 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## abinav555

Hey Lygren,
is it possible to order and ship a sample to India by any chance ?


----------



## Lygren

abinav555 said:


> Hey Lygren,
> is it possible to order and ship a sample to India by any chance ?


Sure, samples of various sizes can be ordered directly from this page: http://dreamscreen.no/collections/f...reen-v6-ultraweave-at-screen-fabric-a5-sample.


----------



## Kain

Is it possible to make a stand for the UltraFrame so it can stand on its own in front of the speakers? If so, any recommendations/pointers on how to go about this?


----------



## Lygren

Kain said:


> Is it possible to make a stand for the UltraFrame so it can stand on its own in front of the speakers? If so, any recommendations/pointers on how to go about this?


Sure, we can make out custom stands that would allow you to place the frame in front of the speakers. 

However, our clear recommendation would be to rather have a look at our new FlexiBaffle v2 system. Using a flexible steel stud system in combination with our ProSilence line of decoupling clips and U-boats it enables you to make out a completely decoupled front baffle wall at any size and depth. There are numerous advantages with these baffle walls both acoustically and visually. We expect the first shipment of these new studs in 6-8 weeks and we will go ahead and make installation videos as soon as they arrive.

Also, we´re still working on the motorised masking systems. In our past experience we have found that a modular approach, allowing the customer to purchase and install masking and frame separately would be the best solution. As such, our first solution will most likely be a 1-way 16:9->2.40:1 top down masking that would also allow you to close the masking all the way down to protect the screen when not in use. We are also working on a 2.40:1->16:9 2-way system based on the same principles. These items, however, might take some time to get to market but we certainly hope to have them ready for sale by the end of 2017. The current UltraFrame is, however, a very nice frame too, but will not accommodate masking. 

I have included some 3D renders as well as some photos of our prototype FlexiBaffle installation here at our headquarters!


----------



## Kain

Lygren said:


> Sure, we can make out custom stands that would allow you to place the frame in front of the speakers.
> 
> However, our clear recommendation would be to rather have a look at our new FlexiBaffle v2 system. Using a flexible steel stud system in combination with our ProSilence line of decoupling clips and U-boats it enables you to make out a completely decoupled front baffle wall at any size and depth. There are numerous advantages with these baffle walls both acoustically and visually. We expect the first shipment of these new studs in 6-8 weeks and we will go ahead and make installation videos as soon as they arrive.
> 
> Also, we´re still working on the motorised masking systems. In our past experience we have found that a modular approach, allowing the customer to purchase and install masking and frame separately would be the best solution. As such, our first solution will most likely be a 1-way 16:9->2.40:1 top down masking that would also allow you to close the masking all the way down to protect the screen when not in use. We are also working on a 2.40:1->16:9 2-way system based on the same principles. These items, however, might take some time to get to market but we certainly hope to have them ready for sale by the end of 2017. The current UltraFrame is, however, a very nice frame too, but will not accommodate masking.
> 
> I have included some 3D renders as well as some photos of our prototype FlexiBaffle installation here at our headquarters!


Thanks!

Not too sure about the baffle wall for my room. My room is quite small (about 15 ft long x 12 ft wide x 9.5 ft high) and has the entrance door on one of the side walls right next the screen (adjacent to the screen). I'm planning on moving the screen out of the way when not in use in order to avoid obstructing the door too much. Could you highlight some of the details on the custom stand you mentioned? What will its feet look like? Something like this? I will require feet that are not too long.


----------



## Lygren

Kain said:


> Thanks!
> 
> Not too sure about the baffle wall for my room. My room is quite small (about 15 ft long x 12 ft wide x 9.5 ft high) and has the entrance door on one of the side walls right next the screen (adjacent to the screen). I'm planning on moving the screen out of the way when not in use in order to avoid obstructing the door too much. Could you highlight some of the details on the custom stand you mentioned? What will its feet look like? Something like this? I will require feet that are not too long.


OK, get it, not the atypical batcave installation, but still I´m sure this will end up quite nicely Kain!  Sure, such a stand is possible to custom make, albeit not with the short throw fixture as part of the stand I´m afraid. I´m also tempted to advice you to rather have a look at in-ceiling types of tensioned screens. We´re currently not supplying such a solution using our AT fabrics, but it is certainly something we will be looking into later on for these types of installations...

So; stand is "supplyable", the short throw projection section is not. 15 feet length will limit you in terms of throw and screen size using a regular projector, an alternative might be the Sony short throw laser @ 25K, but that might be out of budget? I´ve seen this particular Sony at the IFA show and I have to say it does throw a very impressive image at a very short throw, native 4K and laser powered. Just wish the price tag was a bit friendlier... 

I guess you could say we´ve been mainly occupied with developing and producing the AT screen materials thus far. Going forward we will try to accommodate more framing as well as tensioned solutions using our AT material though, but first priority will be motorised masking for framed screens and as such designing solutions that are easily serviceable and modular. 

Sorry for not being able to present you with a better suited solution for your particular room Kain, your challenge for getting a good image would also be the fact that most short throw projectors, with the exception if the particular Sony I mentioned, will not provide a very good image quality either. Perhaps you should consider a regular front projection system after all and rather move down in size somewhat? The JVC DLA-X5000 / 7000 / 9000-series, for example, throws an superior picture, but will be limited to about 120" diagonal (about 270cm image width) in your particular setting. That would still be an impressive size in your room in my opinion and allows you to get at least the short throw projector out of the equation...  Still, in your particular case you might also want to consider placing the speakers on each side of the screen and rather use an in-ceiling casing with the very best non-AT material there is; my suggestion being the Stewart Studiotek 100 - my personal favourite for non-AT screens by a huge margin...  Good luck!!


----------



## Kain

Lygren said:


> OK, get it, not the atypical batcave installation, but still I´m sure this will end up quite nicely Kain!  Sure, such a stand is possible to custom make, albeit not with the short throw fixture as part of the stand I´m afraid. I´m also tempted to advice you to rather have a look at in-ceiling types of tensioned screens. We´re currently not supplying such a solution using our AT fabrics, but it is certainly something we will be looking into later on for these types of installations...
> 
> So; stand is "supplyable", the short throw projection section is not. 15 feet length will limit you in terms of throw and screen size using a regular projector, an alternative might be the Sony short throw laser @ 25K, but that might be out of budget? I´ve seen this particular Sony at the IFA show and I have to say it does throw a very impressive image at a very short throw, native 4K and laser powered. Just wish the price tag was a bit friendlier...
> 
> I guess you could say we´ve been mainly occupied with developing and producing the AT screen materials thus far. Going forward we will try to accommodate more framing as well as tensioned solutions using our AT material though, but first priority will be motorised masking for framed screens and as such designing solutions that are easily serviceable and modular.
> 
> Sorry for not being able to present you with a better suited solution for your particular room Kain, your challenge for getting a good image would also be the fact that most short throw projectors, with the exception if the particular Sony I mentioned, will not provide a very good image quality either. Perhaps you should consider a regular front projection system after all and rather move down in size somewhat? The JVC DLA-X5000 / 7000 / 9000-series, for example, throws an superior picture, but will be limited to about 120" diagonal (about 270cm image width) in your particular setting. That would still be an impressive size in your room in my opinion and allows you to get at least the short throw projector out of the equation...  Still, in your particular case you might also want to consider placing the speakers on each side of the screen and rather use an in-ceiling casing with the very best non-AT material there is; my suggestion being the Stewart Studiotek 100 - my personal favourite for non-AT screens by a huge margin...  Good luck!!


Thanks again. 

I posted that picture to show the stand, not the short throw projection section. The projector will be at the back of the room on the back wall. I actually will require an AT screen as I am quite sure I'll end up with three JBL M2s as LCR. The screen size I am looking at is around 100" (diagonal) 16:9.


----------



## Lygren

Kain said:


> Thanks again.
> 
> I posted that picture to show the stand, not the short throw projection section. The projector will be at the back of the room on the back wall. I actually will require an AT screen as I am quite sure I'll end up with three JBL M2s as LCR. The screen size I am looking at is around 100" (diagonal) 16:9.


Ah, then I take back everything I said...  M2s are great speakers, and if you do want to use an AT screen, the UltraWeave V6 has basically been designed with the performance of my favourite non-AT fabric, the Studiotek 100, as a guideline (well, not as a product as such I should probably add, the UltraWeave is totally different in terms of overall buildup, but in terms of its non-speckled, D65 neutral, finely structural and gain neutral appearance), and in my humble (I am almost tempted to say unbiased, but I guess that´s a hard sell... ) opinion the current very best AT fabric available out there. I do see a number of competitors trying now to compensate for the structural issue of regular weave jumping fence to knit / spandex. Although knit has some very nice features, the problem is its softening of the image. This was why we - at our 3. gen - moved from knit to weave - and on our 5. gen found the now patented method of combining these fabrics. Another advantage with the UltraWeave is that AT is at reference levels, which is certainly an important factor when using speakers at the level you are considering. Please also remember that AT is reduced at lower SPL. This is a fact that we will place more emphasis on for future measurements of AT. Especially relevant in terms of comparing to regularly perfed (nano or micro) PVC fabrics, but also in comparison to other weaved fabrics as some alternatives tend to try to increase their gain at the cost of AT which might measure a drop of 4dB @ 20KHz @ 90dB, but at 70dB the drop might double, thus stealing micro details at a far more excessive level than one would originally think based on specs. By other words, the AT level is a very very important part of an acoustical transparent fabric design and should be as low as possible. In terms of AT, spandex, as long as it is not too heavy, is quite good in that regards. We have made out our "spandex" / knit portion of the fabric in a very special manner to further improve both gain and AT. We use a more open mesh facing audio and closer mesh facing video, improving AT at each layer by about 0,1-0,2dB @ 90dB as well as improving gain and sharpness even further.

Also, in comparison to other alternatives, please also notice the integrated black backing. This is really an important part of the design too; leaving even a slight gap of 1/10 of a mm, it will cause light bleed and as such reduced sharpness as well as halo - especially important in highly contrasted objects in dark scenes. Dropping the black backing is neither a good choice unless the fabric is very thick, as it washes out contrast - even when the backing compartment is totally black. 

Probably enough technical talk for now - albeit I do feel it is important to try to explain the advantages of the UltraWeave V6 rather too often than too seldom as a lot of people seems to tend to forget about some of the arguments that we did spend so much time and effort working into this fabric... 

So, yes, the stand is certainly possible to make for you, not sure if we can get the wheels on it, but we´ll try. Please send an e-mail to info @ dreamscreen . no for further details.


----------



## Kain

Lygren said:


> Ah, then I take back everything I said...  M2s are great speakers, and if you do want to use an AT screen, the UltraWeave V6 has basically been designed with the performance of my favourite non-AT fabric, the Studiotek 100, as a guideline (well, not as a product as such I should probably add, the UltraWeave is totally different in terms of overall buildup, but in terms of its non-speckled, D65 neutral, finely structural and gain neutral appearance), and in my humble (I am almost tempted to say unbiased, but I guess that´s a hard sell... ) opinion the current very best AT fabric available out there. I do see a number of competitors trying now to compensate for the structural issue of regular weave jumping fence to knit / spandex. Although knit has some very nice features, the problem is its softening of the image. This was why we - at our 3. gen - moved from knit to weave - and on our 5. gen found the now patented method of combining these fabrics. Another advantage with the UltraWeave is that AT is at reference levels, which is certainly an important factor when using speakers at the level you are considering. Please also remember that AT is reduced at lower SPL. This is a fact that we will place more emphasis on for future measurements of AT. Especially relevant in terms of comparing to regularly perfed (nano or micro) PVC fabrics, but also in comparison to other weaved fabrics as some alternatives tend to try to increase their gain at the cost of AT which might measure a drop of 4dB @ 20KHz @ 90dB, but at 70dB the drop might double, thus stealing micro details at a far more excessive level than one would originally think based on specs. By other words, the AT level is a very very important part of an acoustical transparent fabric design and should be as low as possible. In terms of AT, spandex, as long as it is not too heavy, is quite good in that regards. We have made out our "spandex" / knit portion of the fabric in a very special manner to further improve both gain and AT. We use a more open mesh facing audio and closer mesh facing video, improving AT at each layer by about 0,1-0,2dB @ 90dB as well as improving gain and sharpness even further.
> 
> Also, in comparison to other alternatives, please also notice the integrated black backing. This is really an important part of the design too; leaving even a slight gap of 1/10 of a mm, it will cause light bleed and as such reduced sharpness as well as halo - especially important in highly contrasted objects in dark scenes. Dropping the black backing is neither a good choice unless the fabric is very thick, as it washes out contrast - even when the backing compartment is totally black.
> 
> Probably enough technical talk for now - albeit I do feel it is important to try to explain the advantages of the UltraWeave V6 rather too often than too seldom as a lot of people seems to tend to forget about some of the arguments that we did spend so much time and effort working into this fabric...
> 
> So, yes, the stand is certainly possible to make for you, not sure if we can get the wheels on it, but we´ll try. Please send an e-mail to info @ dreamscreen . no for further details.


Awesome. Thanks a lot for all the info. 

I agree with you that if I were to get a solid/non-AT screen, my top choice would be the StudioTek 100. Good to know it was the "standard" or basis for the V6 to match. I will send you guys an email when I am closer to purchasing the screen. By the way, I won't require wheels for the stand.


----------



## Mike Garrett

Lygren said:


> Sure, we can make out custom stands that would allow you to place the frame in front of the speakers.
> 
> However, our clear recommendation would be to rather have a look at our new FlexiBaffle v2 system. Using a flexible steel stud system in combination with our ProSilence line of decoupling clips and U-boats it enables you to make out a completely decoupled front baffle wall at any size and depth. There are numerous advantages with these baffle walls both acoustically and visually. We expect the first shipment of these new studs in 6-8 weeks and we will go ahead and make installation videos as soon as they arrive.
> 
> Also, we´re still working on the motorised masking systems. In our past experience we have found that a modular approach, allowing the customer to purchase and install masking and frame separately would be the best solution. As such, our first solution will most likely be a 1-way 16:9->2.40:1 top down masking that would also allow you to close the masking all the way down to protect the screen when not in use. We are also working on a 2.40:1->16:9 2-way system based on the same principles. These items, however, might take some time to get to market but we certainly hope to have them ready for sale by the end of 2017. The current UltraFrame is, however, a very nice frame too, but will not accommodate masking.
> 
> I have included some 3D renders as well as some photos of our prototype FlexiBaffle installation here at our headquarters!


I always like playing with an Erector Set as a kid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erector_Set
This looks like it would be fun to do.


----------



## Kain

@Lygren

This one might be more complex but will it also be possible for you guys to make a retractable version of the V6? I would prefer motorized but it could be manually operated/pulled-down as well. This will allow me to have a larger screen than if I went with a stand-mounted screen and I won't have to move the screen out of the way when not in use due to the room layout (as I'll just have to retract/pull-up the screen).


----------



## Lygren

@Kain; unfortunately not right now, but it's certainly not an impossibility, just a matter of where to place the resources right now...  The V6 material, being bonded and including the black backing as part of the buildup, is actually very suited for a motorised / tensioned setup... 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## landonin

Hi, I just ordered a sample of the V6 Dreamscreen and am looking for a ~160-180 2.35:1 screen. But I could not find any of the masking solutions on the website. Are there any manual or automatic 2.35:1 -> 1.78:1 masking solutions for the V6 Dreamscreen UltraFrame available yet?


----------



## Lygren

landonin said:


> Hi, I just ordered a sample of the V6 Dreamscreen and am looking for a ~160-180 2.35:1 screen. But I could not find any of the masking solutions on the website. Are there any manual or automatic 2.35:1 -> 1.78:1 masking solutions for the V6 Dreamscreen UltraFrame available yet?




Hi landonin, and thanks for ordering that sample. Customers located in the US should rather contact the US distributor directly for samples; www.avscience.com. We'll halt your sample shipment until further notice, just send us an e-mail info AT dreamscreen . no if AVS is out of samples (we'll resupply them shortly in such case)!

As for the masking screens, these are currently not available, hopefully by Q4 this year we will be able to supply them to US customers (through AVScience). These are motorised at first (Somfy RTS motors), we might offer a manual version later on. 1-way 16:9 -> 2.40:1 AT masking that can be rolled all the way down when screen is not in use, or 2-way 2.40:1->16:9 dual motor system (also Somfy). Modular system allowing for frame / fabric purchase first, then masking whenever later on... 

Still, please remember that AVS is also able to supply universal grip rails that would fit basically any frame out there; perhaps you can find a nice used multi masking frame online and rather retrofit the V6 fabric using the grip rails for example?  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jaychatbonneau

CINERAMAX said:


> It just happens that I have this 17 foot wide frame from My Old 2012 RealD 4k PH lab in Miami sitting at Alan's, synchronicity points to new lab in Miami for the Pimps of Immersive cinema during 2017 more and more.


What kind of extinction ratio did you achieve with this material?


----------



## Lygren

We will be showing the new MotoMask V2 masking system at CEDIA 2017 in San Diego 7.-9. of September for anyone interested, in combination with the new PRO XXL revision of the UltraWeave V6. The frame will be a 16:9 native, 1-way masked screen that enables both 2.40:1 masking as well as totally closing down the masking fabric to protect the screen when not in use. Image size is about 15 1/2 feet wide... More info coming soon!

Please see a short video from our initial 3D-printed prototype here: 



. The frame displayed at the show will be our first solid steel made prototype, but based on our testing thus far it should work wonders! 

So, again, modular system, you can purchase and install the frame + fabric first and later on install the masking roller system. Somfy top grade motor that allows control through just about any system out there (Crestron etc.), but a basic Somfy RF (RTS) remote is included that would allow you to set top, 2.40:1 and shut.


----------



## Ericglo

Are you going to have your own booth?


----------



## boothman

With the masking system would it be possible to have multiple stop points for other ratios (1.85,2.0,2.2,2.55,2.76 etc)? If not could you just have a jog and stop version?


----------



## Lygren

boothman said:


> With the masking system would it be possible to have multiple stop points for other ratios (1.85,2.0,2.2,2.55,2.76 etc)? If not could you just have a jog and stop version?


The basic Somfy RTS / included remote features only one "my" / "favourite position" stop point (i.e. the 2.40:1 stop at a 16:9 2.40:1 1-way masking setup), but it is very easy to adjust this preferred point and also storing it; you simply click "my" to get the masking stopped at the favourite position, adjust it to the new position and then press and hold the "my" button to store it (if you´d want to store it as the new favourite that is). I´m sure it would be possible to use the RTS RS485 protocol (add on module from Somfy) to manually sett several stop points though, we will certainly look into that too.


----------



## Lygren

So, a couple of pics further detailing the back of the frame on our 3D printed prototype. The roller moves up and down through custom tracks on each side. 

Also, I have attached a couple of 3D outputs of the specific frame that will be displayed at CEDIA, it´s going to be MASSIVE - but since the feedback we got on last years CEDIA were just that; doing a 14 ft. 2.35:1 native screen at that time - folks wanted it even LARGER and also motorised masking that did not cost half a house. We listened!  Please note that for the 2.40:1 native screen (2-way masking to 16:9) the max width can be as much as 23 ft. However, since we are doing the masking from the top down, not the sides, there will be no adjustment possibilty for this masking solution other than fixed 16:9 and 2.40:1. So, for most US installations where ceiling height is not the limitation I would presume the 16:9 native 1-way masking would be the most prominent alternative. This solution will also allow for full closing of the masking fabric to protect that fabric while not in use, a feature that is not available for the 2.40:1 native 2-way system. So, basically, the 2.40:1 native alternative is more of an alternative used if ceiling height limits the size too much, which is a very common issue in Europe.

Shipping is also a crucial factor in terms of cost on these large items and therefore both the frame as well as the masking roller is dividable allowing all frame- and masking sizes to be shippable by express / air.


----------



## Lygren

Ericglo said:


> Are you going to have your own booth?


Sorry, forgot to reply on this one @Ericglo; we´re at the Alcons Pro Ribbon Immersive Experience stand up in one of the High Performance Audio Rooms (25C) up in the Upper Level. Will be using a Barco LOKI dual laser 4K projector @ 8500 lumens (peak). Screen width is 15 1/2 ft wide, 16:9 native, 1-way masking to cinescope.

It´s going to be a massively cool demo, Trinnov 32 channel preamp, all critical channels will be run through digital AES / EBU, 6 overhead speakers in ATMOS layout, wides, bunch of subs; you name it!! 

I´ve included some brochure material for the UltraWeave V6 in its new "XXL" proportions as well as for the MotoMask frame. As for the motorised masking system, it´s not the final production model showcased at the stand, but functionality is identical in terms of being able to close all the way down etc. 

We hope to see as many entusiasts as possible stepping by the stand!


----------



## Lygren

...and here´s a very quick sketch that we made based on the layout set by Walter Fortmuller. Speaker type is CRMS MKII in front, we used CRMSc, a smaller version in this example, so not 100% accurate. Height of various speakers is not accurate either, but it gives an overall impression of the magnitude of the setup this year - I believe it´s going to sound truly immersive and we´ll run a lot of of 16:9-formatted content as well as cinescope in a number of native sound formats. 

The green boxes depicted are 1D QRD diffusors by the way, custom made in "Alcons Green" (supplied by us) for this show... Pretty high tuned due to limited depth as we had to make sure the weight was not too high (100mm), but still, they will certainly add to the scatter and diffusional characteristics of the room. We might add similar panels for sale as well later on, but not yet decided...


----------



## Lygren

Please see press release from Alcons Audio for more info; http://www.alconsaudio.com/award-winning-pro-ribbon-immersive-experience-returns-cedia/.


----------



## ARROW-AV

Lygren said:


> ...and here´s a very quick sketch that we made based on the layout set by Walter Fortmuller. Speaker type is CRMS MKII in front, we used CRMSc, a smaller version in this example, so not 100% accurate. Height of various speakers is not accurate either, but it gives an overall impression of the magnitude of the setup this year - I believe it´s going to sound truly immersive and we´ll run a lot of of 16:9-formatted content as well as cinescope in a number of native sound formats.
> 
> The green boxes depicted are 1D QRD diffusors by the way, custom made in "Alcons Green" (supplied by us) for this show... Pretty high tuned due to limited depth as we had to make sure the weight was not too high (100mm), but still, they will certainly add to the scatter and diffusional characteristics of the room. We might add similar panels for sale as well later on, but not yet decided...


Hi Jon, wow that sure sounds like a serious party! Nice! 

Hey Peter @CINERAMAX how about we all check this out immediately before or after the Dynaudio demo? What do you think? 

It'll be nice to see you again Jon and looking forward to checking out the V6 in action 
.


----------



## thxman

Lygren said:


> I´ve included some brochure material for the UltraWeave V6 in its new "XXL" proportions as well as for the MotoMask frame. As for the motorised masking system, it´s not the final production model showcased at the stand, but functionality is identical in terms of being able to close all the way down etc.


Hi Jon. Can the screen be configured to mask from the bottom up vs. top down? Thanks.


----------



## CINERAMAX

ARROW-AV said:


> Hi Jon, wow that sure sounds like a serious party! Nice!
> 
> Hey Peter @CINERAMAX how about we all check this out immediately before or after the Dynaudio demo? What do you think?
> 
> It'll be nice to see you again Jon and looking forward to checking out the V6 in action
> .


 Sure thing 9am. "_They do not need to see our identification":devil:_ at the door. I'll hit you up 5 before.

The setup is nearly exactly as a selfish bastard jedi master would have done except the listeners exclusion box is too generous accomodating every breather in the group. But diluting the vip seats around the head envelope.










The other only thing i would have swapped the surrounds and the rears, this will not be a good example of directional bass, as it works better on a 5+wides full range setup, but the goals are to please everybody so that it shall.


----------



## CINERAMAX

*Jon Has been bussy*

Nice Job Jon looks like you made a lot of progress on PLF Masking so awesome.Keeping the image at the bottom enhances the vertical stereo HEIGHT of the presentation congrats. Hey there are two dinners in a thread if you want to come sign up. There is a different cigar of the night.


----------



## Lygren

ARROW-AV said:


> Hi Jon, wow that sure sounds like a serious party! Nice!
> 
> Hey Peter @*CINERAMAX* how about we all check this out immediately before or after the Dynaudio demo? What do you think?
> 
> It'll be nice to see you again Jon and looking forward to checking out the V6 in action
> .


Thanks Nigel, Alcons has really gone all in this year and I am just super grateful for being able to take part in this wild setup... It´s gonna be some serious work getting this setup though, but hopefully everything will move according to plan!


----------



## Lygren

thxman said:


> Hi Jon. Can the screen be configured to mask from the bottom up vs. top down? Thanks.


Our main worry for this show is; where´s the main man this year (meaning YOU!)!  

As for masking, one of our main goals with this new design is to avoid pulleys and try to fight gravity as little as humanly possible...  We have supplied our customers with masking systems for more than 10 years. Two very specific items has ALWAYS caused us problems no matter the price of the system; the pulleys + gravity. Gravity being introduced as an issue going in sideways with the masking panels, i.e. horizontal masking - as the masking panel is being pulled down (by gravity that is) and thus easily getting stuck in its tracks. As for for bottom-up masking, it would have to use both pulleys and also fight gravity full scale, so for this model it will not be available I´m afraid. 

These frames will be delivered in either 2.40:1 or 16:9 native formats (you would have to choose), while the masking systems will contain the masking rollers for both 1-way and 2-way systems to keep reduce complexity in production. Like the long sides of the frame, the roller will be divided in two, in order to accommodate lower cost transport as well as larger sizes. 

Instead of the "systems of old", we wanted to design one that was of high quality, yet uses as few moving parts as possible, and also is modular as a lot of our type of clientele (mainly enthusiasts) want to invest stepwise. Being able to first purchase the frame + fabric and later, very easily, add the masking is definately very appealing for our core customer base. As such, it would be even more important to keep the masking system free of pulleys etc. as that would make retrofitting all but impossible. Also, we wanted the 1-way masking to be able to travel all the way down so that the fabric can be better protected when not in use. 

Still, I´m not saying 1-way bottom-up, 2-way horizontal or even 4-way masking is out of the question in the future, we just need to figure out smarter and more cost effecient solutions... 

As for now, the default formats will be;



240cm / 94 1/2" image width -> 16:9 and 2.40 native
285cm / 112" image width -> 16:9 and 2.40 native
350cm / 138" image width -> 16:9 and 2.40 native
400cm / 157 1/2" image width -> 16:9 and 2.40 native
470cm / 185" image width -> 16:9 and 2.40 native
600cm / 236" image width -> 2.40 native only
680cm / 268" image width -> 2.40 native only


Custom sizes will also be available as well. Will also be available in the US through AVScience.com, hopefully by end Q4 this year.


----------



## Lygren

CINERAMAX said:


> Nice Job Jon looks like you made a lot of progress on PLF Masking so awesome.Keeping the image at the bottom enhances the vertical stereo HEIGHT of the presentation congrats. Hey there are two dinners in a thread if you want to come sign up. There is a different cigar of the night.


Have barely had the time to wipe my axx the last couply of months, so have not had the time to read the dinner posts, but I´m sure both me and the engineer that is tagging along would want to join the dinner(s), thx! 

As for this particular frame; it´s a prototype made out in 400 pounds of massive steel, so not looking forward to assembly, can tell you that much...  We have also brought a non-masked 16:9 native plan B frame (same size, 212") if all goes haywire, but hopefully this will work out. I do agree that if ceiling height is not an issue - it makes full sense doing 16:9 native and immerse yourself when content says so. Game of Thrones @ 212" 16:9 would, however, require some serious upgrade from HBO in terms of bitrate to look good at such a size, but hopefully quality will improve for shows as they have for movies going forward... 

See you there!


----------



## CINERAMAX

Lygren said:


> Have barely had the time to wipe my axx the last couply of months, so have not had the time to read the dinner posts, but I´m sure both me and the engineer that is tagging along would want to join the dinner(s), thx!
> 
> As for this particular frame; it´s a prototype made out in 400 pounds of massive steel, so not looking forward to assembly, can tell you that much...  We have also brought a non-masked 16:9 native plan B frame (same size, 212") if all goes haywire, but hopefully this will work out. I do agree that if ceiling height is not an issue - it makes full sense doing 16:9 native and immerse yourself when content says so. Game of Thrones @ 212" 16:9 would, however, require some serious upgrade from HBO in terms of bitrate to look good at such a size, but hopefully quality will improve for shows as they have for movies going forward...
> 
> See you there!


Ok adding you to the dinners. See ya , like they say in Denmark: Knæk og bræk


----------



## thxman

Lygren said:


> Our main worry for this show is; where´s the main man this year (meaning YOU!)!


  You are way too kind. I am starting to come back out of the woodwork and I am getting back to working on the theater. To help ensure I keep on track, I have arranged for a mid/large sized gathering on Oct 21 to demo the theater and get together with other HT enthusiasts. I have a lot to do by then but I am confident all will be ready. In fact, I was going to place an order for some additional skyline diffusers from your site very soon.



Lygren said:


> As for masking, one of our main goals with this new design is to avoid pulleys and try to fight gravity as little as humanly possible...  We have supplied our customers with masking systems for more than 10 years. Two very specific items has ALWAYS caused us problems no matter the price of the system; the pulleys + gravity. Gravity being introduced as an issue going in sideways with the masking panels, i.e. horizontal masking - as the masking panel is being pulled down (by gravity that is) and thus easily getting stuck in its tracks. As for for bottom-up masking, it would have to use both pulleys and also fight gravity full scale, so for this model it will not be available I´m afraid.


I fully understand and thank you for the detailed explanation. In my case, I am very limited on how far up I can place the screen and the top of it is the prime real estate. If I ever move back to 16:9 with the same screen width, the bottom of the screen may suffer some from foot blocking (when reclined) and probably worse blocking from the back row.

Best of luck with CEDIA. I really wish I was there to help. I still rave about how much fun I had last year.


----------



## Mike Garrett

Want to say a few words about the V6 fabric. The manufacturing process is down pat now. The fabric looked perfect this year. I walked up to the screen with the room lights on and inspected the screen from only a few inches away, looking closely at the all of the screen. This is a really good AT screen material. No shimmer or sparkle anywhere and offers very good sharpness. The fabric is very smooth for a weave and looks like a solid screen from only a few feet away. Best of all it is available DIY as well as with a frame and soon will be available with a powered masking system. Speaking of the masking system, what was shown was a prototype, but it worked flawlessly, doing exactly what a masking system should do. I am as excited about the masking system as I am about the screen itself. We do not have very many masking systems available and what is cool about this one is, you can get the screen and use it as is for a while and then add the masking system later. Means you do not have to layout as much money all at once.


----------



## Craig Peer

I also thought the V6 screen looked excellent ! No surface artifacts or texture, and great sound. And that was one big screen ! Plus, I loved the masking system !


----------



## Lygren

Thanks Mike and Craig for stepping by, and luckily you even liked what you saw! 

Some shots from our recent CEDIA demo! All-in-all, we´re very happy with taking part in this Alcons Immersive Pro-Ribbon Experience, it´s a hell of a lot of work, and being located off the showroom floor (in one of the High Performance Audio rooms at the upper floor) we might not had quite the traffic we had hoped for, the room rattled like hell and we had a bunch of issues with the sound processor, but fun nonetheless - at least retrospectively! 

Still, as for the prototype motorised masking screen, it was certainly proof of concept. 400 or so pounds in pure steel was one hellofajob getting up, but the team managed to do it after two attempts!  The final version will certainly be far lighter as it will be made out in aluminum only, and also heavily weight optimalised by adding pockets etc. 1-way masking that is able to travel all the way down really does a great job in framing the image while keeping a constant lower placement for the image. In addition, closing the masking all the way down protects the screen while not in use, a very important feature for a lot of customers that has kids, dogs, cats wondering around the house...  so we´re now making out the final moulds, and will head for mass production within 1-2 months. Still working out some details on the masking roller as such, one of them trying to solve the 110V/220V motor challenge as Somfy actually uses different models for these two markets. We´ll find a solution soon! Also, we will look into making the masking fabric even darker / blacker, the prototype was indeed a bit too charcoal. 

As for the new V6 PRO XXL fabric, it really worked wonders, flawless! The use of the patented UltraWeaved layer really creates a seamless, ultrasharp surface like _no_ others... Albeit spandex / knitted fabrics have a tight surface as well, the weave, especially in the shape and form used on the V6, really sharpens up the image in comparison. I truly encourage getting ahold of samples and A/B comparing to any other fabric out there, for US customers AVScience.com now have loads of sample material available, while International customers can order their samples directly from www.DreamScreen.eu.


----------



## Lygren

Here another set of "behind the scenes"... The upper small image shows a 3D-printed part that we had to make just before the show started as it turned out the roller was made out a little too narrow. The lower small image shows how the masking roller is easily added retrospectively (after the fabric is attached and the frame is ready for use). The two larger images to the right showcases how the functionality of the 1-way masking roller works; upper image shows it in "cinescope mode", while the lower shows it moving towards the bottom / closing off and protecting the screen.


----------



## Ericglo

It is an impressive screen.


----------



## boothman

It would be nice as an option to provide non transparent masking that could be darker since most screen speakers wouldn't be behind the masked part of the screen. If height speakers are wanted behind also then the transparent masking could be used.


----------



## erkq

What's the gain? Has it changed any from V5?


----------



## Lygren

boothman said:


> It would be nice as an option to provide non transparent masking that could be darker since most screen speakers wouldn't be behind the masked part of the screen. If height speakers are wanted behind also then the transparent masking could be used.


Completely agreed, and we are looking into different alternatives in such regards. The roller system is basically completely "open source", so any fabric can basically be used - also printed fabrics etc.


----------



## Lygren

erkq said:


> What's the gain? Has it changed any from V5?


Increased sharpness (quite significant) as well as structural quality (i.e. it emulates almost 100% that of a regular PVC screen coating right now, V5 was good in such regards too, but V6 is even better) are the main arguments. Gain is still in the 0.8 department (0.81-0.82), but again - a number of other suppliers are indeed inflating their values while we have benchmarked this gain towards what we regards the industry standard in non-AT fabrics; Stewart Studiotek 100 (which is regarded as 1.0). Gain is also measures after incoming measured white light is fully D65 corrected. I strongly encourage getting ahold of a sample (as large as possible) and compare it to the alternatives (AVScience.com in the US, DreamScreen.eu Internationally).

Also, for this latest "PRO XXL" production (which is what AVScience.com (US) & DreamScreen.eu (International) has in stock right now), the fabric is now fire retardant, which is often a requirement for pro-installations. In addition, packaging has been heavily improved to better accommodate International (re)shippings; core dimension (where the fabric is rolled onto) has been more than doubled, and we also roll the entire piece of V6-fabric onto a separate fluffy, protective fabric. In addition, the outer roll is much stronger / thicker / heavier than before. All-in-all, we have not experienced one single transport damage / issue thus far on this production run...


----------



## erkq

Thank you for your detailed response! My current SMX AT material (the Shearweave stuff) is keeping me from going to 4K. It is just too coarse. But it *does* have a gain that is better than any material I have tested, better than materials that claim a 1.0 gain. It's hard to give that up. It's such a beautiful picture with 1080 now. I have tested the V5 material and it is *the* front runner, except for the gain.



Lygren said:


> Increased sharpness (quite significant) as well as structural quality (i.e. it emulates almost 100% that of a regular PVC screen coating right now, V5 was good in such regards too, but V6 is even better) are the main arguments. Gain is still in the 0.8 department (0.81-0.82), but again - a number of other suppliers are indeed inflating their values while we have benchmarked this gain towards what we regards the industry standard in non-AT fabrics; Stewart Studiotek 100 (which is regarded as 1.0). Gain is also measures after incoming measured white light is fully D65 corrected. I strongly encourage getting ahold of a sample (as large as possible) and compare it to the alternatives (AVScience.com in the US, DreamScreen.eu Internationally).
> 
> Also, for this latest "PRO XXL" production (which is what AVScience.com (US) & DreamScreen.eu (International) has in stock right now), the fabric is now fire retardant, which is often a requirement for pro-installations. In addition, packaging has been heavily improved to better accommodate International (re)shippings; core dimension (where the fabric is rolled onto) has been more than doubled, and we also roll the entire piece of V6-fabric onto a separate fluffy, protective fabric. In addition, the outer roll is much stronger / thicker / heavier than before. All-in-all, we have not experienced one single transport damage / issue thus far on this production run...


----------



## Lygren

erkq said:


> Thank you for your detailed response! My current SMX AT material (the Shearweave stuff) is keeping me from going to 4K. It is just too coarse. But it *does* have a gain that is better than any material I have tested, better than materials that claim a 1.0 gain. It's hard to give that up. It's such a beautiful picture with 1080 now. I have tested the V5 material and it is *the* front runner, except for the gain.


I´d certainly say you should still have a look at the V6 and see the difference. Although the gain increase from the V5 is not that much, in reality it looks far more "solid" and as stated in the previous post; sharper. If you get a somewhat big piece it would be easier for you to assess the gain difference, my assumption is that the V6 and your SMX will be a very close call, but you´ll have the benefit of sharpness, density (allows for closer seating, 4K, 8K++), and also higher acoustical transparency - my assumption would be 1dB improvement on average which might not sound like much but at those higher frequencies making out the "micro detailing" of the sound imagery it´s actually quite significant... Also, it is beneficial that you do D65 correct of each material separately prior to making the final assumption as any color shift (practically none for the V6, it´s within >98% of D65 reference...) in the fabric should be corrected for prior to doing any final comparisons. Also, please remember that acoustical blockage increases as the SPL decreases - by other words - while audio at 90dB would only be dampened by 2dB, the same audio at 70dB would have typically twice as high blockage, and if the blockage @ 90dB is 1-2-3dB higher to begin with, it multiplies going into the more subtle detailing... By other words, the AT is VERY VERY important, and this is also why we are not going "gain bananas", but combine the composition of layers very carefully to optimalise both audio and video. Our patented multiple layer system, whereas the initial layer is randomly woven and the second + third backing layer is knitted, does just that; it allows us to basically replicate the coating of a regular PVC screen (non-AT) while still keeping the AT at reference levels as the knitted fabrics are very AT friendly (but not so much in terms of sharpness).


----------



## erkq

Would you be willing to send me a sample of the V6? Since it is the front-runner, perhaps a larger sample? I'm willing to pay for it. I'll PM you.

The SMX is significantly brighter than Falcon, Seymour XD, UF, En, Screen Innovations, V5... but in all other areas I've got a real case of upgrade-itis. All that you say below is true.

EDIT: I just saw that I am to contact AVS for samples. I'll do that.



Lygren said:


> I´d certainly say you should still have a look at the V6 and see the difference. Although the gain increase from the V5 is not that much, in reality it looks far more "solid" and as stated in the previous post; sharper. If you get a somewhat big piece it would be easier for you to assess the gain difference, my assumption is that the V6 and your SMX will be a very close call, but you´ll have the benefit of sharpness, density (allows for closer seating, 4K, 8K++), and also higher acoustical transparency - my assumption would be 1dB improvement on average which might not sound like much but at those higher frequencies making out the "micro detailing" of the sound imagery it´s actually quite significant... Also, it is beneficial that you do D65 correct of each material separately prior to making the final assumption as any color shift (practically none for the V6, it´s within >98% of D65 reference...) in the fabric should be corrected for prior to doing any final comparisons. Also, please remember that acoustical blockage increases as the SPL decreases - by other words - while audio at 90dB would only be dampened by 2dB, the same audio at 70dB would have typically twice as high blockage, and if the blockage @ 90dB is 1-2-3dB higher to begin with, it multiplies going into the more subtle detailing... By other words, the AT is VERY VERY important, and this is also why we are not going "gain bananas", but combine the composition of layers very carefully to optimalise both audio and video. Our patented multiple layer system, whereas the initial layer is randomly woven and the second + third backing layer is knitted, does just that; it allows us to basically replicate the coating of a regular PVC screen (non-AT) while still keeping the AT at reference levels as the knitted fabrics are very AT friendly (but not so much in terms of sharpness).


----------



## Lygren

erkq said:


> Would you be willing to send me a sample of the V6? Since it is the front-runner, perhaps a larger sample? I'm willing to pay for it. I'll PM you.
> 
> 
> 
> The SMX is significantly brighter than Falcon, Seymour XD, UF, En, Screen Innovations, V5... but in all other areas I've got a real case of upgrade-itis. All that you say below is true.




Sure, but if you are located in the US it would be faster to contact Mike or Craig (we would have to ship all the way from Norway, takes longer...), I'm quite sure they'll be able and happy to get you a sample shipped out quite rapidly! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## erkq

Lygren said:


> Sure, but if you are located in the US it would be faster to contact Mike or Craig (we would have to ship all the way from Norway, takes longer...), I'm quite sure they'll be able and happy to get you a sample shipped out quite rapidly!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yeah... I went to your profile to PM you and saw that. Thank you!


----------



## Ericglo

Depending on your budget, you might want to get a bigger sample. IIRC AVScience sells the material by the foot. It might be worth the expense to see a larger sample size.


----------



## Kain

While baffle walls are very advantageous when using micro-perf screens (in order to minimize comb filtering), what advantages (if any) do you gain by having a baffle wall with a woven screen like the V6 UltraWeave?


----------



## Lygren

Kain said:


> While baffle walls are very advantageous when using micro-perf screens (in order to minimize comb filtering), what advantages (if any) do you gain by having a baffle wall with a woven screen like the V6 UltraWeave?


The principle of avoiding the sound waves to bounce back behind the speaker baffle prior to reaching the audience is the main reason for building a baffle wall, and this advantage is certainly just as imperative using the highly acoustically transmissive V6 fabric, principle is like this; https://www.facebook.com/hollywoodzuhause/videos/1300796083336246. You´d have acoustical advantages as the LCR output pattern will be more predictive and theoretically +6dB output. 

Placing 30-50mm absorbption panels as per the baffle wall "specs" is also still important as to dampen the acoustical reflections bouncing back from the other parts of the room, although it was originally designed to reduce the baundary gain caused by the very low acoustical transparency of the perforated PVC, thus reducing the impact of the reflected soundwaves bouncing back and forth behind the screen fabric (this is certainly not an issue with the V6). The high acoustical transparency of the V6 actually adds to the absorption effect and allows the dampening used to cover the baffle wall to take a far more efficient role in the entire acoustical layout (or a bit more specifically; you need to place less panels elsewhere in the room as your entire front stage baffle wall is absorbing very effeciently on its own...).

As for our new FlexiBaffle system, we are using flexible steel studs and also decouple the entire baffle wall from floors and connected walls using our ProSilence line of noise proofing products (more info here: https://dreamscreen.no/pages/sound-proofing-autocalc) to avoid transferring noise to the surrounding construction (which again can easily lead to rattling etc.). Here is a short video showing how a single bundle package of the FlexiBaffle system can be used to build a wall for an entire Alcons Audio CRMS front stage; 



.


----------



## Kain

Lygren said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> The principle of avoiding the sound waves to bounce back behind the speaker baffle prior to reaching the audience is the main reason for building a baffle wall, and this advantage is certainly just as imperative using the highly acoustically transmissive V6 fabric, principle is like this; https://www.facebook.com/hollywoodzuhause/videos/1300796083336246. You´d have acoustical advantages as the LCR output pattern will be more predictive and theoretically +6dB output.
> 
> Placing 30-50mm absorbption panels as per the baffle wall "specs" is also still important as to dampen the acoustical reflections bouncing back from the other parts of the room, although it was originally designed to reduce the baundary gain caused by the very low acoustical transparency of the perforated PVC, thus reducing the impact of the reflected soundwaves bouncing back and forth behind the screen fabric (this is certainly not an issue with the V6). The high acoustical transparency of the V6 actually adds to the absorption effect and allows the dampening used to cover the baffle wall to take a far more efficient role in the entire acoustical layout (or a bit more specifically; you need to place less panels elsewhere in the room as your entire front stage baffle wall is absorbing very effeciently on its own...).
> 
> As for our new FlexiBaffle system, we are using flexible steel studs and also decouple the entire baffle wall from floors and connected walls using our ProSilence line of noise proofing products (more info here: https://dreamscreen.no/pages/sound-proofing-autocalc) to avoid transferring noise to the surrounding construction (which again can easily lead to rattling etc.). Here is a short video showing how a single bundle package of the FlexiBaffle system can be used to build a wall for an entire Alcons Audio CRMS front stage; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7LPrjYIWcs.


Can you alter the FlexiBaffle to support various shapes and sizes of different speakers (i.e. the JBL M2, for example). Secondly, what is the advantage (if any) of having a baffle wall vs. having free-standing speakers but covering the front wall behind the screen and speakers with acoustic paneling?


----------



## Lygren

Kain said:


> Can you alter the FlexiBaffle to support various shapes and sizes of different speakers (i.e. the JBL M2, for example). Secondly, what is the advantage (if any) of having a baffle wall vs. having free-standing speakers but covering the front wall behind the screen and speakers with acoustic paneling?


Hi Kain. Yes, you can adjust the studs to fit any system basically. Here is a video of a ADAM Audio GTC install: 



. Here´s another one using the exact same package building a setup for an Alcons Audio (far larger) system: 



. As for the complete install video of the ADAM system, we´re still working out some details on terms of framing the acoustical front absorbers a bit neater. Our initial prototype used a set of extenders that holds the fabric grip rails instead of gluing them like this video shows, but we will make out these extenders after all... 

The advantage of placing speakers in a baffled wall is simple; waves are moving forward right away instead of around your speakers and then forward. This video is kind of neat in explaining this; https://www.facebook.com/hollywoodzuhause/videos/1300796083336246/. Result is (theoretically) +6dB SPL as well as more predictable acoustical reflections.


----------



## Craig Peer

Those are great videos !


----------



## Kain

Are the sizes on the DreamScreen website for the V6 in diagonal or horizontal length?

Referring to this:










Lastly, sitting roughly 8 ft. from a 120" (diagonal) 16:9 screen is equal to sitting how far from a 27" (diagonal) 16:9 screen? Is it 1.8 ft.?


----------



## erkq

Kain said:


> Are the sizes on the DreamScreen website for the V6 in diagonal or horizontal length?
> 
> Referring to this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastly, sitting roughly 8 ft. from a 120" (diagonal) 16:9 screen is equal to sitting how far from a 27" (diagonal) 16:9 screen? Is it 1.8 ft.?


Yup... 1.8... it's just a ratio: 8*27/120 = 1.8


----------



## Lygren

Kain said:


> Are the sizes on the DreamScreen website for the V6 in diagonal or horizontal length?
> 
> 
> 
> Referring to this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastly, sitting roughly 8 ft. from a 120" (diagonal) 16:9 screen is equal to sitting how far from a 27" (diagonal) 16:9 screen? Is it 1.8 ft.?




We’ve been planning an update on the dimensions display for some time now, I guess that’s a very specific Norwegian way of doing it...  So, the inch measurement (120») indicates the diagonal image size while the other cm measure (265cm) is the image width... 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Klaus.S

Hi,

About the motorisert maskering are they up for sale already? Can't seem to find them on on your website.


----------



## Lygren

Klaus.S said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> 
> About the motorisert maskering are they up for sale already? Can't seem to find them on on your website.




Still moulding the frame components, we had to do some slight modifications, but hopefully within a couple of weeks now we’ll have a final ETA / pricing available... 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Little Chris

Just bought 3x2m (118"x78") of the UltraWeave V6 fabric for use with a DIY wooden frame with 2-way masking built into the frame. However, I am still wondering what the best option is to attach the fabric to the frame. I would like to be able to remove the fabric from the frame, should I ever want to in the future. I am thinking of sewing some industrial strength velcro to the fabric and staple the other side of the velcro to the wooden frame, but am wondering if there is too much stretch in the material which could make it problematic to sew the velcro on.

I'm very interested in hearing how others have attached their V6 fabric to a DIY frame? 

Thanks!


----------



## Lygren

Little Chris said:


> Just bought 3x2m (118"x78") of the UltraWeave V6 fabric for use with a DIY wooden frame with 2-way masking built into the frame. However, I am still wondering what the best option is to attach the fabric to the frame. I would like to be able to remove the fabric from the frame, should I ever want to in the future. I am thinking of sewing some industrial strength velcro to the fabric and staple the other side of the velcro to the wooden frame, but am wondering if there is too much stretch in the material which could make it problematic to sew the velcro on.
> 
> I'm very interested in hearing how others have attached their V6 fabric to a DIY frame?
> 
> Thanks!


Congrats on making a wise decision!  The grip rails are really nice to work with on DIY setups, and if attached using a strong construction glue such as the Casco Xtremfix (https://www.casco.eu/no/casco-produkter-1/?pc=128&p=2852), they will stick to just about any surface (steel, wood etc.). You can find some videos on different installation methods on the items info page: https://dreamscreen.no/collections/...ro-xxl-screen-fabric-118-x-295-fit-all-system.

As for the fabric, the stretch is "just about right". Not super stretchy, but just enough to give it tension. Velcro might work as such, never tried, but sewing it on would not pose any problem at least.


----------



## Lygren

Some pictures of the new MotoMask V2 system attached, supplied in either 2.40:1 native and a 2-way masking system or 16:9 native using a 1-way system. Masking system is retrofittable, so it would be possible to purchase and install the frame + fabric first and masking system later.

Concept video; 




Pre-sale will start shortly, pricing will be ready within 2-4 days... In the US, please contact our US distributor AVScience.com for more info (please use www.dreamscreen.eu for list of distributors in the EU and elsewhere, and if no distributor is present in your country please feel free to contact us directly).

Will be supplied in the following sizes + custom size;

16:9 native

Fits “SMALL” 2x3m / 78” x 118” V6 UltraWeave
109” diagonal (2,4m / 94 1/2" image width) - 1-way single non-divided masking roller
120” diagonal (2,65m / 104 1/3” image width) - 1-way single non-divided masking roller
129” diagonal (2,85m / 112 1/8” image width) - 1-way single non-divided masking roller

Fits “MEDIUM" 2,8x5,5m / 110” x 216 1/2” V6 UltraWeave
158” diagonal (3,5m / 137 4/5” image width) - 1-way divided masking roller 
181” diagonal (4m / 157 1/2” image width) - 1-way divided masking roller
212” diagonal (4,7m / 185” image width) - 1-way divided masking roller

2.40:1 native

Fits “SMALL” 2x3m / 78” x 118” V6 UltraWeave
122” diagonal (2,85m / 112 1/8” image width) - 2-way single non-divided masking roller

Fits “MEDIUM" 2,8x5,5m / 110” x 216 1/2” V6 UltraWeave
149” diagonal (3,5m / 137 4/5” image width) - 2-way divided masking roller
171” diagonal (4m / 157 1/2” image width) - 2-way divided masking roller 
192” diagonal (4,7m / 185” image width) -2-way divided masking roller

Fits “LARGE" 3x8m / 118” x 315” V6 UltraWeave
245” diagonal (6m / 236 1/8” image width) - 2-way divided masking roller
277” diagonal (6,8m / 267 4/5” image width) - 2-way divided masking roller


----------



## Ericglo

Little Chris said:


> Just bought 3x2m (118"x78") of the UltraWeave V6 fabric for use with a DIY wooden frame with 2-way masking built into the frame. However, I am still wondering what the best option is to attach the fabric to the frame. I would like to be able to remove the fabric from the frame, should I ever want to in the future. I am thinking of sewing some industrial strength velcro to the fabric and staple the other side of the velcro to the wooden frame, but am wondering if there is too much stretch in the material which could make it problematic to sew the velcro on.
> 
> I'm very interested in hearing how others have attached their V6 fabric to a DIY frame?
> 
> Thanks!


Mike Garrett used a grip rail attached to his frame. You could PM him for a link to his photos.


----------



## Little Chris

@Lygren and @Ericglo , thanks a lot for the information. I will reach out to Mike Garrett via PM.

I've looked a bit at the grip rail system, but I was afraid that it might interfere with my DIY 2-way masking system, so I went ahead and bought some velcro (more info on that in a separate thread later). Let's see if it was a good idea 

Oh and Lygren, kudos to DreamScreen for developing a retrofittable masking system! Don't know if other companies are offering the same, but I could imagine that a lot of people appreciate having the option of buying the screen first and the masking system later if the need arises. That way the wallet can also grow a little thicker again before making the plunge into a commercial masking system


----------



## Klaus.S

Hi again,

Are there any difference between the Dreamscreen Ultraweave V6 Pro XXL and the smaller size V6? 

I am thinking on buying the V6 2x4,5M there are listet on the avshop. 

Would like a 2.40:1 or 2.35:1 that is 4 meters wide. Maybe you guys can guide me if it has to be one or the other.

I would then probably make my own masking to 16:9


----------



## Lygren

Klaus.S said:


> Hi again,
> 
> Are there any difference between the Dreamscreen Ultraweave V6 Pro XXL and the smaller size V6?
> 
> I am thinking on buying the V6 2x4,5M there are listet on the avshop.
> 
> Would like a 2.40:1 or 2.35:1 that is 4 meters wide. Maybe you guys can guide me if it has to be one or the other.
> 
> I would then probably make my own masking to 16:9


Hi Klaus! If you are referring to the "B-rolls" listed on the Norwegian dealer AVshop site, these are only available for local Norwegian sale, not Internationally. These are basically fabrics that has not passed inspection, mainly due to packaging that turned out to be too weak, and thus sold off to local enthusiasts that would accept some issues (and if they are not perfectly happy AVshop is crediting them the entire purchase, shipping included, which is the only reasonable manner to handle these types of items).

The V6 PRO XXL, however, is from the latest production run, which has significantly improved packaging rigidity (basically "bomb safe" now) as well as fire retardancy. Other than that, the regular UltraWeave V6 and the "old" V6 are the same in terms of technical buildup (so gain, AT etc. is identical).

The most economical size would be the 122" 2.40:1, which is 2.85m wide and fit the smallest V6 PRO 3x2m piece. If you want 4m width you would need the "medium" sizes PRO XXL version (2,8x5m) that will become available in some weeks.

For shipping etc., please contact us directly at [email protected], forum rules (and I run the Norwegian AVforum myself so I should respect others... ) are to keep these kinds of threads as technical in nature as possible.


----------



## Lygren

If anyone plans to visit ISE in Amsterdam this year, Alcons did opt for a Sony VPL-VW5000 laser 4K projector this year, so anyone interested to see how this machine performs on our UltraWeave V6 screen on the initial production model of the new MotoMask V2 motorised masking system is welcome to visit the Alcons booth 6-H150 the 6.-9. of February! Not as GIGANTIC as the 4,7m wide "XXL" that we showcased at CEDIA in 2017, but the 3,5m wide 16:9 native (masked to 2.40:1 when content calls for it) will hopefully look quite impressive too, lit up by a very nice and dynamic Sony laser... 

Again, Walter Fortmuller, the Austrian pro installer has been procured to design and host the setup, powered by Alcons, running a crazy 9.1(6).6 system whereas Trinnov will process the sound; can´t wait to both *hear* and _*see*_ this (potentially at least!) amazing setup! So, for this time, we´re pre-testing the Trinnov at least - and the Sony projector will be calibrated by a (excellent!!) pro ISF / THX calibrator, Gorm Sorensen - on site (Colorimetri Research spectro for profiling the Klein K-10 colorimeter)...


----------



## ddgdl

Lygren said:


> If anyone plans to visit ISE in Amsterdam this year, Alcons did opt for a Sony VPL-VW5000 laser 4K projector this year, so anyone interested to see how this machine performs on our UltraWeave V6 screen on the initial production model of the new MotoMask V2 motorised masking system is welcome to visit the Alcons booth 6-H150 the 6.-9. of February! Not as GIGANTIC as the 4,7m wide "XXL" that we showcased at CEDIA in 2017, but the 3,5m wide 16:9 native (masked to 2.40:1 when content calls for it) will hopefully look quite impressive too, lit up by a very nice and dynamic Sony laser...
> 
> Again, Walter Fortmuller, the Austrian pro installer has been procured to design and host the setup, powered by Alcons, running a crazy 9.1(6).6 system whereas Trinnov will process the sound; can´t wait to both *hear* and _*see*_ this (potentially at least!) amazing setup! So, for this time, we´re pre-testing the Trinnov at least - and the Sony projector will be calibrated by a (excellent!!) pro ISF / THX calibrator, Gorm Sorensen - on site (Colorimetri Research spectro for profiling the Klein K-10 colorimeter)...


I would just like to point out that I went to this demonstration at ISE, and it was absolutely fantastic. The masking works great, but the real star of the show is the v6 material itself.

Any other users (other than Mike) have v6 screens out in the wild? After seeing that demo, I cannot imagine another AT screen coming anywhere close to the v6.


----------



## erkq

ddgdl said:


> I would just like to point out that I went to this demonstration at ISE, and it was absolutely fantastic. The masking works great, but the real star of the show is the v6 material itself.
> 
> Any other users (other than Mike) have v6 screens out in the wild? After seeing that demo, I cannot imagine another AT screen coming anywhere close to the v6.


I'd love to get the v6, but my original SMX screen (OK, OK, it's Shearweave) has more gain. It does have resolution problems for 4k, though.


----------



## ddgdl

erkq said:


> I'd love to get the v6, but my original SMX screen (OK, OK, it's Shearweave) has more gain. It does have resolution problems for 4k, though.


How much more gain are we talking? I think the v6 was tested at 0.84. I only know of one non-perf AT screen with higher gain than that (the XD, at 0.9, I think), though I admit I am not familiar with the numbers for the SMX.


----------



## erkq

ddgdl said:


> How much more gain are we talking? I think the v6 was tested at 0.84. I only know of one non-perf AT screen with higher gain than that (the XD, at 0.9, I think), though I admit I am not familiar with the numbers for the SMX.


I haven't measured. They *claimed* 1.1... ha! I think we're very lucky if we get 1.0 out of it. I haven't measured. But it is a little brighter than the v6 sample. The v6 looks noticeably dull in comparison. The SMX is brighter than any AT sample I've gotten, and I've gotten a lot. I *want* 4k! But maybe I should just settle for the P3 color that comes along with 4k.


----------



## Lygren

ddgdl said:


> I would just like to point out that I went to this demonstration at ISE, and it was absolutely fantastic. The masking works great, but the real star of the show is the v6 material itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Any other users (other than Mike) have v6 screens out in the wild? After seeing that demo, I cannot imagine another AT screen coming anywhere close to the v6.




Thanks a lot for the positive feedback @ddgdl, highly appreciated. We did not have time to work out all the final details on the masking, but we are planning on finishing off everything and testing the final production model at HQ Norway within a month or so. I’ll post some images once we’re done...

In short, we were super happy with the Sony VW5000 in combination with the V6, and the new Alcons subs were great and really made out one hell of a experience!!  Lot of fun, LOT of work, but all worth it in the end!! 

Here is one from ISE though, have some more that I can post shortly as well.











Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Lygren

Here´s one showing the back, we´re using a separate inner- and outer frame solution as well as modular access to the masking section so that it can be easily serviced and/or installed retrospectively. The large free standing modules are not part of the regular installation kit though, normally it would be attached to a (baffle)wall using included brackets.


----------



## Lygren

This one shows the inner dividable masking roller tube, using a custom designed double walled tube securing maximum stability over longer stretches of masking rollers. The same goes for the long sides of the inner and outer frame and will be used for >3m / 10ft frames / masking rollers to accommodate more reasonable shipping which is often a major component towards the final cost of these motorised masking frames.

The inner frame is equipped by our largest grip rails by the way, which allows for easy, stabile and tight attachment of the v6 fabric.


----------



## ddgdl

Any plans for additions 2.40 size frames in the next year or so? 149" is too large for my space- something more like 120"-130" would have a much broader audience I would think (myself included)


----------



## Lygren

ddgdl said:


> Any plans for additions 2.40 size frames in the next year or so? 149" is too large for my space- something more like 120"-130" would have a much broader audience I would think (myself included)




We can make any size custom, and if ordered while we do the initial mass production run in 2-4 weeks, we can probably arrange the custom size for no additional cost. Please check the list of distributors on our homepage and contact the corresponding one for providing you with a quote, and if there is currently none where you live please feel free to contact us directly... 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Kain

Is it possible to order a V6 with the matching frame with the screen already attached to the frame? Or is it necessary for the client to attach the screen to the frame himself upon delivery?


----------



## ddgdl

I cannot imagine that would be possible unless you were freight shipping an enormous box


----------



## Lygren

Kain said:


> Is it possible to order a V6 with the matching frame with the screen already attached to the frame? Or is it necessary for the client to attach the screen to the frame himself upon delivery?




There is a 3m / 10ft limit imposed on air shipments, so if we were to pre-assemble it at the factory it would have to be crated and shipped via ocean.


----------



## Ericglo

erkq said:


> I'd love to get the v6, but my original SMX screen (OK, OK, it's Shearweave) has more gain. It does have resolution problems for 4k, though.


I guess I am the opposite. I would rather sacrifice gain for a better image albeit with less ft/lmbs. Until Chris showed me the Enlightor, I wouldn't even look at an AT screen. Now, there are several options of excellent AT screens IMO including the fabulous V6.


----------



## erkq

Ericglo said:


> I guess I am the opposite. I would rather sacrifice gain for a better image albeit with less ft/lmbs. Until Chris showed me the Enlightor, I wouldn't even look at an AT screen. Now, there are several options of excellent AT screens IMO including the fabulous V6.


Yep... if I went 4k I'd get the V6. But I'm not sold on 4k yet for our seating distances... 1x sw and 1.6x sw. I'd have to give up my Darby and Lumagen color cube. Thinking...


----------



## Lygren

erkq said:


> Yep... if I went 4k I'd get the V6. But I'm not sold on 4k yet for our seating distances... 1x sw and 1.6x sw. I'd have to give up my Darby and Lumagen color cube. Thinking...


In my private cinema I´m seated 1x screen width (about 11ft), and close distances are really where 4K and the V6 makes perfect sense due to the combination of the high resolution and the very tight randomised surface of the V6... Still, the closer you are seated, the greater is also the importance of content. While UHD is normally very filmlike and seemingly uncompressed, I do realise that some broadcasts are still better suited for second row.


----------



## Lygren

Aimed at public installations where typically cleaning personell, the audience or in some cases even the staff might not know how to properly treat a projection screen we have just added a new TextileShield version of the UltraWeave V6. Exactly the same performance as the regular UltraWeave V6, but a special nano coating applied as part of our custom production process makes it repellent to all kinds of liquid stains such as red wine or coffee, as well as allowing for oil / fat and all types of solid dirt to release easily upon spot cleaning / vacuuming.

I just tore down my UltraWeave V5 to replace it with a V6 after 5 years of heavy use from my three kids, neighbours, friends and certainly myself, and not a "scratch", so not saying this premium priced protection is needed for most residential installations though... 

For US customers, please refer to www.screenacoustics.com and our exclusive distributor AVScience.com for more info (info will be added there shortly), and for general information on the different versions and more on how it works, please refer to this information page: https://dreamscreen.no/pages/textileshield-information.

Video; 



.


----------



## jjcook

Lygren said:


> Aimed at public installations where typically cleaning personell, the audience or in some cases even the staff might not know how to properly treat a projection screen we have just added a new TextileShield version of the UltraWeave V6. Exactly the same performance as the regular UltraWeave V6, but a special nano coating applied as part of our custom production process makes it repellent to all kinds of liquid stains such as red wine or coffee, as well as allowing for oil / fat and all types of solid dirt to release easily upon spot cleaning / vacuuming.


Wow that's neat. I note you have TextileShield where the front layer is only semi-bonded but also TextileShield Light version that is fully bonded like regular V6. For the Light version is there any visible difference (shimmer/sparkle?) between it and the regular V6? If the premium for the Light is not too much I may go ahead with that when it comes time to order your screen fabric.


----------



## Lygren

jjcook said:


> Wow that's neat. I note you have TextileShield where the front layer is only semi-bonded but also TextileShield Light version that is fully bonded like regular V6. For the Light version is there any visible difference (shimmer/sparkle?) between it and the regular V6? If the premium for the Light is not too much I may go ahead with that when it comes time to order your screen fabric.



Thanks! No alteration in terms of A/V performance whatsoever on neither the regular nor Light TextileShield version, so still no speckle / shimmer whatsoever...  As for the price premium; there is certainly a substantial addon for this protection system, so I’d say for most residential setups the regular V6 would be the most applicable but I guess it’s really up to ones budget and preference... 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Little Chris

Wow! That’s quite impressive!


----------



## Craig Peer

Lygren said:


> Aimed at public installations where typically cleaning personell, the audience or in some cases even the staff might not know how to properly treat a projection screen we have just added a new TextileShield version of the UltraWeave V6. Exactly the same performance as the regular UltraWeave V6, but a special nano coating applied as part of our custom production process makes it repellent to all kinds of liquid stains such as red wine or coffee, as well as allowing for oil / fat and all types of solid dirt to release easily upon spot cleaning / vacuuming.
> 
> I just tore down my UltraWeave V5 to replace it with a V6 after 5 years of heavy use from my three kids, neighbours, friends and certainly myself, and not a "scratch", so not saying this premium priced protection is needed for most residential installations though...
> 
> For US customers, please refer to www.screenacoustics.com and our exclusive distributor AVScience.com for more info (info will be added there shortly), and for general information on the different versions and more on how it works, please refer to this information page: https://dreamscreen.no/pages/textileshield-information.
> 
> Video; https://youtu.be/61LMKcjsxG0.


This would be really useful in my theater, seeing as I have a lot of wine drinkers !


----------



## Lygren

So, the new MotoMask PRO frame is finally ready for shipping. Except for the RS485 control commands, the manual is almost ready if anyone would like to review the features and functionality of this frame: https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1051/7226/files/manual_ok_v08.pdf?8800775004944223511. In short, the masking system is retrofittable, so one can choose to install masking later on. Very sturdy and pro grade type of build, so it can accommodate any of our current UltraWeave screen sizes and also larger when and if we´re able to increase size even further (current height limit is 10ft, which is still quite large, but our aim is to be able to supply screens and frames at least twice this size!).

16:9 native -> 2.40:1 1-way or 2.40:1 native -> 16:9 2-way masking versions are available.


----------



## ddgdl

Congrats!


----------



## Lygren

We´re happy to announce that Alcons Audio will be attending CEDIA in San Diego 4.-8. of September, booth SR-12, and at the showroom floor this time - and again they have chosen to use the DreamScreen / ScreenAcoustics UltraWeave V6 for their projection screen. 



Walter Fortmuller, the Austrian super talented custom installer will be planning the setup once more. 

Size and type of screen is still not determined, but it will most likely be a 16:9 native MotoMask PRO frame using our new TextileShield protected UltraWeave V6´s. Probably not quite as "XXL" as last years CEDIA due to smaller room size, but I am sure we will try to accommodate an impressive sized screen nonetheless.



As for projection, we used a Sony VPL-VW5000 laser unit at this years ISE show in Amsterdam and it performed amazingly well. I am still not sure if this unit would be used here as well, but it might be as I know Alcons was very pleased with its performance as well.



As for the audio system as such I will revert to the setup in the Alcons thread in the Hi-End forum as soon as I have more info, but I am quite confident it will be an array of their excellent CRMS (Cinema Reference Monitoring System) speakers and their new patent pending 90x60 waveguide setup for ceiling to provide the dispersion needed for proper ceiling speaker immersion performance. 



As for content it will be a variety of 4K UHD clips featuring Atmos, DTS:X and also regular 7.1 / 5.1 native upmixed.



I am sure it will be a super setup this year as well, and we certainly hope as many as possible of you AVS fellas will come visit!


----------



## Skylinestar

Lygren said:


> There is a 3m / 10ft limit imposed on air shipments, so if we were to pre-assemble it at the factory it would have to be crated and shipped via ocean.


The 109"/241cm screen is less than 3m. I'm ok with the slower shipping via ocean. Will I still get free shipping (FREETNT)?


----------



## Lygren

Skylinestar said:


> The 109"/241cm screen is less than 3m. I'm ok with the slower shipping via ocean. Will I still get free shipping (FREETNT)?


The free shipping offer applies to areas where no distributor is present, and as such you seem to be eligible...  Offer for free shipping requires the purchase of the MotoMask PRO frame, masking system and UltraWeave fabric at once. If you only need the frame, please send an e-mail to [email protected] for a shipping quote.


----------



## Lygren

We´re very happy to announce that the very talented videophile, w.mayer, just went live with the current World´s Largest UltraWeave V6 in Germany, measuring 3m height (almost 10ft) and 7,3m (24ft) width! More info: http://dci-forum.com/d-cinema-hi-en...sidential-laser-projector-best-world/1710/221. He is very pleased with its performance too, replacing his previous Harkness 1.0 matte white fabric, summarising the most important advantages to;

-no speckle anymore in 2D and 3D 
-higher visible cr. 
-better sound
-bigger screen

Also, he adds the following comment which is a crucial result of our patented multi layered buildup; "I can also not see any kind of softer image that some people claims when a fabric screen was used.". 

6p laser projectors requires the most possible matte screens to kill off the speckle produced by the very efficient direct laser engines, and as such, the UltraWeave is a perfect fit being superbly matte.


----------



## Lygren

...BTW, here´s an image of the install (almost ready for prime time), this is certainly the largest Home Cinema Screen I´d ever seen! 

As for projection, w.mayer´s system uses Barco´s top-of-the-line THOR 4K 3-chip DLP, a 6P laser 15.000 lumen unit -> https://www.barco.com/en/staticpages/landingpages/residential/model range.


----------



## LJG

Looks very interesting, is the V6 available as a retrofit to Stewart frames or is it purely diy retrofit?


----------



## Ericglo

Lygren said:


> ...BTW, here´s an image of the install (almost ready for prime time), this is certainly the largest Home Cinema Screen I´d ever seen!
> 
> As for projection, w.mayer´s system uses Barco´s top-of-the-line THOR 4K 3-chip DLP, a 6P laser 15.000 lumen unit -> https://www.barco.com/en/staticpages/landingpages/residential/model range.


It is funny looking at the picture one doesn't get a feel for exactly how big it is. I was looking at my living room wall and thought "The screen is as wide as my wall but two feet higher than my eight foot ceiling."


Anyway, congrats on the install.


----------



## Lygren

LJG said:


> Looks very interesting, is the V6 available as a retrofit to Stewart frames or is it purely diy retrofit?


There are two versions of DIY grip rails available (if you´re located in the US, our distributor, AVScience.com can assist you with the specifics), and most frames would accommodate one of these. As for the Stewart frames, if my memory serves me right, there is a good amount of space available at the back of the frame to attach the grip rails. The rails are attached using a strong construction glue (several good ones available at Home Depot, for example), and the fabric is tucked into the rails after the rails is properly bonded. As for an efficient tucking tool, we recommend you order one from FabricMate.com. Please have a look at this video for further inspiration!


----------



## Lygren

Ericglo said:


> It is funny looking at the picture one doesn't get a feel for exactly how big it is. I was looking at my living room wall and thought "The screen is as wide as my wall but two feet higher than my eight foot ceiling."
> 
> 
> Anyway, congrats on the install.


Thanks Ericglo! On the perceived proportions of the image; agree completely, it´s incredibly hard to get the sheer sizing accounted for taking photos in these kinds of "wall-to-wall-screen" batcaves albeit I´m pretty certain this gigantic screen will look quite immersive once lit up...


----------



## maikeldepotter

Lygren said:


> We´re happy to announce that Alcons Audio will be attending CEDIA in San Diego 4.-8. of September, booth SR-12, and at the showroom floor this time - and again they have chosen to use the DreamScreen / ScreenAcoustics UltraWeave V6 for their projection screen.


Congrats. Nice combo.



> Walter Fortmuller, the Austrian super talented custom installer will be planning the setup once more.


To my ears he did a splendid job at ISE last year with an Altitude..
Curious what he will get out of the Stormaudio unit....


----------



## Lygren

maikeldepotter said:


> Congrats. Nice combo.
> 
> 
> 
> To my ears he did a splendid job at ISE last year with an Altitude..
> Curious what he will get out of the Stormaudio unit....


Thanks @maikeldepotter! I certainly look forward to hearing Walter´s updated system layout, but I believe his pre-tests are currently quite optimistic...


----------



## Lygren

Perhaps not directly related to the UltraWeave per se, but pretty closely correlated as the very high acoustical transparency of the UltraWeave makes it a perfect fit for our FlexiBaffle v2 system. Here is an installation video of an Alcons Audio CRMS compact system setup we recently finished:


----------



## Lygren

So, CEDIA is over, a very good show, we had the new MotoMask PRO in a 16:9 native version on display alongside the new TextileShield version of the UltraWeave V6 in the Alcons Audio booth, whereas Alcons also won the AVSforum.com Best of CEDIA award for best demo. 

Some pics!










Quite massive in size, even for this 158», but proper packaging is required to protect this rugged frame properly...










We’re painting the custom stand in matte black...










Parts...










Connecting the ‘dots’










Inner and outer frame is assembled separately.










Connecting the inner and outer frame.










Connecting the divided masking roller. All long sides as well as the masking roller is divided to lower shipping costs.










Connecting the masking roller, made out of a double set of aluminum tubes for maximum stability.










Attaching the masking fabric. 










Inserting the masking roller. The masking system can also be inserted retrospectively, i.e. you can purchase the frame and fabric first and later on the masking system. This modular system also makes servicing (if ever needed) much easier than for a numbe of other systems.










Vertical stiffeners installed. These can be moved to fit the location of the speakers.










Custom ‘free standing’ stand is attached.










Ready for action!










Cinescope mode.










Good to go, cinescope mode!










Beethoven in 16:9, shot in 4K (HDR) and native Atmos, sounds and looks magnificent!










David, head of Alcons USA shows off his amazing Pro Ribbon driver!










Sony VW5000 (4K native 5K lumen laser) with Eivind from ScreenAcoustics in front!










In what we’d call ‘good company’...










Alcons received the ‘best demo’ award from the very nice folks at AVS, well deserved, they have worked hard at improving the demos every year! We feel quite fortunate to be able to take part in this fairytale to say the least! 










Alcons sentinel processor amps










Storm Audio 32ch AES capable pre-pro (the Sentinels has AES inputs too, securing a full digital signal path).










Alcons CRMS MKII’s were used as LCR’s.










1D QRD based diffusors were used to try to ‘stir up’ the ambience somewhat, but the room was quite nice, finally providing Alcons with some pressurised room gain which was quite effectful in combination with the new - single digital frequency response capable - long excursion subs...






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Lygren

We figured we design our own grip tool which is available soon in the US too (AVScience.com). This tool will make tucking the v6 fabric, either DIY, retrofit or onto one of our MotoMask frames very fast and easy!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Lygren

Here´s a short video of me trying to pitch the UltraWeave. Sorry for the stuttering, being Norwegian means I need to translate everything "on the fly", and at times the "computer" does not work as efficiently as I´d like...  At least some points are made as to what we are bringing to the table!


----------



## ddgdl

And for those of you who don't know, Mike and Craig at AVS now stock frames in any size you want with the v6 material at absolutely unbelievable prices


----------



## Lygren

ddgdl said:


> And for those of you who don't know, Mike and Craig at AVS now stock frames in any size you want with the v6 material at absolutely unbelievable prices


Yes, those AVScience frames seems to be a very nice fit for those very versatile grip rails and the UltraWeave for sure! 

The MotoMask PRO system starts off at 1799USD MSRP for the frame only (109" 16:9), and 1499USD MSRP additional for the optional and retrofittable masking system (109" 16:9 -> cinescope 1-way system). UltraWeave V6 fabric 999USD MSRP. A full system, for example 129" diagonal 16:9 native or 122" 2.40:1 native diagonal would run at 1999USD (frame) + 1999USD (masking system) + 999USD (fabric) = 4997USD MSRP + shipping. Again, the masking system can be installed and purchased retrospectively. All sizes and MSRP´s can be found at www.dreamscreen.eu, or by contacting AVScience.com for US pricing.


----------



## dlinsley

Has anyone added grommets to the v6 material? Would there be any concerns in doing so? I don't think my Carada frame would accommodate the grip rails. Reusing the frame would be nice if possible.


----------



## Lygren

dlinsley said:


> Has anyone added grommets to the v6 material? Would there be any concerns in doing so? I don't think my Carada frame would accommodate the grip rails. Reusing the frame would be nice if possible.


Due to the randomised front surface (meaning that a little uneven stretch would normally not be visible) and the rather stiff nature of the fabric (only a very slight amount of stretch), grommets might work, but using the grip rails is certainly recommended. What does the back of your frame look like, could you take a picture? Even if you are not able to attach the rails all the way to each corner, as long as the distance off of the corner is not too great, it would work with the rails. The rails are only a bit over 1/2 inch wide...


----------



## dlinsley

Thanks, here is a diagram of the profile and a photo of the back. Unfortunately there are no channels to slide grip rails, and the distance between the flat area of the back and the lip where the screen and front edge meet is very shallow. This is much smaller than even 1/2" height of grip rail (maybe 1/4", the height of the screwed in snap in the photo. In this post  you can see how I removed these and switched to grommeted Falcon material) and so I think the screen would be held away from the frame. I think I'd need to use a different frame, though I now recall I have some Fabricmate rail samples and so I'll take my screen down and experiment.


----------



## Lygren

dlinsley said:


> Thanks, here is a diagram of the profile and a photo of the back. Unfortunately there are no channels to slide grip rails, and the distance between the flat area of the back and the lip where the screen and front edge meet is very shallow. This is much smaller than even 1/2" height of grip rail (maybe 1/4", the height of the screwed in snap in the photo. In this post  you can see how I removed these and switched to grommeted Falcon material) and so I think the screen would be held away from the frame. I think I'd need to use a different frame, though I now recall I have some Fabricmate rail samples and so I'll take my screen down and experiment.












Perhaps this slot is of sufficient width? You just glue the rails on, and although you would get a slight elevation perhaps as the rail builds up a couple of mm, I hardly think that will be visible / an issue...


----------



## dlinsley

I just took the screen down and measured with my combination square. The lowest part of the aluminum frame is 5mm below the lip of the screen surface, but is only 11mm lower than the outer edge of the frame. I don't think I'd be able to get the frame onto the hanger rail with the grip rail also in place. Looks like I'd have to buy the frame too. Not a big deal, just more storing of bits while they sell 

Edit: I placed a piece of Fabricmate rail on the frame, and it was slightly proud of the outer part of the frame.


----------



## Lygren

dlinsley said:


> I just took the screen down and measured with my combination square. The lowest part of the aluminum frame is 5mm below the lip of the screen surface, but is only 11mm lower than the outer edge of the frame. I don't think I'd be able to get the frame onto the hanger rail with the grip rail also in place. Looks like I'd have to buy the frame too. Not a big deal, just more storing of bits while they sell
> 
> Edit: I placed a piece of Fabricmate rail on the frame, and it was slightly proud of the outer part of the frame.


OK, got it. I do not believe that a slight elevation above the frame would be much of an issue, but if the rails hinder the attachment of the frame I guess it might be hard to do nonetheless...


----------



## lovingdvd

I'd like to consider the latest V6 ultraweave screen. I currently have the Center Stage XD (also known as Enlightor-Bright) material in a Seymour "F140XS Premier" fixed frame screen. My screen wall was built entirely around this frame which is flush mounted in the screen wall. IOW the frame is not on a wall, but rather tightly integrated *into* the wall. As such, it would be costly and complex to retrofit a new frame into my theater.

With that in mind, I'd like to know how I may be able to seamlessly integrate the V6 material into my existing frame. The Center Stage XD screen is mounted via grommets. How can I figure out whether the mounting rails would fit into the existing frame? What type of dimensions/clearances inside the frame would I need? I'm not crazy about the idea of permanently gluing rails inside the frame, as it could limit my ability to switch back to using grommets in the future (?) or switching to a different screen material which may require another way to mount, for which the rails may then be in the way and non-removable. 

Thank you.


----------



## Lygren

lovingdvd said:


> I'd like to consider the latest V6 ultraweave screen. I currently have the Center Stage XD (also known as Enlightor-Bright) material in a Seymour "F140XS Premier" fixed frame screen. My screen wall was built entirely around this frame which is flush mounted in the screen wall. IOW the frame is not on a wall, but rather tightly integrated *into* the wall. As such, it would be costly and complex to retrofit a new frame into my theater.
> 
> With that in mind, I'd like to know how I may be able to seamlessly integrate the V6 material into my existing frame. The Center Stage XD screen is mounted via grommets. How can I figure out whether the mounting rails would fit into the existing frame? What type of dimensions/clearances inside the frame would I need? I'm not crazy about the idea of permanently gluing rails inside the frame, as it could limit my ability to switch back to using grommets in the future (?) or switching to a different screen material which may require another way to mount, for which the rails may then be in the way and non-removable.
> 
> Thank you.


You only need a 14mm or a bit over half an inch slot to fit those universal rails. If you don´t like them at some point, they are always possible to remove, and although the leftover glue might not look that nice it´s on the back of the frame after all... The system is really easy to use, just make sure you let the glue (this one from Home Depot for example: https://www.homedepot.com/p/Gorilla-9-oz-Construction-Adhesive-8010003/206063265, the strong construction types of glue are my favourite, but other types will work too) dry overnight and use either a metal pizza cutter, or even better, one of those Fabricmate installation tools to tuck the fabric (or our own, but currently not available in the US). The fabric has just a little bit of tension available to it, allowing for a "drum tight" installation (and will remain drum tight too...), and there is no need to install each corner first and so on, you can just do the entire upper long side first, then I normally do one of the short sides, then the lower long side and finally the last short side. Just keep pulling the fabric a little while installing it at both directions and you´ll get a perfectly tensioned surface. If there is an area you were not able to tension perfectly you just redo just that part.


----------



## lovingdvd

Lygren said:


> You only need a 14mm or a bit over half an inch slot to fit those universal rails. If you don´t like them at some point, they are always possible to remove, and although the leftover glue might not look that nice it´s on the back of the frame after all... The system is really easy to use, just make sure you let the glue (this one from Home Depot for example: https://www.homedepot.com/p/Gorilla-9-oz-Construction-Adhesive-8010003/206063265, the strong construction types of glue are my favourite, but other types will work too) dry overnight and use either a metal pizza cutter, or even better, one of those Fabricmate installation tools to tuck the fabric (or our own, but currently not available in the US). The fabric has just a little bit of tension available to it, allowing for a "drum tight" installation (and will remain drum tight too...), and there is no need to install each corner first and so on, you can just do the entire upper long side first, then I normally do one of the short sides, then the lower long side and finally the last short side. Just keep pulling the fabric a little while installing it at both directions and you´ll get a perfectly tensioned surface. If there is an area you were not able to tension perfectly you just redo just that part.


From looking at that construction glue, it doesn't seem like the universal rails would be removable...? 

What are the dimensions of the rails, and are the lengths adjustable, so that they can be fit tight, or do they need to be measured and cut on site?

Would it be possible to order with a grommet system? Someone else was asking here recently about that. Much cleaner install without having to worry about doing a good job tucking fabric.


----------



## Mike Garrett

lovingdvd said:


> From looking at that construction glue, it doesn't seem like the universal rails would be removable...?
> 
> What are the dimensions of the rails, and are the lengths adjustable, so that they can be fit tight, or do they need to be measured and cut on site?
> 
> Would it be possible to order with a grommet system? Someone else was asking here recently about that. Much cleaner install without having to worry about doing a good job tucking fabric.


The rail is slightly under 1/2" wide and 1/4" in height. Sent you pictures of the grip rail. It is plastic and you trim to length. You do not want to use grommets. That would be a point tension. You want continuous tension. installs in the rails easily and tensions very easy.


----------



## dlinsley

Mike Garrett said:


> The rail is slightly under 1/2" wide and 1/4" in height. Sent you pictures of the grip rail. It is plastic and you trim to length. You do not want to use grommets. That would be a point tension. You want continuous tension. installs in the rails easily and tensions very easy.


Oh, 1/4" high, I might be able to make that work too. I didn't realize, I thought it was 1/2" high.

Mike, on your retrofit project I read you screwed the grip rail. Is this the same grip rail? (Fabricmate grip rail has a very wide flat area for stapling or screwing)

Note: My Fabricmate track samples were 1/2" high. I didn't realize they also do 1/4" in the Display board section rather than Acoustical section!


----------



## Mike Garrett

dlinsley said:


> Oh, 1/4" high, I might be able to make that work too. I didn't realize, I thought it was 1/2" high.
> 
> Mike, on your retrofit project I read you screwed the grip rail. Is this the same grip rail? (Fabricmate grip rail has a very wide flat area for stapling or screwing)
> 
> Note: My Fabricmate track samples were 1/2" high. I didn't realize they also do 1/4" in the Display board section rather than Acoustical section!


The flat on the grip rail is only 5/16" wide, but it is wide enough to use small screws. I used screws, because it would have been hard to just glue mine, since it had to be placed on outside edge of my curved frame, due to masking system. I placed screws 3" on center. Then I placed a bead of glue on the back side.


----------



## Skylinestar

Mike Garrett said:


> The flat on the grip rail is only 5/16" wide, but it is wide enough to use small screws. I used screws, because it would have been hard to just glue mine, since it had to be placed on outside edge of my curved frame, due to masking system. I placed screws 3" on center. Then I placed a bead of glue on the back side.


An aluminum frame will be much harder than wooden frame though


----------



## dlinsley

Skylinestar said:


> An aluminum frame will be much harder than wooden frame though


I used self-drilling screws in my Carada aluminum frame to fit the Falcon AT material. I may have to use a smaller size for the grip rails though - I can test when I receive the track samples. If it doesn't work, I'll buy the frame - the combo price is very very good.


----------



## lovingdvd

Mike Garrett said:


> The flat on the grip rail is only 5/16" wide, but it is wide enough to use small screws. I used screws, because it would have been hard to just glue mine, since it had to be placed on outside edge of my curved frame, due to masking system. I placed screws 3" on center. Then I placed a bead of glue on the back side.


The flat running along the wood surface is confusing me - I would have thought the flat would have been on the black surface.

Please see the attached picture so I can see if I have this straight. In the picture the green lines represent the vertical "posts" in my Seymour Premier fixed frame. The red line represents the line where I would push up against the posts prior to mounting. Note that the flat would be at 90 degrees to the posts, yes? And the yellow line represents the area where the fabric is tucked if I understand it. Further it sounds like the flat area is about 1/2" wide in total, with about 1/4" being the available flat area to get a screw into? And the total height is about 1/4"?


----------



## Lygren

lovingdvd said:


> The flat running along the wood surface is confusing me - I would have thought the flat would have been on the black surface.
> 
> Please see the attached picture so I can see if I have this straight. In the picture the green lines represent the vertical "posts" in my Seymour Premier fixed frame. The red line represents the line where I would push up against the posts prior to mounting. Note that the flat would be at 90 degrees to the posts, yes? And the yellow line represents the area where the fabric is tucked if I understand it. Further it sounds like the flat area is about 1/2" wide in total, with about 1/4" being the available flat area to get a screw into? And the total height is about 1/4"?


Your analysis looks about right, @lovingdvd. We normally would recommend glueing rather than screwing or at least a combination if screwing is to be used, and you should also pre-drill the rail if you´re using screws. We do have a more rugged rail available as well that we use for our MotoMask frames (also available at AVScience), but given that you´re limited on space these slim ones are probably more suited anyhow.


----------



## lovingdvd

Lygren said:


> Your analysis looks about right, @lovingdvd. We normally would recommend glueing rather than screwing or at least a combination if screwing is to be used, and you should also pre-drill the rail if you´re using screws. We do have a more rugged rail available as well that we use for our MotoMask frames (also available at AVScience), but given that you´re limited on space these slim ones are probably more suited anyhow.


Thanks Lygren. I prefer to glue because that seems like less work than using screws and with screws it's possibly my subwoofers could cause a rattle I suppose. However I need to be able to remove the rails in the future, so if years from now I want to go with a different screen type I have access to the posts for grommets or a new type of rail/track that may be needed at the time. With the construction glue I've seen talked about for using with this, I can't imagine that I could get the rails unglued if need be. I wonder if there is some other type of glue that would be strong enough to hold over the years, yet in a way that may come apart more easily should that be needed?


----------



## Lygren

lovingdvd said:


> Thanks Lygren. I prefer to glue because that seems like less work than using screws and with screws it's possibly my subwoofers could cause a rattle I suppose. However I need to be able to remove the rails in the future, so if years from now I want to go with a different screen type I have access to the posts for grommets or a new type of rail/track that may be needed at the time. With the construction glue I've seen talked about for using with this, I can't imagine that I could get the rails unglued if need be. I wonder if there is some other type of glue that would be strong enough to hold over the years, yet in a way that may come apart more easily should that be needed?



In order to remove the rails you simply jack up the end using a screwdriver or the like, apply a good amount of force and rip them off... 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lovingdvd

Lygren said:


> In order to remove the rails you simply jack up the end using a screwdriver or the like, apply a good amount of force and rip them off...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You have done this before? And with what glue exactly?


----------



## Lygren

lovingdvd said:


> You have done this before? And with what glue exactly?




Bunch of times, and even the strongest there is, Casco Xtremefix allows for pulloff if needed be. The construction glues are strong, but also somewhat flexible, which is why a strong ‘point source’ force normally enables you to detach the rails using this type of glue. If you’re using a stiffer / non-flexible contact adhesive it might be a bit harder, but even those normally comes off... 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Lasalle

V6 Dreamscreen with fabric guard


----------



## Lygren

Lasalle said:


> V6 Dreamscreen with fabric guard


Thanks @Lasalle, looks amazing! The frame looks very sturdy and the fabric is tensioned up perfectly it seems, great job!!


----------



## dlinsley

I finally ordered my screen today! 120" wide 2.37:1 including the Screen Science by AVS frame. I'll post some pictures once I receive it and have it mounted.


----------



## Lygren

dlinsley said:


> I finally ordered my screen today! 120" wide 2.37:1 including the Screen Science by AVS frame. I'll post some pictures once I receive it and have it mounted.


Congrats! Look forward to reading your feedback!


----------



## Lygren

Some of you might find w.mayers findings on the sharpness of the UltraWeave V6 interesting. He recently installed the largest XXL screen yet, 3x7,5m (10´ x 24 1/2´), using a Barco THOR 4K native 3-chip DLP 15K lumen 6P laser to lit it up...  Quote "_This is very good news for many people that looking for a acoustic transparent screen material that “not soften the picture”. When you have a fabric screen that not show the pixels this material soften the picture to some degree for sure. This V6 material was the first that not do it! It act like a conventional screen so it not decrease at all details and sharpness and not soften the picture. This is “to my knowledge” the first fabric that act this way! WOW!_". More info: http://dci-forum.com/d-cinema-hi-en...l-laser-projector-best-world/1710/msg5259#new.


----------



## bochoss

I have an Elite Screens Sable frame, and I'm looking to replace the material.

The frame already has a groove for the rod system that Elite Screens uses. Will the grip rails tuck into these grooves nicely? I'd like there to be no depth offset between the inner edge of the frame and the screen material, if possible.


----------



## Lygren

bochoss said:


> I have an Elite Screens Sable frame, and I'm looking to replace the material.
> 
> The frame already has a groove for the rod system that Elite Screens uses. Will the grip rails tuck into these grooves nicely? I'd like there to be no depth offset between the inner edge of the frame and the screen material, if possible.


Do you have a picture or schematics of the frame? What´s basically required is a slot somewhere about 1/2" wide. If you can´t get all the way out to the corners with the tracks that is normally not a problem though, and if there are screws along the track it´s no problem either cutting the non-tucking part of track a little and / or simply cut the entire rail before and after the screw and leave the fabric not tensioned just over small portions.


----------



## bochoss

Lygren said:


> Do you have a picture or schematics of the frame? What´s basically required is a slot somewhere about 1/2" wide. If you can´t get all the way out to the corners with the tracks that is normally not a problem though, and if there are screws along the track it´s no problem either cutting the non-tucking part of track a little and / or simply cut the entire rail before and after the screw and leave the fabric not tensioned just over small portions.


I attached a diagram of the frame's cross-section. I'm not sure exactly how wide the slot is. My guess is that it's between 3/8" and 1/2". I'll have to do some disassembly to measure the width and depth of the slot. Should be able to do that this weekend.

The slot goes around the entire frame with no screws or interferences.


----------



## Lygren

bochoss said:


> I attached a diagram of the frame's cross-section. I'm not sure exactly how wide the slot is. My guess is that it's between 3/8" and 1/2". I'll have to do some disassembly to measure the width and depth of the slot. Should be able to do that this weekend.
> 
> The slot goes around the entire frame with no screws or interferences.


Not sure what the relative dimensions are on your drawing, but please see my suggested placement of the grip rail. It would have to be glued on at that position, but should work fine. Depending on the height of that outer "lip" you might have a very slight recess of the fabric over it, but it should be very slight and is probably not a big deal...


----------



## bochoss

Lygren said:


> Not sure what the relative dimensions are on your drawing, but please see my suggested placement of the grip rail. It would have to be glued on at that position, but should work fine. Depending on the height of that outer "lip" you might have a very slight recess of the fabric over it, but it should be very slight and is probably not a big deal...


I took a look at the groove in my Elite Screens frame. It's only 1/4" wide by 1/4" deep.

1.) Would it be possible to trim off the flat part of the grip rails, and just stick the round part in the groove? I could glue it in there, and also use the existing clips (plates) to keep the rail in there for good measure. Are samples offered for the grip rails to test this?

2.) I see that the only scope size for UltraFrame is 149" diagonal. This is slightly too big for my room. Do any other sizes exist that aren't on the site?


----------



## Lygren

bochoss said:


> I took a look at the groove in my Elite Screens frame. It's only 1/4" wide by 1/4" deep.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.) Would it be possible to trim off the flat part of the grip rails, and just stick the round part in the groove? I could glue it in there, and also use the existing clips (plates) to keep the rail in there for good measure. Are samples offered for the grip rails to test this?
> 
> 
> 
> 2.) I see that the only scope size for UltraFrame is 149" diagonal. This is slightly too big for my room. Do any other sizes exist that aren't on the site?




Hi @bochoss!

1. I don’t think stability will be sufficient if you cut off the flat part unfortunately.

2. AVScience now has a number of sizes available from their in-house compatible frame (fits the grip rails), they probably have the size you need. 

As for DreamScreen frames, we have more sizes available in cinescope native too, but only for that more rugged MotoMask PRO version which starts off at 1899USD for the frame only in 122» cinescope. Masking system is additional 1499USD, but can be retrofit. 

Anyhows, give AVS a call and I’m sure they have a fitting option for you! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Lygren

w.mayer has posted some pics of his finished 7,3m wide V6 XXL install at the DCI-forum; http://dci-forum.com/d-cinema-hi-en...tor-best-world/1710/msg5287;topicseen#msg5287. I have attached the pics here, please note the person on the right to get a better impression of the size of that thing! Again; 4K 6P Barco Thor laser @15K lumens.


----------



## dlinsley

*Screen Acoustics by AVScience*

My v6 screen arrived almost two weeks ago, and I finally got it built and hung this weekend. I purchased the material via Mike Garrett, and decided against retrofitting to my Carada frame given the current phenomenal pricing of the AVS frame. My Carada was 118" wide 2.37:1 and the AVS is 120" wide 2.37:1. I may have bought the Dream Screen frame for future motorized masking, but the only options were 112" and then 138", which wouldn't fit my room and I didn't want to go smaller than I was used to.

The frame arrived wrapped in plastic in one tube, with the material rolled around a dowel in another smaller tube:










The included tool for tucking the material into the grip rails. They forgot the Digornio 










The completed screen:










My previous screen (Falcon Vision) would light up the back of the screen and the black Knauf insulation behind. I couldn't find the photo I'd previously taken of that, but a direct shot of how the projector lights it up is very representative and shows how reflective that black material is:










There was no point including the photo I took from behind the v6, as there was no leakage at all! The apparent contrast and sharpness are both significantly increased, somewhat from the lack of leakage reflecting back through the screen presumably. Obligatory screen shot (from Rogue One) taken with my aging Samsung Galaxy S7 phone (which actually demos the lack of light leakage. With the Falcon the proscenium is more lit up with no framing above the screen currently. With the v6 there is just a little from the scatter from the screen)










I took some REW 20-20k sweep measurements with the Carada and then v6 screens up (CSL calibrated umik at the seating position), though haven't analyzed them yet. Given the location of the drivers, below 300Hz will need to be discarded from the comparisons. I'll plan to get those up soon.

So far though, I'm extremely impressed. The final result is so much better than even the 2'x2' sample suggests.


----------



## Mike Garrett

lovingdvd said:


> The flat running along the wood surface is confusing me - I would have thought the flat would have been on the black surface.
> 
> Please see the attached picture so I can see if I have this straight. In the picture the green lines represent the vertical "posts" in my Seymour Premier fixed frame. The red line represents the line where I would push up against the posts prior to mounting. Note that the flat would be at 90 degrees to the posts, yes? And the yellow line represents the area where the fabric is tucked if I understand it. Further it sounds like the flat area is about 1/2" wide in total, with about 1/4" being the available flat area to get a screw into? And the total height is about 1/4"?


The unpainted wood shown is the front face of the curved screen. I have the rail on the top of the frame, so the fabric goes over the corner, which forms a leading edge for the fabric. The unpainted frame is behind the velvet wrapped trim of the masking system.


----------



## Lygren

If anyone is attending ISE in Amsterdam this year, please be sure to step by the Alcons Pro-Ribbon Immersive experience booth a hall / booth 6-H150! Alcons is bringing a full CRMS (Cinema Reference Monitoring System) 9.x(8!).6 Atmos layout, processed by the Storm 32ch AES enabled processor while we´re setting up a 3,5m wide UltraWeave V6 featuring the full 10-year stain warranted TextileShield PRO fabric in a native CineScope format. If you have not seen the new JVC N-series, this would also be a good opportunity, as we´re using the DLA-N(x)7 and a Panamorph DCI lens. Will post some pics once it´s up and running!


----------



## JohnnyWilkinson

Lygren said:


> If anyone is attending ISE in Amsterdam this year, please be sure to step by the Alcons Pro-Ribbon Immersive experience booth a hall / booth 6-H150! Alcons is bringing a full CRMS (Cinema Reference Monitoring System) 9.x(8!).6 Atmos layout, processed by the Storm 32ch AES enabled processor while we´re setting up a 3,5m wide UltraWeave V6 featuring the full 10-year stain warranted TextileShield PRO fabric in a native CineScope format. If you have not seen the new JVC N-series, this would also be a good opportunity, as we´re using the DLA-N(x)7 and a Panamorph DCI lens. Will post some pics once it´s up and running!


Hey, do you have any pictures of the CIH motomask system installed anywhere?

I'm curious about a few things:

1 - I would like to know if the masking is acoustically transparent
2 - Is the masking material as dark as the surrounding frame (this is my biggest bug bear of other systems)
3 - Can the masking setup be linked to an automated system, for example a Control 4 system. Alternatively, how would you recommend this is controlled?
4 - I'd like to see how it looks installed, as the frame at 20cm is larger than some


----------



## Lygren

JohnnyWilkinson said:


> Hey, do you have any pictures of the CIH motomask system installed anywhere?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious about a few things:
> 
> 
> 
> 1 - I would like to know if the masking is acoustically transparent
> 
> 2 - Is the masking material as dark as the surrounding frame (this is my biggest bug bear of other systems)
> 
> 3 - Can the masking setup be linked to an automated system, for example a Control 4 system. Alternatively, how would you recommend this is controlled?
> 
> 4 - I'd like to see how it looks installed, as the frame at 20cm is larger than some




I’ll get back to you with some pics later, but in short;

1. The masking panels are not acoustically transparent which differs from most of the others. Placing an additional barrier, which in this case also needs to be made out in a woven, quite rigid and as such also quite low acoustically transparent manner (3-4dB added loss), and having placed such an effort on obtaining our reference level AT on the V6, we choose to make them out in velvet. ‘Down’ side to that is that you do need a bit wider / larger screen to secure the appropriate L+R spread within the 16:9 area (or place L+R outside the frame), but on the pro side, it is not that grey’ish woven masking fabric normally used, but dark velvet that accommodates the frame perfectly. 

2. Yes, they use the same dark velvet as the frame... 

3. Yes, through provided RS485 / 232 commands.

4. Get back to pics, but the frame is certainly on the sturdy side! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JohnnyWilkinson

Lygren said:


> I’ll get back to you with some pics later, but in short;
> 
> 1. The masking panels are not acoustically transparent which differs from most of the others. Placing an additional barrier, which in this case also needs to be made out in a woven, quite rigid and as such also quite low acoustically transparent manner (3-4dB added loss), and having placed such an effort on obtaining our reference level AT on the V6, we choose to make them out in velvet. ‘Down’ side to that is that you do need a bit wider / larger screen to secure the appropriate L+R spread within the 16:9 area (or place L+R outside the frame), but on the pro side, it is not that grey’ish woven masking fabric normally used, but dark velvet that accommodates the frame perfectly.
> 
> 2. Yes, they use the same dark velvet as the frame...
> 
> 3. Yes, through provided RS485 / 232 commands.
> 
> 4. Get back to pics, but the frame is certainly on the sturdy side!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thanks very much for this. I'm a way off building my home cinema as the house is under construction (probably 5-6 months), but I'll definitely consider this frame.

I think the non-acoustically transparent masking may be an issue for me, but I'm interested in the screen material nonetheless. Will definitely contact you for a sample nearer the time


----------



## Erod

So I received my sample in the mail and put it up on my Stewart ST130 screen. It is noticeably darker. As much as I like the idea of my center channel behind the screen, I can't sacrifice that much brightness.


----------



## ddgdl

Erod said:


> So I received my sample in the mail and put it up on my Stewart ST130 screen. It is noticeably darker. As much as I like the idea of my center channel behind the screen, I can't sacrifice that much brightness.


Just get a Paladin/DCR (if you upgrade to the 4k gen of JVCs) lens, which will offset the loss of gain and get you right back to where you are.


----------



## Erod

ddgdl said:


> Erod said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I received my sample in the mail and put it up on my Stewart ST130 screen. It is noticeably darker. As much as I like the idea of my center channel behind the screen, I can't sacrifice that much brightness.
> 
> 
> 
> Just get a Paladin/DCR (if you upgrade to the 4k gen of JVCs) lens, which will offset the loss of gain and get you right back to where you are.
Click to expand...

Yikes, but $7K?


----------



## ddgdl

Erod said:


> Yikes, but $7K?


A few options:

(A) talk to your dealer, you may be surprised at the street price of a DCR; you can also inquire whether your dealer has any B-Stock DCR lenses (what I did, saved a bunch)
(B) check the classifieds - there was a new A-Stock lens being sold for $6600 last week
(C) if you have a throw distance of greater than 1.6 x width of your image, you can go with the normal Paladin, non-DCR, and save a few grand


----------



## Erod

ddgdl said:


> Erod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yikes, but $7K?
> 
> 
> 
> A few options:
> 
> (A) talk to your dealer, you may be surprised at the street price of a DCR; you can also inquire whether your dealer has any B-Stock DCR lenses (what I did, saved a bunch)
> (B) check the classifieds - there was a new A-Stock lens being sold for $6600 last week
> (C) if you have a throw distance of greater than 1.6 x width of your image, you can go with the normal Paladin, non-DCR, and save a few grand
Click to expand...

I am beyond 1.6 throw distance. Do these non-DCR lenses work well with the RS600/620/640 projectors, too?


----------



## ddgdl

Erod said:


> ddgdl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yikes, but $7K?
> 
> 
> 
> A few options:
> 
> (A) talk to your dealer, you may be surprised at the street price of a DCR; you can also inquire whether your dealer has any B-Stock DCR lenses (what I did, saved a bunch)
> (B) check the classifieds - there was a new A-Stock lens being sold for $6600 last week
> (C) if you have a throw distance of greater than 1.6 x width of your image, you can go with the normal Paladin, non-DCR, and save a few grand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am beyond 1.6 throw distance. Do these non-DCR lenses work well with the RS600/620/640 projectors, too?
Click to expand...

Absolutely!


----------



## Erod

ddgdl said:


> Absolutely!


I've long avoided going down the CIH route. There are so many rabbit holes to it.

A 2.40:1 blu ray makes it advantageous, no doubt. However, not for a Christopher Nolan movie. Not for Netflix or Amazon. Not for IMAX. Certainly not for sports or Youtube or video games or animated movies with the kids that are in 16:9. 

In other words, black bars are more of a "thing" when you have a scope screen than if you just stick with 16:9. 

But there's no question that a big picture with an A-lens on a big budget movie is something to behold.

The only real answer is a mechanized masking screen, but the cost and complication of those devices is still impractical. I look forward to someone figuring it all out on a simpler scale.

I go back and forth on this. Scope or 16:9, AT screen for audio or ST130 for image quality. Etc.

I do notice less and less comments in the scope screen forums. I think a lot of folks have retired from all the constant adjustments and settings every time they change a source.

For now, I'm going to avoid that trap, and try to just keep it simple, even if it means black bars for movies.

But I can't help but think that perhaps one day all this can happen within a projector itself, and with a screen capability to adjust accordingly on the fly.


----------



## Lygren

Motorised masking is still somewhat complex, agreed, which is also why we have made out our MotoMask frames in a retrofittable, less complex top located masking roller for both 1- and 2-way systems. Sure, you miss out some of the features of the more complex one using tracks and / or dual motors, but the amount of components and as such the number of places where stuff can go wrong is reduced significantly. However, even our top located masking still requires a very sturdy frame system, so it´s not "cheap" as per se (MSRP for frame + masking starts at about 3700USD, fabric starts at an additional 999).

We did use a DCR lens + JVC NX7 at our latest ISE show though, with a fixed 2.40:1 about 12ft wide screen, and for cinescope content it works great. IMAX content switching back to forth between 2.40:1 and 16:9 is hard though, as it would be for any system... 16:9 content would obviously have black bars on each side with such a system, so I guess it depends on how much 16:9 content you watch and how annoyed you would be on those black bars. Sometimes I even overshoot Netflix on my native 2.40:1 frame back home as it is just between 16:9 and cinescope. Personally I find black bars over and under the image far more annoying than on each side of it.

We will certainly continue to work on improving masking systems, perhaps even a lower cost manual one would be a good idea for us to make out, we´ll see...


----------



## ddgdl

Lygren said:


> We will certainly continue to work on improving masking systems, perhaps even a lower cost manual one would be a good idea for us to make out, we´ll see...


Have you thought about a simple version like what Seymour does? Manual panels that attach to the frame with magnets, for relatively inexpensive prices.


----------



## Lygren

ddgdl said:


> Have you thought about a simple version like what Seymour does? Manual panels that attach to the frame with magnets, for relatively inexpensive prices.


Yes, we even had similar panels like that in the past, but people complain about "clutter" in terms of where to place them. We have been working on some retrofittable rollable masking panels to compensate for that, i.e. at least hidden, but still low cost. Would be for our MotoMask frames though, we need the "slit", but the frames are not really that expensive and they are also super sturdy, so it would be a "in-between" solution the very basic magnetic panels and those more expensive motorised rollers.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Lygren said:


> Personally I find black bars over and under the image far more annoying than on each side of it.


+1. That's why I find horizontal masking in combination with zooming (CIW) not such a bad idea, especially in cases where lack of brightness and/or pixel density is not a problem.


----------



## skc3361

Lygren said:


> In my private cinema I´m seated 1x screen width (about 11ft), and close distances are really where 4K and the V6 makes perfect sense due to the combination of the high resolution and the very tight randomised surface of the V6... Still, the closer you are seated, the greater is also the importance of content. While UHD is normally very filmlike and seemingly uncompressed, I do realise that some broadcasts are still better suited for second row.


Lygren, in your oppinion would 4 meters be too close to a 405 wide 2:40;1 AT screen? Been looking very closely at the UltraWeave V6 and planning on getting a screen for my DIY home cinema I'm building at this moment. If possible please send me a PM. I can't send you one since I haven't got at least 15 posts yet.
Kind regards
SKC3361
Denmark


----------



## skc3361

Thank you for your kind reply. This makes good sense. Especially services like Netflix er quite often pixelated in darker scenes because of the relatively low bitrate in normal HD programs. Haven’t played with the 4K variant yet though. Only have an 1080 SXRD pj for now. Planning on getting a much more light capable pj than the current 1600 lumen Sony I have. How much light would you recommend for a 405cm screen width? Should this be in the 2000+ range?


----------



## Lygren

skc3361 said:


> Lygren, in your oppinion would 4 meters be too close to a 405 wide 2:40;1 AT screen? Been looking very closely at the UltraWeave V6 and planning on getting a screen for my DIY home cinema I'm building at this moment. If possible please send me a PM. I can't send you one since I haven't got at least 15 posts yet.
> Kind regards
> SKC3361
> Denmark


I guess that depends on a number of factors, but in terms of the screen texture at least, you would have no issues with the UltraWeave at much closer distances than 4m. As for seating distance to screen width; personally I prefer 1:1 myself, in my own cinema my screen is 3,3m / 11ft wide, and my first - favourite - row is about 3m off...  However, seated that close would require a projector with high fill rate such as a D-ILA or SXRD in my opinion. I am currently actually testing an Epson Pro Cinema 6050 / TW9400 LCD right now, and the main concern for me on my seating distance is the visible pixel grid. 

Anyhow, I´ll shoot you a PM!


----------



## Lygren

skc3361 said:


> Thank you for your kind reply. This makes good sense. Especially services like Netflix er quite often pixelated in darker scenes because of the relatively low bitrate in normal HD programs. Haven’t played with the 4K variant yet though. Only have an 1080 SXRD pj for now. Planning on getting a much more light capable pj than the current 1600 lumen Sony I have. How much light would you recommend for a 405cm screen width? Should this be in the 2000+ range?




I am not seeing that reply you are referring to for some reason, but I have been using a JVC DLA-X5900 / RS440 for a long while in my own 1:1 seating distance (3m / 10ft) / screen width (3,3m / 11ft) cinema, but I do use the 4K E-shift on that unit to avoid visible screen door. As such, the X-series JVC´s are great in my opinion, while the Epson LCD, even with E-shift activated, would work better at a 1,5x seating distance or somewhere in those whereabouts...  The 4K native JVC´s or the Sony 4K´s would work fine on 1:1 in my opinion - at least in terms of screen door.



Then it’s certainly also a matter of content quality, I see Netflix was mentioned, and although their overall quality has improved over the years, I agree that low bandwidth material might often be an issue with low seating-to-screen widths ratios. One solution as such would be to use a masking frame, and mask your 2.40:1 native image down to a smaller (in width that is) 16:9 when using sources like Netflix. One issue in terms of Netflix specifically though, is their aspect ratio being neither 16:9 nor 2.40:1, but somewhere in between, so our 2.40:1 masking screens that uses a fixed width of the masking panels to keep cost down would not be "perfect". Still, the new JVC N-series (native 4K), for example, has a very nice, new feature now that allows for custom digital masking for each format chosen, so that you can clip off some of the pixels at each side of the image when masking to 16:9. I mean, other masking solutions with adjustable side masking would be more flexible in such regards, but also cost quite a bit more, so it´s all give and take - and in my opinion keeping it as simple as possible in terms of overall operations of the system is also an important factor (i.e. not having to adjust the masking for a bunch of formats all the time).



As for light output, a 4m wide screen is certainly a large one, so if you would want to hit HDR levels brightness it would require quite a lot of light. However, in my opinion that is, a proper tone mapping or outputting SDR converted HDR material, would compensate a whole lot for brightness requirements. We just did a 3,5m wide 2.40:1 screen at the Alcons Pro-Ribbon Immersive Experience at ISE in Amsterdam using a JVC DLA-N7 and a DCR lens. The N7 outputs about 1800 lumens while the DCR adds another 30% or so, so in total about 2300 lumens on that setup. It did look quite smashing as far as I am concerned, even at HDR, and we were using the new internal tone mapping system of the JVC for that purpose. However, the Panasonic UB420 / UB820 / UB9000 UHD players also has a very nice tone mapping system if your projector does not support it properly internally (which is the case for the 4K Sony projectors as far as I am concerned at least, i.e. they require external mapping...). MadVR and a PC is another option, even dynamic HDR support (frame-by-frame) being launched these days if using a PC as your source is acceptable...


----------



## skc3361

Played a bit with the newest Panasonic uhd player at a friends house who has a Sony VPL-VW360ES pj and never really got the hdr tone mapping feature to work properly. I’ll be doing a bit more testing and research. He just ordered the new VW570ES. The old didn’t work with a dcr lens on 4K material. The pj couldn’t cope with the vertical stretching on 4K. The newer models supposedly can do this.


----------



## skc3361

I’m a bit concerned about total lumens or nits when using a large AT screen. Eventually I’ll be buying a new pj and hopefully they will have more sufficient light output than my current HW55ES. In your opinion would it be a good option to buy an anamorphic lens regardless of the pj I end up with? Which lenses are good enough and capable of doing 4K without loosing too much detail in the extra layers of glass? I’ve been looking at Prismasonic for some time but never played around with it myself. They’re much cheaper than than Schneider optics and other high end variants.


----------



## Lygren

skc3361 said:


> I’m a bit concerned about total lumens or nits when using a large AT screen. Eventually I’ll be buying a new pj and hopefully they will have more sufficient light output than my current HW55ES. In your opinion would it be a good option to buy an anamorphic lens regardless of the pj I end up with? Which lenses are good enough and capable of doing 4K without loosing too much detail in the extra layers of glass? I’ve been looking at Prismasonic for some time but never played around with it myself. They’re much cheaper than than Schneider optics and other high end variants.


I have quite a nice span of experience with both Schneider and Prismasonic and have to say that I would not recommend neither of those right now. The Schneider is certainly nice, and if you can get ahold of one used for a low price it might be an option, but even then, especially in rooms where you push the throw, in my experience even the medium ISCO-lenses might be somewhat problematic in terms of chromatic abberation. The best lens I have ever fiddled with is certainly the Panamorph DCR. It´s a smarter approach in terms of reducing the barrel effect, and also the lens that would provide you with the most possible light output combined with one of the 4K 4096 width panels from either Sony or JVC. It´s not perfect either, some barrel will occur in most circumstanced, but I was unable to see chromatic issues, and the sharpness also seems quite good. "Only" issue is the cost...... 



skc3361 said:


> Played a bit with the newest Panasonic uhd player at a friends house who has a Sony VPL-VW360ES pj and never really got the hdr tone mapping feature to work properly. I’ll be doing a bit more testing and research. He just ordered the new VW570ES. The old didn’t work with a dcr lens on 4K material. The pj couldn’t cope with the vertical stretching on 4K. The newer models supposedly can do this.


Sure, HDR is certainly hard to display properly, I am very pleased with both JVC N-series and actually the new Epson TW9400 (Pro Cinema 6050 in the US) in terms of internal HDR mapping, and I agree the Panasonics UHD players at times does come out a bit "off"...


----------



## den110

Hi, looking to do a DIY AT 140" diag 2:39:1 screen for either the JVC NX7 or NX5. Not sure which one to go with yet. The throw distance is 16 ft and the viewing to first row of seats is about 10 feet. How would I mount the DreamScreen Ultraweave AT on 1 x 4 poplar boards? Staple? Or another mounting method. It will be a frame less setup as the screen will be surrounded by false panels wrapped in SY Fabrics Triple Black Velvet. The room is a bat cave, 100% light controlled. Will I have any issues with lumens? I wasn't going to install a Paladin DCR lens so hopefully the light output would be ok.


----------



## Lygren

den110 said:


> Hi, looking to do a DIY AT 140" diag 2:39:1 screen for either the JVC NX7 or NX5. Not sure which one to go with yet. The throw distance is 16 ft and the viewing to first row of seats is about 10 feet. How would I mount the DreamScreen Ultraweave AT on 1 x 4 poplar boards? Staple? Or another mounting method. It will be a frame less setup as the screen will be surrounded by false panels wrapped in SY Fabrics Triple Black Velvet. The room is a bat cave, 100% light controlled. Will I have any issues with lumens? I wasn't going to install a Paladin DCR lens so hopefully the light output would be ok.


Hi @den110! A friend of mine just did a test on the N5 at our Norwegian site AVforum.no, and although he owns a NX9 himself he was quite impressed. The Google translated version of the test can be found here: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&u=https://avforum.no/forum/avnews/?p=297. As for N7, you might get a bit more contrast, but the advantages - at least in my opinion, are less when using a large screen like yours as you would probably not engage the colour filter and run with both irises open. Anyhow...! 

As for the UltraWeave; we always recommend using our grip rails. It makes proper tension much easier to obtain and is custom designed to be used with our fabrics. Rails are required if you´re installing one of the new TextileShield versions as the layers buildup on that version requires continuous tension, while rails are optional for the regular V6 (the non-textileshield). The rails are easily glued onto just about any surface, and you can also add some additional nails to secure 100% if needed be. We also recommend using out custom made installation tool (even has fancy name too; the one and only UltraTucker) to get that fabric properly down into the rails. 

As for lumens and a 140" wide V6, I guess you´d end up with about 20fl or so using the N5 / N7, but due to the internal tone mapping the light from these N-series JVC´s produce far more pleasing images than those figures normally might entail. My personal opinion is that it would look great in a bat cave like yours. Sure, you could drop AT and do a positive 1.3 gain PVC, you´d be able to pull the light up to 27 or so fl, but you´d still need to properly tone map the image and you would forfeit AT and also have potentially speckle and/or sheen. You can also hope for those DCR lenses going on sale at some point and basically "null" the gain difference... I guess it´s all about priorities, but my honest opinion at least - is that HDR at 140" width with the V6 + N5 / N7 would look very dynamic and pleasing for most viewers. SDR, of course, would be at reference level...


----------



## JohnnyWilkinson

ARROW-AV said:


> plus it produces cool-looking aesthetics to the extent that I* even use specialist rectangular framing lighting to illuminate them* when the projector is not in use, as shown in these illustrations for example... So why hide your awesome looking big 18" subs behind the screen when you can show them off in an 'In-Your-Face' design style! :
> 
> 
> Spoiler



Two questions:

1 - Where can I find this lighting?
2 - Do you do anything to 'hide' the subs when the projector is on? Or do you rely on the absence of light in the room?

Cheers


----------



## ARROW-AV

JohnnyWilkinson said:


> [/SPOILER]
> 
> Two questions:
> 
> 1 - Where can I find this lighting?
> 2 - Do you do anything to 'hide' the subs when the projector is on? Or do you rely on the absence of light in the room?
> 
> Cheers


Since this is off topic, I have sent you an email 

:wink:


----------



## howiee

den110 said:


> Hi, looking to do a DIY AT 140" diag 2:39:1 screen for either the JVC NX7 or NX5. Not sure which one to go with yet. The throw distance is 16 ft and the viewing to first row of seats is about 10 feet. How would I mount the DreamScreen Ultraweave AT on 1 x 4 poplar boards? Staple? Or another mounting method. It will be a frame less setup as the screen will be surrounded by false panels wrapped in SY Fabrics Triple Black Velvet. The room is a bat cave, 100% light controlled. Will I have any issues with lumens? I wasn't going to install a Paladin DCR lens so hopefully the light output would be ok.


Hi Den. I'm going for a very similar setup in a new build - NX7, batcave, 16' throw, 10"-12" viewing distance - and would be very interested in what you go for and any impressions. I'd offer the same but am about a year or so away from completion.


----------



## Danonano

Lygren said:


> Then it’s certainly also a matter of content quality, I see Netflix was mentioned, and although their overall quality has improved over the years, I agree that low bandwidth material might often be an issue with low seating-to-screen widths ratios. One solution as such would be to use a masking frame, and mask your 2.40:1 native image down to a smaller (in width that is) 16:9 when using sources like Netflix. One issue in terms of Netflix specifically though, is their aspect ratio being neither 16:9 nor 2.40:1, but somewhere in between, so our 2.40:1 masking screens that uses a fixed width of the masking panels to keep cost down would not be "perfect". Still, the new JVC N-series (native 4K), for example, has a very nice, new feature now that allows for custom digital masking for each format chosen, so that you can clip off some of the pixels at each side of the image when masking to 16:9. I mean, other masking solutions with adjustable side masking would be more flexible in such regards, but also cost quite a bit more, so it´s all give and take - and in my opinion keeping it as simple as possible in terms of overall operations of the system is also an important factor (i.e. not having to adjust the masking for a bunch of formats all the time).



Evidently Netflix uses an aspect ratio of 2:1 for much of it's original content. It will be interesting to see if the other online creators use that ratio, and if so it may become more and more relevant as they create more content. In the future a 2:1 screen with 4 way masking out to 2.40:1 and 16:9 may be the way to go. Crazy...


----------



## Craig Peer

Danonano said:


> Evidently Netflix uses an aspect ratio of 2:1 for much of it's original content. It will be interesting to see if the other online creators use that ratio, and if so it may become more and more relevant as they create more content. In the future a 2:1 screen with 4 way masking out to 2.40:1 and 16:9 may be the way to go. Crazy...


Like we needed another aspect ratio. I have two films in 2.00:1 - Green Book, and A Simple Favor. I watched them both in scope just to spite 2.00:1 !


----------



## Lygren

Danonano said:


> Evidently Netflix uses an aspect ratio of 2:1 for much of it's original content. It will be interesting to see if the other online creators use that ratio, and if so it may become more and more relevant as they create more content. In the future a 2:1 screen with 4 way masking out to 2.40:1 and 16:9 may be the way to go. Crazy...


Sure, a 4-way certainly gives most options, but is also the - by far - most complex mechanical screen setup as well (i.e. higher risk of defectives, more complex to install, higher price ++). A "simple" 1-way masked 16:9 / 1.77:1 native frame, like our MotoMask PRO´s, would also accommodate 2.0:1 (aka Netflix) and 2.40:1, for example, by simply lowering that basic masking panel from the top. Any weird in-between format I´d personally prefer to just digitally mask off, fortunately the new JVC´s and the new Epsons has memory positions that store digital masking positions for any scope format... The really esoteric solution would be a projector that automatically outputs what pixels are in use at any time and a frame that masks accordingly. Barco actually has this functionality, powered by a DT screens frame that masks accordingly. Certainly impressive, I´d give them that for sure, but it does come at a cost! AND, and I´d say not the least, in my humble opinion - few - if any - of the other screen manufacturers, even the "esoteric" ones, offers the unique set of qualities the patented UltraWeave features; i.e. the combination of reference acoustical transparency, neutral D65 tracking, zero speckle, ultra fine structural appearance and as such very high image sharpness.


----------



## Danonano

Lygren said:


> A "simple" 1-way masked 16:9 / 1.77:1 native frame, like our MotoMask PRO´s, would also accommodate 2.0:1 (aka Netflix) and 2.40:1, for example, by simply lowering that basic masking panel from the top.


So the one way mask can be adjusted for the width of the respective aspect ratio? Good to know, thanks.


----------



## Lygren

Danonano said:


> So the one way mask can be adjusted for the width of the respective aspect ratio? Good to know, thanks.




Well, width would be constant, but height adjusted to correspond to the various formats for the 16:9 native 1-way systems. We accomodate three storage points, so for example 16:9, 2.0:1 and 2.40:1. Plus manual adjustment or alternating the memories that is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DavCap78

Hi Lygren,

I’ve a Sony vpl-vw260es and currently 120” base screen (lumene with gain 1.. according to the spec) in a home theater (box I the box) with a THX wall. One year that I’m searching for a new screen until my vendor see you during CES if I’m not wrong. 
Do you think the V6 ultra with this projector will be ok for a 120” or 126” screen base?
As the gain is 0.81, I’m not sure that for such base the Sony will still be ok in terms of image brightness as it is today with my current screen.
What do you think, did you have the opportunity to test this projector ?


----------



## Lygren

DavCap78 said:


> Hi Lygren,
> 
> 
> 
> I’ve a Sony vpl-vw260es and currently 120” base screen (lumene with gain 1.. according to the spec) in a home theater (box I the box) with a THX wall. One year that I’m searching for a new screen until my vendor see you during CES if I’m not wrong.
> 
> Do you think the V6 ultra with this projector will be ok for a 120” or 126” screen base?
> 
> As the gain is 0.81, I’m not sure that for such base the Sony will still be ok in terms of image brightness as it is today with my current screen.
> 
> What do you think, did you have the opportunity to test this projector ?




Hi Dave! The VW260 has a typically output of about 1500 lumens (minus some for D65 correction), and a little less in eco mode. We used a VW260 for a long time on a 10ft wide / 130» diagonal cinescope screen at our showroom and for the first 200 hours it looked sufficiently lit, but after some drop in output on the lamp it did appear a bit dim after that. We replaced the screen with a 122» diagonal cinescope, and it looked like a better fit. 

As for gain values, unfortunately, quite few are accurate. In general, the more course PVC thread weaves like xyscreen and XD are in reality about 0.9, while most regularly woven or knitted screens are in the 0.7-0.8 neighborhood. We have tested and been able to increase gain up to 0.9 with our patented tech as well, so it is possible while still retaining all image-related qualities, but AT is reduced too much as far as we see it. We are not willing to sacrifice a whole lot of AT to obtain 10% more light reflection, audio is simply too important to us. On that note, we will certainly continue trying to improve gain but in general, our opinion is that the last possible 10% or so before hitting either speckle, move off of unity gain (i.e. full viewing width, we really don’t like the trade offs higher gain entails) is really not that critical, although every amount of reflected light is always appreciated. 

Another important point is how HDR is processed. VW260 does not tone map, so you would need a good external mapping device such as the Pannu UB820. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DavCap78

Thanks a lot Lygren,
Did you use the vw260 in eco mode?
On my side the base is 120” (137“ diagonal) in 16/9 so I think it’s too short for me (diagonal)


----------



## Lygren

DavCap78 said:


> Thanks a lot Lygren,
> 
> Did you use the vw260 in eco mode?
> 
> On my side the base is 120” (137“ diagonal) in 16/9 so I think it’s too short for me (diagonal)




We ran it in regular mode, and the current 122» would be 129» in 16:9, which does work quite well. 137» is a bit larger for sure, but it might still work out OK, but you would probably need to void eco mode at least. The JVC N-series would add about 20% additional light though, and would probably work better if you need to run it in eco mode. The new Epson tw9400 /6050 is also very powerful in terms of light output, even moreso than the JVC’s, but lacks 4k native and the blacks. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DavCap78

Lygren said:


> We ran it in regular mode, and the current 122» would be 129» in 16:9, which does work quite well. 137» is a bit larger for sure, but it might still work out OK, but you would probably need to void eco mode at least. The JVC N-series would add about 20% additional light though, and would probably work better if you need to run it in eco mode. The new Epson tw9400 /6050 is also very powerful in terms of light output, even moreso than the JVC’s, but lacks 4k native and the blacks.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thanks a lot for all those information


----------



## Maestrosc

@Lygren whats the lowest amount of lumens you would say was acceptable to be able to do HDR justice on a 150" Scope screen.

I bought one of the 150" Dreamscreen V6+ frame from you guys earlier this year, new theater is under construction atm, and want to get a projector that will be able to do HDR justice on this monster.

Room is 100% light controlled, and am building a HTPC for Dynamic Tone Mapping with MadVr


----------



## Lygren

Maestrosc said:


> @Lygren whats the lowest amount of lumens you would say was acceptable to be able to do HDR justice on a 150" Scope screen.
> 
> I bought one of the 150" Dreamscreen V6+ frame from you guys earlier this year, new theater is under construction atm, and want to get a projector that will be able to do HDR justice on this monster.
> 
> Room is 100% light controlled, and am building a HTPC for Dynamic Tone Mapping with MadVr


I recently witnessed a currently under NDA unit outputting 10k lumens at almost full P3 at a 120" 1.0 gain screen, and it looked quite spectacular on the HDR highlights. This was a 50k+ unit though... Regardless I am sure the path forward is far more light, and hopefully combined with improved native contrasts and laser modulation and irises I believe we are really in for a treat moving forward. 

That said, for your new brilliant choice of screen, there are a number of very nice options now. In my private cinema I am currently using an Epson EH-TW9400 (UB6050) LCD projector. It features an excellent out-of-the box tone mapping system and loads of light output (1800+ real D65 lumens). Even though the native contrast is quite poor, about 5000:1, HDR looks great on this unit. I am using a 3,3m / 11ft wide screen in my setup, about the same size as yours. So, you could, in my opinion, get a lot of image quality projected on that 150" screen using this 2999USD projector. I´d say my only negative experience thus far is the somewhat apparent pixel grid from my 1st row, located about 8ft off (I like the BIG picture...). I´d recommend at least 13ft viewing distance for this projector (at 150") to avoid that issue.

That said, the JVC N-series, although a little less light output, with its superior contrast is in my opinion an overall better choice as your typical film is really not all about peak brightness (albeit it is overall sufficient to not appear dim that is), but dynamics in low to medium APL scenes. In this regards, the N-series is superior. The Epson looks decent too, surprisingly so I´d say, but not even close to the N-series in detailing those murkier scenes. A high contrast unit like the N-series will also appear far more "HDR´ish" using its superior native contrast in combination with proper mapping.

Since you're planning on using madVR I guess the built-in mapping of neither the Epson nor the JVC is of much relevance, but nice to have still for gaming. In such regards I have to say the Epson is simply mind blowing. In gaming mode using HDR, you really don't care much about accurate colours, and this guy outputs a whopping 2700 lumens or so in dynamic mode. I just hooked up an Xbox One X to an Epson and using that mode it´s like a giant LCD-TV... 

Sony, well, the VW570 is certainly a nice unit too. Not the blacks of the N-series though, and not the light output of the Epson, so in my opinion I would have chosen a JVC in that price range for the moment. 

So, my advice would be Epson TW9400 in the 3k price domain and JVC N5 in the 5k price range. I am not sure N7 will do that much good in your setup as you would probably want to open the irises anyhow, and the DCI filter does take a toll on the light output too. 90% DCI is - in my opinion at least - pretty satisfactory, although full DCI might appear a bit more saturated for certain content such as nature documentaries and such... 

If your budget is really wide (50k+) and you have some time to spare, I´d recommend waiting for CEDIA this year to see if there are any new surprisingly interesting projectors being launched. I do not believe a whole lot will happen in the sub 10k domain though, but I could certainly be wrong...


----------



## Lygren

...also, since my reply was kinda bloated in relation to your question; amount of lumens - well, I´d say >1500 real D65 lumens would do justice to your screen. That might also include some of the new DLP´s, I have just had a look at the new BenQ W5700 and it also looks quite nice. Minus for contrast as per the usual for XPR DLP´s, but it appears far more dynamic than other DLP´s in that price range (2999USD MSRP I believe). Another minus is lacking motorised lens functionality for that unit, but if you're not using masking on that 150" screen it might not be relevant. A positive, however, compared to the Epson is more sharpness and no visible pixel grid even at very close viewing distances. Not as much light output as the Epson though, but I have not had that much time with it yet... But still, it´s probably one of the few lower priced DLP options apart from Optoma etc. (which is not to my liking for a variety of reasons) that looks quite decent.


----------



## Maestrosc

I havent at all decided on a budget for the projector. I am not sure if I want to spend more now, or spend less now and wait for something that fits my needs even better tho it will cost more.

I have a 5040ub from my previous home/theater, but was looking to make the jump into a truely higher end projector with this new room. 

I am also looking mostly at laser projectors, as I have only heard good things about picture quality, and with such a big screen I am worried about lamp dimming will lead me to replacing lamps more often than I would prefer.

Do you think something like the Sony 885 or 995 have enough light output to do HDR justice on a big screen like this?

Right now i am leaning in the BenQ LK970's direction (can get it for around $5000), as I have always preferred bright pictures. Even my 5040ub I never took it out of Dynamic even in a 100% light controlled room.


----------



## Lygren

Maestrosc said:


> I havent at all decided on a budget for the projector. I am not sure if I want to spend more now, or spend less now and wait for something that fits my needs even better tho it will cost more.
> 
> I have a 5040ub from my previous home/theater, but was looking to make the jump into a truely higher end projector with this new room.
> 
> I am also looking mostly at laser projectors, as I have only heard good things about picture quality, and with such a big screen I am worried about lamp dimming will lead me to replacing lamps more often than I would prefer.
> 
> Do you think something like the Sony 885 or 995 have enough light output to do HDR justice on a big screen like this?
> 
> Right now i am leaning in the BenQ LK970's direction (can get it for around $5000), as I have always preferred bright pictures. Even my 5040ub I never took it out of Dynamic even in a 100% light controlled room.


Not a big fan of 885 / 995 as of yet, it´s simply too much money for that laser without much benefit other than longer lifespan. Sure, a bit more stabile image (albeit I have no problem with the stability of UHP on a general notice), but with the same or even less light output than their lamp counterparts at a fraction of the cost makes them - in my opinion at least - currently not a big contender. Once they can get the output up to let´s say 3000 lumens or so I´d say the asking price would be more acceptable... 

The next gen RS4500 / Z1 from JVC might be a good one though, perhaps a bit more light, a little less noise and even better contrast due to next gen D-ILA chip...

That said, I'm not saying 885 or 995 are bad units, by all means, they have excellent image quality, but as for light output / HDR, you would not gain a whole lot (I´d even say mostly less) than going with a lamp based JVC (N5-N7) / Sony (VW570) and rather do a replacement when and if Sony releases a higher lumens version of those "mid-end" lasers... 

I guess I might be asking for trouble going all OT in this thread going deep-end recommending projector solutions though, but in more general terms, for a 150" screen, at least in my experience, a well constructed 1500-2000 lumen unit, preferably close to 2000, using a decent tone mapping system would work very well with the UltraWeave v6. Happy hunting!


----------



## Maestrosc

Lygren said:


> Not a big fan of 885 / 995 as of yet, it´s simply too much money for that laser without much benefit other than longer lifespan. Sure, a bit more stabile image (albeit I have no problem with the stability of UHP on a general notice), but with the same or even less light output than their lamp counterparts at a fraction of the cost makes them - in my opinion at least - currently not a big contender. Once they can get the output up to let´s say 3000 lumens or so I´d say the asking price would be more acceptable...
> 
> The next gen RS4500 / Z1 from JVC might be a good one though, perhaps a bit more light, a little less noise and even better contrast due to next gen D-ILA chip...
> 
> That said, I'm not saying 885 or 995 are bad units, by all means, they have excellent image quality, but as for light output / HDR, you would not gain a whole lot (I´d even say mostly less) than going with a lamp based JVC (N5-N7) / Sony (VW570) and rather do a replacement when and if Sony releases a higher lumens version of those "mid-end" lasers...
> 
> I guess I might be asking for trouble going all OT in this thread going deep-end recommending projector solutions though, but in more general terms, for a 150" screen, at least in my experience, a well constructed 1500-2000 lumen unit, preferably close to 2000, using a decent tone mapping system would work very well with the UltraWeave v6. Happy hunting!


haha thanks for the input.


----------



## Craig Peer

Maestrosc said:


> haha thanks for the input.


I wouldn't rule out the JVC RS4500. With MadVR dynamic tone mapping, and a DCR lens, it throws a real nice picture. You are more than welcome to come see mine if you are up my way ( Sacramento ).


----------



## rcsauvag

@Lygren 

Along a similar vein as the last mode of query, I just jumped on a wait list for a NX7/RS2000. I was thinking of going with a a 130" wide scope screen (141 diagonal). For 16:9 that should be plenty, but for scope it may be a little on the low end. I will admit currently I have a RS4910U shot onto a wall so it'll still be much brighter I figure than what I'm currently doing. The 4910U never got to live in a dedicated theatre like the RS2000 will. 

Would you think a 130" wide with a RS2000 is fine, or try to talk into going a little smaller on the screen.


----------



## Lygren

rcsauvag said:


> @Lygren
> 
> Along a similar vein as the last mode of query, I just jumped on a wait list for a NX7/RS2000. I was thinking of going with a a 130" wide scope screen (141 diagonal). For 16:9 that should be plenty, but for scope it may be a little on the low end. I will admit currently I have a RS4910U shot onto a wall so it'll still be much brighter I figure than what I'm currently doing. The 4910U never got to live in a dedicated theatre like the RS2000 will.
> 
> Would you think a 130" wide with a RS2000 is fine, or try to talk into going a little smaller on the screen.


Well, I guess a white wall might not be that dim in terms of gain actually, although overall image quality wise the UltraWeave would presumably look quite a lot better...  

So, 130" width scope is the exact same size as I am using in my private cinema, using a UltraWeave v6 TextileShield PRO at the moment. I am yet to test the N5 / N7, but have had a dusin or so different X/RS-series shooting at that screen and currently I am testing an Epson for a change (TW9400 / UB6050). In terms of brightness, I do tend to run the JVC´s in full lamp to obtain satisfactory brightness on my screen. The Epson, however, is run on "medium" as it seems to overall produce a little more light than the JVC´s. I´d honestly not say I have had any issues with the brightness produced by the JVC´s, but at our showroom we are using a 112" wide scope screen (also UltraWeave v6) alongside an N5 and it does look a bit punchier I have to admit. I have, however, no problem sacrificing a bit of light to get that immersive size I have back home. Would I prefer a little more light? Sure, the Epson in high lamp, for example (problem is that the noise it produces at that level is too high to my liking...) is quite pleasing. In medium I would say it is about the same as JVC X/RS in high lamp. 

To provide a bit more objectivity to the matter, let's say those JVC´s produce 1500 real lumens in high lamp when D65 calibrated. That would provide you with about 20fL on a 130" wide v6. That is more than enough for SDR, but for HDR you'd always want more. I mean, for HDR - what we REALLY want is that Christie 30k lumen 30mill:1 contrast "Holy Grail" unit, right? As stated above, I recently saw a 500 nits HDR image produced up on a 105" wide screen at ISE, and sure - it looks spectacular in terms of highlights, but as for black levels - not so much (15K:1 native contrast approx.). So, for HDR, proper tone mapping is key. I mean, if you reduce the width to 112" like our showroom, you would end up with about 25fL. A bit more "pop" for sure, but still certainly requiring proper tone mapping as well. For SDR, you normally would not want to go much higher than 15-16fL anyhow, so it would mainly benefit HDR "pop" to reduce the size. 

Brightness and contrast will only increase moving forward, but it might be good to keep in mind that most movies a surprisingly dim. In such regards, and in my opinion, it is far more important that dark / medium scenes are rendered good and also that a sufficient amount of light is available for bright scenes. This is what a good tone mapping will give you - provided of course - contrast is proper, which is certainly the case for the JVC´s. What is sufficient then? Well, 20fL is - at least in my mind - sufficient for a dark environment - at least after your own magnificent iris has done it´s job... 

There are certainly a lot of opinions and subjectivity involved in these types of considerations, even age might be a factor as people tend to need more light to feel the image being sufficiently "lit" as years go by. I'm 41 myself (wow, I feel like I was JUST 30!!), but for someone in their 50´s or 60´s, 25-30fL might be more appealing. When I was REALLY young I was fooling around with those huge CRT projectors, and I am sure I had less than 5fL on my 100" wide screen back then using a Barco 808S (loved that one), and I never ever thought brightness was a big issue. I guess it might have been the age - or it might have been that I did not know better, but 10 years from now I am sure we will all look back at those measly 20-30fL, projecting 500 the lot of us and saying what we REALLY want is 1000... Still, running with that CRT line of argument - what made those so unique was their fantastic inky blacks (some people tell me the blacks were not that good either, but as far as what I remember, they were great... ), which is still extremely important in producing a proper cinematic experience in my opinion...

Anyhow; good luck on your project @rcsauvag!


----------



## Maestrosc

Is it possible to cut the screen material of the Dreamscreen?

I originally purchased a 150" scope screen, but have now decided to downsize to a 135" scope.

Obviously I will need to figure out a new way to frame it, but could I cut this material to fit a different 135" frame?


----------



## ddgdl

Maestrosc said:


> Is it possible to cut the screen material of the Dreamscreen?
> 
> I originally purchased a 150" scope screen, but have now decided to downsize to a 135" scope.
> 
> Obviously I will need to figure out a new way to frame it, but could I cut this material to fit a different 135" frame?


Yes


----------



## Maestrosc

Anyone know of a screen manufacturer that uses the same mounting system?

Trying to see if I can find a frame in the size I want for this screen.

135-140" 2.35:1 

I feel like I might be able to make Elite AR138WH2-WIDE 138in 2.35:1 Aeon Fixed Frame Screen work and not have to build a frame.


----------



## ddgdl

Maestrosc said:


> Anyone know of a screen manufacturer that uses the same mounting system?
> 
> Trying to see if I can find a frame in the size I want for this screen.
> 
> 135-140" 2.35:1
> 
> I feel like I might be able to make Elite AR138WH2-WIDE 138in 2.35:1 Aeon Fixed Frame Screen work and not have to build a frame.


AVS will build you a frame in any size you want. Ask Mike- mine is a random 108x45 2.40 screen because that is the max that would fit in my room


----------



## twinkletoes2035

Hmmm. Did I get a faulty sample, or something? I just received a sample of the Dreamscreen V6 material, and I'm seeing all sorts of sparkles. So far, I have received 5 different samples, from various companies, and this is by far the sparkliest. Even the SAT-4K by Severtson, which is much brighter, didn't have the sparkles. It was like someone sprinkled glitter on this screen sample. However, fwiw, the weave on the SAT-4K was much more visible.


----------



## llang269

Has anyone compared this to the Centerstage Xd? I’ve narrowed my decision down to these two.


----------



## Lygren

twinkletoes2035 said:


> Hmmm. Did I get a faulty sample, or something? I just received a sample of the Dreamscreen V6 material, and I'm seeing all sorts of sparkles. So far, I have received 5 different samples, from various companies, and this is by far the sparkliest. Even the SAT-4K by Severtson, which is much brighter, didn't have the sparkles. It was like someone sprinkled glitter on this screen sample. However, fwiw, the weave on the SAT-4K was much more visible.




There are zero sparcles / speckle on the v6, so please send us an email at [email protected] to clearify... 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## twinkletoes2035

llang269 said:


> Has anyone compared this to the Centerstage Xd? I’ve narrowed my decision down to these two.


We have, but we MIGHT have gotten a faulty sample of the DreamScreen. Since we finally managed to talk them into sending us a second sample, I don't want to say too much until it arrives (estimated 4-6 weeks). In the meantime, what other screens have you checked out, and why did you rule out the Centerstage UF, and Enlightor NEO? I think both of those screens are better than the XD.


----------



## llang269

I’m not paying for the neo and the uf isn’t bright enough.


----------



## twinkletoes2035

llang269 said:


> I’m not paying for the neo and the uf isn’t bright enough.


Again, take anything I say about the DreamScreen with a grain of salt (at least until the second sample arrives).

The XD and Severtson SAT-4K are the 2 brightest AT screens I've seen. 

However, between the 2 screens that you asked about, I would easily recommend the XD, especially since brightness appears to be an issue for you. The DreamScreen, as a grey screen material, is one of the darkest that I have seen. The only AT screen I've found that is darker than the DreamScreen, is the Severtson TAT-4K (not to be confused with the SAT-4K, which is pretty bright). But, if the UF is too dark for you, the DreamScreen is much darker than the UF.


----------



## Ericglo

llang269 said:


> Has anyone compared this to the Centerstage Xd? I’ve narrowed my decision down to these two.


I consider V6 much better than the XD. Seymour's Enlightor line and V6 are two of the best AT screens on the market.


----------



## Lygren

twinkletoes2035 said:


> Again, take anything I say about the DreamScreen with a grain of salt (at least until the second sample arrives).
> 
> The XD and Severtson SAT-4K are the 2 brightest AT screens I've seen.
> 
> However, between the 2 screens that you asked about, I would easily recommend the XD, especially since brightness appears to be an issue for you. The DreamScreen, as a grey screen material, is one of the darkest that I have seen. The only AT screen I've found that is darker than the DreamScreen, is the Severtson TAT-4K (not to be confused with the SAT-4K, which is pretty bright). But, if the UF is too dark for you, the DreamScreen is much darker than the UF.


So, while I have not seen any of the fabric samples you have compared to here - one important thing you need to make sure of when comparing is to use a black backing also on the other fabrics that does not have one integrated. Since you are referring to the UltraWeave as "grey" I presume you might have not used a black backing on the others as most AT fabrics would appear "greyish" when mixing in the backing. Also, without a backing on the others you would combine the reflection of the sample and the wall / fabric / whatever reflective in its back. 

In general, the UltraWeave is certainly not "dim". It has a real gain value of 0.8 benchmarked vs. the Studiotek 100. Some of the coarser weaves has up to 0.9, but at the cost of AT. Spandex has typically about 0.7 and most other finer weaves (albeit not as fine as the UltraWeave made possible by using our patented hybrid layout designing and custom manufacturing this fabric...) has about 0.75-0.8. 

As for acoustical transparency, I have been testing - and testing live that is - a huge number of screen materials as well as various compositions of our patented layout the past 12 years or so with our reference Alcons Audio CRMS system installed in the baffle residing behind the screen. The difference between a 1,5dB v6 and a 3-5dB drop alternative is - for my ears at least - substantial. Perhaps not that much when SPL is at reference level - but I mean - even movies that feature reference level audio has subtle parts. Also, if blockage is sufficiently high, I would say past 4dB at peak (which is the case for a lot of the coarser, higher gain weaves) - the sound also appears as somewhat muffled (like speaking into a box) even at quite substantial SPL´s. 

As such, our aim has always been to find the best possible combination of video and audio performance, whereas the audio performance is as important in my mind as video. We will continue to try to improve on all aspects of our patented hybrid weave + knit layout, but will certainly keep our focus on maintaining the audio performance while doing so.

We will be back at CEDIA @ Denver in September alongside Alcons Audio again, so if anyone is in the area please feel free to step by for a stellar demo!


----------



## twinkletoes2035

Lygren said:


> So, while I have not seen any of the fabric samples you have compared to here - one important thing you need to make sure of when comparing is to use a black backing also on the other fabrics that does not have one integrated. Since you are referring to the UltraWeave as "grey" I presume you might have not used a black backing on the others as most AT fabrics would appear "greyish" when mixing in the backing. Also, without a backing on the others you would combine the reflection of the sample and the wall / fabric / whatever reflective in its back.
> 
> In general, the UltraWeave is certainly not "dim". It has a real gain value of 0.8 benchmarked vs. the Studiotek 100. Some of the coarser weaves has up to 0.9, but at the cost of AT. Spandex has typically about 0.7 and most other finer weaves (albeit not as fine as the UltraWeave made possible by using our patented hybrid layout designing and custom manufacturing this fabric...) has about 0.75-0.8.
> 
> As for acoustical transparency, I have been testing - and testing live that is - a huge number of screen materials as well as various compositions of our patented layout the past 12 years or so with our reference Alcons Audio CRMS system installed in the baffle residing behind the screen. The difference between a 1,5dB v6 and a 3-5dB drop alternative is - for my ears at least - substantial. Perhaps not that much when SPL is at reference level - but I mean - even movies that feature reference level audio has subtle parts. Also, if blockage is sufficiently high, I would say past 4dB at peak (which is the case for a lot of the coarser, higher gain weaves) - the sound also appears as somewhat muffled (like speaking into a box) even at quite substantial SPL´s.
> 
> As such, our aim has always been to find the best possible combination of video and audio performance, whereas the audio performance is as important in my mind as video. We will continue to try to improve on all aspects of our patented hybrid weave + knit layout, but will certainly keep our focus on maintaining the audio performance while doing so.
> 
> We will be back at CEDIA @ Denver in September alongside Alcons Audio again, so if anyone is in the area please feel free to step by for a stellar demo!


We use a piece of black felt behind our samples when we do our testing. The DreamScreen sample that we have is definitely grey compared to those other samples. And even when we just hold the samples in our hands, the DreamScreen is noticably greyer. Even though I only have a POS camera on my phone, I can try to take some pics, as well as one of sparkle, but they probably won't come out very good. I also need to figure out how to upload pics here.

As far as audio goes, I haven't been able to test that, as all I have so far are some samples. I don't even have any speakers yet!


----------



## Lygren

twinkletoes2035 said:


> We use a piece of black felt behind our samples when we do our testing. The DreamScreen sample that we have is definitely grey compared to those other samples. And even when we just hold the samples in our hands, the DreamScreen is noticably greyer. Even though I only have a POS camera on my phone, I can try to take some pics, as well as one of sparkle, but they probably won't come out very good. I also need to figure out how to upload pics here.
> 
> As far as audio goes, I haven't been able to test that, as all I have so far are some samples. I don't even have any speakers yet!


OK, good with the black felt at least. I guess for the conclusions it might be a good idea to wait for a new sample... If the other samples are typically a bit more roughly woven variants like the XD they will appear whiter though. The UltraWeave uses a very tightly woven ultra thin front layer, which is certainly much finer than the alternative woven single layers, but also a bit more transparent in terms of light. Even though you can see through this initial layer (onto the knitted backing layers, first a white layer and then a black backing layer, both integrated / bonded) when looking at the fabric close up, however, when reflecting light from it, your eyes are only perceiving the structure of the initial woven layer. This is also the patent of the fabric, i.e. an initial ultra fine woven surface coating and a secondary knitted, much coarser one. 

Using only a single woven layer of thicker threads - albeit it will a times provide a little more gain (but often at the cost of speckle as many manufacturers gloss the threads used to increase gain) allows for less air to pass through, which again leads to lower AT. A "quick test" in terms of AT is to just blow through the sample. You should make sure you include the black backing when you blow through the alternatives. Other than that, the rougher weave also has far more visible structural appearance than the UltraWeave, which basically emulates a regular PVC-based (non-AT) surface coating. So, although you might be able to obtain a little gain - let´s say 10-15% by choosing a coarser basic weave, you would loose out on the structural appearance and AT. 

Higher gain is not the case for all coarser weaves BTW, for example the Screen Research 4K woven material measures a little lower gain than the v6 in our lab, but this is also quite acoustically transparent (about 2,4dB on average compared to about 1,5dB on the v6). However, again, the structural appearance of the v6 is way finer and the black backing is integrated on the v6. So, increasing gain beyond the Screen Research on a single layer basic weave, like the XD for example, is done by tightening up the weave - which again is at the (high) cost of AT...

As for the comment on speckle I am really not sure what is causing this other than the sample being somehow contaminated. I am extremely fantastisk absolutely obsessed by speckle, and we are custom bleaching the threads used in the UltraWeave to obtain that ultra matte appearance that also secures no speckle. So, again, awaiting a new sample would be my advice although if gain is your ultimate goal in this and AT is not of critical importance and you have sufficient seating distance I am sure you will be pleased with something else, we can´t win em´ all...


----------



## Lygren

I should also add that proper light reflection comparisons should be made out after D65 benchmarking the samples. Please notice that while we custom dye the fabric to hit D65 with >98-99% perfection, a lot of the others use readily made threads to make out their fabrics to avoid the cost of custom dye (which requires massive production volumes...). Many of these fabrics are too blue, green or whatever - a tint you need to spend light from the projector calibrating off. Again, if D65 is not of importance to you this might not be relevant either, but you can easily have to discard 5% of the light available to compensate for various types of tints in fabric not sufficiently D65 neutral.

However, upon first "glance" a D65 dyed fabric always looks more "dim" than a blueish tinted fabric - which looks more "paper white" in comparison to the D65 variant. D65 white actually looks quite yellowish compared to a white sheet of paper, but that is how it is supposed to be and how the movies and all video content is actually mastered which is also why you want your fabric to appear as neutral as possible in such regards.


----------



## Lygren

Just a little reminder and update on the upcoming CEDIA show. DreamScreen is yet again part of the magnificent Alcons Pro-Ribbon Immersive Experience demo, located at Soundroom 13 (SR-13). Alcons will be featuring a full 9.x(6).6 layout, processed by Storm Audio, featuring their CRMS (Cinema Reference Monitoring System) consisting of a 3-way CRMS as LCR´s, CRMS compacts as surrounds and the new CRMS 18" ultra long excursion driver sub. Alcons is truly an amazing system, we have had it installed at our showroom in Oslo for more than 10 years now functioning as our reference audio system - a vital tool in the development of the best possible AT screen. The clarity & detail in combination with endless power without ever producing distortion is simply unique. 

For such an amazing system you would certainly place emphasis on all other components not reducing its potential, and the screen is of high importance as such. The UltraWeave has one of the lowest acoustical blockage levels available, with an average of only about 1,5dB, maxing out at about 2dB @ 20KHz. PVC weaves often maxes out at 4-5 dB, while micro perforated PVC might remove as much as 10dB or even more from the high frequencies. Although you can compensate using EQ, you can always hear the difference between a highly transparent fabric and one that is less so. Some even sound muffled, and micro details is easily lost if the blockage is too great. I do feel people in general might be placing too little attention to the different acoustical blockage levels, which is very important for systems able to produce nuance and detail like the Alcons is a very good example of.

So, as for video we will be using a 3,5m wide 2.40:1 native frame this year, and the UltraWeave v6 yet again. Sony is supplying a VPL-VW5000 4K laser projector, while Shawn Kelly will be bringing in a Panamorph DCI lens for added brightness and full usage of the 4K panel. Kris Deering @ www.deepdiveav.com will perform the calibration and he will also bring in a Radiance Pro to assure proper tone mapping performance. I really look forward to seeing what a proper calibration and the Radiance Pro is able to do with the HDR performance of the VW5000!

We hope to see ya!


----------



## twinkletoes2035

Just received the new sample of the dream screen from Norway, and it was perfect! Night and day difference from the first sample. No sparkle! The first sample was yellower, and darker. The 2nd one was whiter, and slightly brighter. The first one was also a little thicker. Thank you for sending the sample. Now my question is, if we order this screen how do we know which one were getting? Do you guarantee the quality? I really love the new sample of this screen, but not first one with sparkles. I guess I want assurance I won't be stuck with the sparkly version I got first.


----------



## Lygren

twinkletoes2035 said:


> Just received the new sample of the dream screen from Norway, and it was perfect! Night and day difference from the first sample. No sparkle! The first sample was yellower, and darker. The 2nd one was whiter, and slightly brighter. The first one was also a little thicker. Thank you for sending the sample. Now my question is, if we order this screen how do we know which one were getting? Do you guarantee the quality? I really love the new sample of this screen, but not first one with sparkles. I guess I want assurance I won't be stuck with the sparkly version I got first.



Great! I can assure you no screen material from us will ever appear like the other sample you are describing. I guess it would have had to be damaged / polluted during shipment somehow. Regardless, please rest assured any fabric ordered from DreamScreen will always be top notch quality; custom inspected and packaged very extensively to avoid any damage. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mtbdudex

I'll be placing an order later today for 120" wide 16:9 V6 to replace by 120" wide 2.37 2009 DIY Designer White curved screen.

AV Science had a good early black Friday sale, and it was my long term plan to go AT screen, with my HTM-12's flanking it on outside and the center behind.

Projector is the RS400, currently have a UH-480 lens being used for scope.

Plan on install Thanksgiving weekend.

Here you can see the increase in height, which will be noticed for gaming and sport events.


----------



## ddgdl

mtbdudex said:


> I'll be placing an order later today for 120" wide 16:9 V6 to replace by 120" wide 2.37 2009 DIY Designer White curved screen.
> 
> AV Science had a good early black Friday sale, and it was my long term plan to go AT screen, with my HTM-12's flanking it on outside and the center behind.
> 
> Projector is the RS400, currently have a UH-480 lens being used for scope.
> 
> Plan on install Thanksgiving weekend.
> 
> Here you can see the increase in height, which will be noticed for gaming and sport events.


Nice! I absolutely love my screen. Now if only v7 or v8 could come in a > 1.0 gain version 🙂


----------



## mtbdudex

ddgdl said:


> Nice! I absolutely love my screen. Now if only v7 or v8 could come in a > 1.0 gain version




There must be technical limitations or the trade off of gain vs AT-ness or pixel resolution/ etc or I’m sure it would have been reached by now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mtbdudex

My screen being delivered this upcoming Monday 11/18, 
I’ll post impressions and comparison to my solid screen .
DSLR camera on tripod in manual mode for apples-apples.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ddgdl

mtbdudex said:


> My screen being delivered this upcoming Monday 11/18,
> Iâ€™️ll post impressions and comparison to my solid screen .
> DSLR camera on tripod in manual mode for apples-apples.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Let's see it!


----------



## mtbdudex

ddgdl said:


> Let's see it!




Well that was quick, I listed my old screen expecting to take 2-3 weeks to sell it, and it sold in a few hours!!
Guys coming tonight ... so can’t do A vs B anymore ...
But, I think I have leftover DW laminate still, if so that’s better I’ll put it on one side and direct view difference. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Lygren

We´re happy to announce a new "v7" revision of our UltraWeave. This version will not replace the v6, but sold parallell. The gain has been increased by 16% from the v6 (0.8 rated), now at an official rating of 0.93. We have increased the gain by adding yet another custom made layer as well as adjusting the others (not the front woven layer though, it remains the same as for the v6), so now four layers in total. 

Like the v6, the v7 follows the unity gain principle, meaning there is zero speckle / shimmer or other artefacts caused by positive gain. As stated above, the front "ultra" weave layer is the same, so the overall sharpness and appearance is very much like the v6 except for the added gain. We have benchmarked it towards Studiotek 100 as the reference (our favourite non-AT fabric) as well as the tightest woven matte screen we have been able to find, and it measures about 8% more than this particular 1.1 mfg rated AT fabric (0.86 vs. 0.93 on the v7). 

Although there might still be some woven fabrics that inherit a little more gain, that would normally only be possible adding gloss / shine to the thread / fabric. I am sure some of you will get your hands on a sample soon and can start comparing. Compared to any of those high gain weaves the density of the v7 is in a completely different ballpark, allowing for closer seating and guaranteed no moiré at any resolution or projection technology.

The v6 remains our most audiophile option with an average loss of 1,5dB through the screen, while the v7 has an average of 3,3dB. We just tested the v7 in our Alcons equipped reference room today, and the audio appears to be flowing quite fine still. It will certainly be under critical test in some weeks time when we showcase it officially for the first time alongside Alcons Audio @Booth 6H-150 at the ISE show on February 11.-14. in Amsterdam. Later on at CEDIA, also alongside Alcons. 

Limited deliveries are estimated spring / summer 2020, and will first be delivered in sizes of 2,3x4m / 90 1/2" x 157 1/2" and 2,3x5,3m / 90 1/2e" x 208 3/4". Price will be about 25% higher than the current v6 due to increased manufacturing costs.

The v6 is also available now in a new "medium" 2,3x4,5m / 90 1/2" x 177" roll size, MSRP is 1499.


----------



## jjcook

Lygren said:


> We´re happy to announce a new "v7" revision of our UltraWeave. This version will not replace the v6, but sold parallell. The gain has been increased by 16% from the v6 (0.8 rated), now at an official rating of 0.93. We have increased the gain by adding yet another custom made layer as well as adjusting the others (not the front woven layer though, it remains the same as for the v6), so now four layers in total.
> 
> Like the v6, the v7 follows the unity gain principle, meaning there is zero speckle / shimmer or other artefacts caused by positive gain. As stated above, the front "ultra" weave layer is the same, so the overall sharpness and appearance is very much like the v6 except for the added gain. We have benchmarked it towards Studiotek 100 as the reference (our favourite non-AT fabric) as well as the tightest woven matte screen we have been able to find, and it measures about 8% more than this particular 1.1 mfg rated AT fabric (0.86 vs. 0.93 on the v7).
> 
> Although there might still be some woven fabrics that inherit a little more gain, that would normally only be possible adding gloss / shine to the thread / fabric. I am sure some of you will get your hands on a sample soon and can start comparing. Compared to any of those high gain weaves the density of the v7 is in a completely different ballpark, allowing for closer seating and guaranteed no moiré at any resolution or projection technology.
> 
> The v6 remains our most audiophile option with an average loss of 1,5dB through the screen, while the v7 has an average of 3,3dB. We just tested the v7 in our Alcons equipped reference room today, and the audio appears to be flowing quite fine still. It will certainly be under critical test in some weeks time when we showcase it officially for the first time alongside Alcons Audio @Booth 6H-150 at the ISE show on February 11.-14. in Amsterdam. Later on at CEDIA, also alongside Alcons.
> 
> Limited deliveries are estimated spring / summer 2020, and will first be delivered in sizes of 2,3x4m / 90 1/2" x 157 1/2" and 2,3x5,3m / 90 1/2e" x 208 3/4". Price will be about 25% higher than the current v6 due to increased manufacturing costs.
> 
> The v6 is also available now in a new "medium" 2,3x4,5m / 90 1/2" x 177" roll size, MSRP is 1499.


Excellent news! I'm excited to see this new material sample when it comes available and looks like the delivery timeline may line up well with my build


----------



## Mike Garrett

I have compared V7 with my V6 screen and you can clearly see that V7 is brighter. I plan on comparing the V7 to some of my other screen samples in the next few days. Can also confirm, no sparkle or shimmer with the new V7, just like the V6.


----------



## LJG

OK, so how is this retrofitted to a Stewart Screen Frame?


----------



## Lygren

LJG said:


> OK, so how is this retrofitted to a Stewart Screen Frame?


You would be using our universal grip rails when retrofitting existing frames. You would need to find a fitting slot in the back of the frame, just over 5/8 inch wide, and glue the rails down. Our in-house developed "UltraTucker" really makes installation of the new fabric a breeze once the rails are in place. Video: 



.

The "UltraTucker"


----------



## howiee

Lygren said:


> We´re happy to announce a new "v7" revision of our UltraWeave...


Exciting stuff! Do you guys deliver to the UK and are samples available?


----------



## Lygren

howiee said:


> Exciting stuff! Do you guys deliver to the UK and are samples available?



Thanks! 

As for UK deliveries, sure, we even have a very talented distributor in the UK as well; 

WEB: www.adept-is.com

As for samples they will be made available at dreamscreen.eu shortly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dlinsley

Mike Garrett said:


> I have compared V7 with my V6 screen and you can clearly see that V7 is brighter. I plan on comparing the V7 to some of my other screen samples in the next few days. Can also confirm, no sparkle or shimmer with the new V7, just like the V6.


You know where to send a sample when ready for preorders!
@Lygren can't you just add a few more layers and turn it into a 1.3


----------



## ddgdl

dlinsley said:


> Mike Garrett said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have compared V7 with my V6 screen and you can clearly see that V7 is brighter. I plan on comparing the V7 to some of my other screen samples in the next few days. Can also confirm, no sparkle or shimmer with the new V7, just like the V6. /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> 
> 
> You know where to send a sample when ready for preorders!
> 
> @Lygren can't you just add a few more layers and turn it into a 1.3 /forum/images/smilies/wink.gif
Click to expand...

A greater than 1.0 gain dreamscreen would be the ultimate screen I think. I have the v6 and it is amazing, can't wait to see what the v7 will look like


----------



## Lygren

ddgdl said:


> A greater than 1.0 gain dreamscreen would be the ultimate screen I think. I have the v6 and it is amazing, can't wait to see what the v7 will look like


If you think about gain like a volume knob; 1.0 is really 10 out of 10. Going beyond that, you are really pushing it Tesla style, like 11, 12 or even 20 off of 10 (with the distortion that comes along with pushing beyond the physical boundaries of the drivers...). In a reflection controlled environment, and with the intent to actually try to display the light that is outputted by the projector, going beyond 1.0 is really not what you want from a projection type of system. Beyond 1.0 it is really up to the projector to produce the light levels required, unless you are OK with the issues that occur going beyond that. Me, being a videophile since the good ol´ CRT times, and also seeing what OLED´s and LCD´s are able to produce in terms of image quality these days - really see no other option for projection than being able to push the current boundaries of light output - and not to mention contrast - if we are to move further. Using the volume knob to move beyond what the system really can´t handle is really not the solution per se - in my opinion that is...

So, some positive gain screens are certainly better than others, and please keep in mind that a number of negative gain screens produce sheen and other issues as well (not to mention the completely inflated gain levels provided by a number of the manufacturers), but still, a completely neutral screen is what a truly videophile system is best suited with. I remember Alan Gouger´s word of advice in our earlier discussions - the ultimate screen is the one that reflects whatever is projected on it - nothing more - nothing less. So, we´re still some 7% shy of that (ultimate) goal, but since we also need the screen to allow air (audio) to pass it, we will never - unless we void the mission of reflecting beyond what is actually projected - be able to surpass 1.0. That is the physical limitation of projection. I mean, I love to bend the laws of physics, in which I do believe the multiple layered system does to some degree - but trying to twist the laws I´d leave to the mages... 

We might - at some point - do a positive gain system - and as such, trying to use the multiple layers to depress the results of doing so - but still; there will be consequences to some extent. Some might think these are acceptable, but in my mind I would rather want the projection guys to figure out their part of this challenge instead. Christie seems to have solved many of the challenges as such, but I still would say a JVC-based system, albeit a bit lower lumens than we´d prefer - is not a pain to watch as of now... Sure, we want more, and I am sure we will get it at some point too (and for the few fortunate they can actually obtain what seems to be the Holy Grail of video right now), but until then; I´d say that 9,3 off of what I consider a 10 is getting quite far - at least in terms of projection - and at the same time being audiotransparent. 

TV´s and micro-LED´s certainly has some strong arguments going for them too, so it will be exiting to see how all of these different angles work out. Projection, at least in my mind, will not die off and become the new Nokia any time soon, although I would have to - to some extent at least - agree that projection tech as such has not seen the innovative boosts we did see in the past. We still need clever minds like those of Christie to think outside the box moving forward...


----------



## Lygren

I should probably also add that bending the laws might also include innovative thinking in the screens department to some extent as well - the "Ultimate Screen" being (an expensive) example, providing gain-levels of >2 and also getting rid of speckle by actuating the screen surface is a very impressive "out of the box" kind of thinking. They still have not solved some of the other challenges that arrives with increasing gain though, such as the reduced viewing cone - but still - those are indeed the kind of "bending solutions" that also the screen side of the equation can try to improve and innovate on. So - we´ll keep our minds clear as well and continue trying to think "innovatively" moving forward, by all means, albeit I would repeat my call to the projection side of things to improve on their end of the equation...


----------



## mtbdudex

Mike Garrett said:


> I have compared V7 with my V6 screen and you can clearly see that V7 is brighter. I plan on comparing the V7 to some of my other screen samples in the next few days. Can also confirm, no sparkle or shimmer with the new V7, just like the V6.





Mike Garrett said:


> I have compared V7 with my V6 screen and you can clearly see that V7 is brighter. I plan on comparing the V7 to some of my other screen samples in the next few days. Can also confirm, no sparkle or shimmer with the new V7, just like the V6.




Wait ... I just got my V6 from you end of November 2019, was not aware a V7 was around the corner ..
Is there any swap/upgrade path?


Sent from my iPhone 11Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## Horta

Mike Garrett said:


> I have compared V7 with my V6 screen and you can clearly see that V7 is brighter. I plan on comparing the V7 to some of my other screen samples in the next few days. Can also confirm, no sparkle or shimmer with the new V7, just like the V6.


Mike

I have the V6 screen and love it. I too would love a sample of the V7 once you're ready for pre-orders.

Jerry


----------



## tnaik4

Hey @Lygren , ive been trying to email DreamScreen without any reply even more than a week later.
I m in the process of building my new home theatre and really thinking of going with speakers behind the screen route. I m a big gamer and would like to know how would the V6 look with a desktop PC @4k resolution while gaming, would it look less sharp from a normal seating distance? I know its not an issue for 4k movies but most if not all movies arent really true 4k when comapred to PC games.
I m between the V6 and DT screen ATpop which is rated at 1.2gain but not sure if it compromises somewhere else.
Ur help would be greatly appreciated.
I m located in Lebanon / Middle east so getting samples is a little of a hassle.

Thank you


----------



## Lygren

tnaik4 said:


> Hey @Lygren , ive been trying to email DreamScreen without any reply even more than a week later.
> I m in the process of building my new home theatre and really thinking of going with speakers behind the screen route. I m a big gamer and would like to know how would the V6 look with a desktop PC @4k resolution while gaming, would it look less sharp from a normal seating distance? I know its not an issue for 4k movies but most if not all movies arent really true 4k when comapred to PC games.
> I m between the V6 and DT screen ATpop which is rated at 1.2gain but not sure if it compromises somewhere else.
> Ur help would be greatly appreciated.
> I m located in Lebanon / Middle east so getting samples is a little of a hassle.
> 
> Thank you


Sorry about that @tnaik4, perhaps your e-mail has ended up in our spam? Please try tosend to info @ dreamscreen .no and we´ll get right back to you.

As for sharpness, the UltraWeave is highly so. Sharpness in terms of desktop resolution also relies heavily on the projection tech used, and also the stability of the convergence on the unit you end up using. Any 3-chip solution in terms of desktop sharpness, relies heavily on the convergence, for example. DLP is normally a tad bit sharper on a desktop than a 3-chip D-ILA or SXRD, but those XPR DLP´s do not pixelmap perfectly either, and true native 4K DLP does have a rather high price tag at the moment. So, as for the screen, you should be good choosing a v6, while for the projection tech being applied you should probably make sure you have a return option for the unit being installed in case you are particularly unlucky with the unit you happen to receive.

As for a 1.2 gain rated AT screen, I would certainly have asked the manufacturer for a proper benchmarked gain reference. We benchmark our ratings to the Studiotek 100 (non-AT), it is certainly a lot of values going around that has little to no relevance in reality. Also, if it is indeed 1.2 gain, you should also look out for speckle and other artefacts that effectively reduces peak resolution. Not saying that is necessarily the case with the fabric you are considering though, but it would be a good idea to do some due diligence in my opinion. As for sharpness, our patented use of a ultra-fine, randomised woven front layer really has a clear edge over most (all the we have come across) knitted type of fabrics, but I would advice that you sample both and test if for yourself.


----------



## tnaik4

Lygren said:


> tnaik4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey @Lygren , ive been trying to email DreamScreen without any reply even more than a week later.
> I m in the process of building my new home theatre and really thinking of going with speakers behind the screen route. I m a big gamer and would like to know how would the V6 look with a desktop PC @4k resolution while gaming, would it look less sharp from a normal seating distance? I know its not an issue for 4k movies but most if not all movies arent really true 4k when comapred to PC games.
> I m between the V6 and DT screen ATpop which is rated at 1.2gain but not sure if it compromises somewhere else.
> Ur help would be greatly appreciated.
> I m located in Lebanon / Middle east so getting samples is a little of a hassle.
> 
> Thank you
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry about that @tnaik4, perhaps your e-mail has ended up in our spam? Please try tosend to info @ dreamscreen .no and weÂ´ll get right back to you.
> 
> As for sharpness, the UltraWeave is highly so. Sharpness in terms of desktop resolution also relies heavily on the projection tech used, and also the stability of the convergence on the unit you end up using. Any 3-chip solution in terms of desktop sharpness, relies heavily on the convergence, for example. DLP is normally a tad bit sharper on a desktop than a 3-chip D-ILA or SXRD, but those XPR DLPÂ´s do not pixelmap perfectly either, and true native 4K DLP does have a rather high price tag at the moment. So, as for the screen, you should be good choosing a v6, while for the projection tech being applied you should probably make sure you have a return option for the unit being installed in case you are particularly unlucky with the unit you happen to receive.
> 
> As for a 1.2 gain rated AT screen, I would certainly have asked the manufacturer for a proper benchmarked gain reference. We benchmark our ratings to the Studiotek 100 (non-AT), it is certainly a lot of values going around that has little to no relevance in reality. Also, if it is indeed 1.2 gain, you should also look out for speckle and other artefacts that effectively reduces peak resolution. Not saying that is necessarily the case with the fabric you are considering though, but it would be a good idea to do some due diligence in my opinion. As for sharpness, our patented use of a ultra-fine, randomised woven front layer really has a clear edge over most (all the we have come across) knitted type of fabrics, but I would advice that you sample both and test if for yourself.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the helpful reply.

I do have 2 projectors , one is a high end DLP and one is JVC eshifters, i m asking about sharpness compared to normal screen material if it ll lose some that since its an AT screen, my DLP is a 5000lumens so no issue there but my JVC is 1800lumens and i use eco mode calonrated which knock it down to around 1000lumens, i m planning a complete bat cave and i really want rhe V6 , the only thing that is concerning me is the 0.7 gain , u say u benchmark it to studiotek st100 , so it is 70% the brightness of that screen ? M i thinking right ?
Also can u plz tell me how the image quality is compared to the st100 aside from sharpness.
I m intrigued by the V7 but i cant wait till the summer, my build will be finished in max of 2 months .
I will try to contact the email u suggested to ask about payment option and shipping.

Thank you


----------



## Lygren

tnaik4 said:


> Thanks for the helpful reply.
> 
> I do have 2 projectors , one is a high end DLP and one is JVC eshifters, i m asking about sharpness compared to normal screen material if it ll lose some that since its an AT screen, my DLP is a 5000lumens so no issue there but my JVC is 1800lumens and i use eco mode calonrated which knock it down to around 1000lumens, i m planning a complete bat cave and i really want rhe V6 , the only thing that is concerning me is the 0.7 gain , u say u benchmark it to studiotek st100 , so it is 70% the brightness of that screen ? M i thinking right ?
> Also can u plz tell me how the image quality is compared to the st100 aside from sharpness.
> I m intrigued by the V7 but i cant wait till the summer, my build will be finished in max of 2 months .
> I will try to contact the email u suggested to ask about payment option and shipping.
> 
> Thank you




The v6 has a gain rating of 0.8, not 0.7., meaning about 80% of what a Studiotek 100 reflects. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Lygren

As for the overall appearance of the v6 vs the Studiotek, the neutral D65 point of the v6 is within 98% of the ST100. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tnaik4

Lygren said:


> As for the overall appearance of the v6 vs the Studiotek, the neutral D65 point of the v6 is within 98% of the ST100.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That is great, i m trying to buy the 3mx2m since i want a 130inch 16:9 , i have an elite screen frame so ill attach it to that.

I m sorry to ask u here but is it possible to pay with a credit card ? We dont have paypal in my country and bank transfer is stopped at the moment, my only way to pay is direct credit card payment.


----------



## Lygren

tnaik4 said:


> That is great, i m trying to buy the 3mx2m since i want a 130inch 16:9 , i have an elite screen frame so ill attach it to that.
> 
> I m sorry to ask u here but is it possible to pay with a credit card ? We dont have paypal in my country and bank transfer is stopped at the moment, my only way to pay is direct credit card payment.


Hi @tnaik4. We´ll try to sort this out somehow, we have reverted to you by email now...


----------



## tnaik4

Lygren said:


> tnaik4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is great, i m trying to buy the 3mx2m since i want a 130inch 16:9 , i have an elite screen frame so ill attach it to that.
> 
> I m sorry to ask u here but is it possible to pay with a credit card ? We dont have paypal in my country and bank transfer is stopped at the moment, my only way to pay is direct credit card payment.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi @tnaik4. WeÂ´ll try to sort this out somehow, we have reverted to you by email now... /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
Click to expand...

 @Lygren i m not sure u are receiving my email , can u check plz so we can see if we can find a way to purchase the V6.

Thank you


----------



## giomania

I may have missed it, but I cannot find the recommended minimum placement distance for the speakers the screen surface.

Thanks in advance.

Mark


----------



## ereed

I'm looking at this screen and comparing with Seymour UF since my distance from screen will be at 9 feet. I plan on going 120 inch wide scope to replace my 120 inch diag 16x9 silver ticket non-AT screen. How does this screen look with sony 45es projector since I do not have 4k projector right now and holding off til it becomes more affordable. Basically I just got a tower center channel to match my mains and this puts me to get AT screen.


----------



## Lygren

giomania said:


> I may have missed it, but I cannot find the recommended minimum placement distance for the speakers the screen surface.
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> Mark


Due to the very high acoustical transparency of this fabric there is really no requirement in terms of distance except one should always make sure to place the fabric outside the excursion zone of the drivers. Especially for subs, the drivers can travel quite far... At trade shows alongside Alcons Audio, we normally use about 5cm distance from the drivers, and a little more if we place those huge 18" high excursion drivers behind the screen due to the excessive SPL and thus room for cone movement.


----------



## Lygren

ereed said:


> I'm looking at this screen and comparing with Seymour UF since my distance from screen will be at 9 feet. I plan on going 120 inch wide scope to replace my 120 inch diag 16x9 silver ticket non-AT screen. How does this screen look with sony 45es projector since I do not have 4k projector right now and holding off til it becomes more affordable. Basically I just got a tower center channel to match my mains and this puts me to get non-AT screen.


The v6 has been sold with a number of the Sony SXRD Full-HD projectors in the past and the combo works great. The high fill-rate of the HW45 makes it possible to sit quite close without being distracted by the pixel grid, making it a good match for the very finely textured v6. Good luck in choosing your new screen!


----------



## bobof

Has anyone gone from Screen Research Clearpix 4K to Dreamscreen V6? Opinions?

I like the Clearpix 4K I have at the moment except for "seeing the screen" a bit too much in sky scenes at my ~8ft seating distance. Interested to hear opinions from anyone who has made the move. 

Screen is a 16:9 Supreme ETC Mask with top / bottom masks. Anyone with direct experience of fitting the grip channels to the extrusion screen support sub-frame on this would be appreciated - I'd rather not take it off the wall to inspect first.


----------



## ereed

Lygren said:


> The v6 has been sold with a number of the Sony SXRD Full-HD projectors in the past and the combo works great. The high fill-rate of the HW45 makes it possible to sit quite close without being distracted by the pixel grid, making it a good match for the very finely textured v6. Good luck in choosing your new screen!


Is there a price list somewhere? Trying to get info on 120 inch wide scope with frame. I'm assuming I need to get ahold of Mike or Craig on here?


----------



## Horta

ereed said:


> Is there a price list somewhere? Trying to get info on 120 inch wide scope with frame. I'm assuming I need to get ahold of Mike or Craig on here?


FYI

I have a brand new 156”x 78” V6 material with the grip rails still in original packaging that I will be selling. I have decided not to use the V6 material and wait till the V7 comes out later this year. So if you're interested let me know. I have not yet put it in the classified section.

Jerry


----------



## ereed

Horta said:


> FYI
> 
> I have a brand new 156”x 78” V6 material with the grip rails still in original packaging that I will be selling. I have decided not to use the V6 material and wait till the V7 comes out later this year. So if you're interested let me know. I have not yet put it in the classified section.
> 
> Jerry


Didn't realized there was new version. I'm not sure if your screen would work since the widest I can do is 120 inch based on my projector throw with max zoom (14 ft). And I've looked at other projectors for 4k in the future and based on same throw it appears I really can't get any wider than 120 inch for most part.


----------



## Horta

ereed said:


> Didn't realized there was new version. I'm not sure if your screen would work since the widest I can do is 120 inch based on my projector throw with max zoom (14 ft). And I've looked at other projectors for 4k in the future and based on same throw it appears I really can't get any wider than 120 inch for most part.


Well what I have is the raw material which means you can cut it down to any size you want. I also have the grip rails to attach the material to your frame. I built my own frame custom sized to fit my room.


----------



## ereed

Horta said:


> Well what I have is the raw material which means you can cut it down to any size you want. I also have the grip rails to attach the material to your frame. I built my own frame custom sized to fit my room.


Ah that make sense. But yeah I will need new frame since my existing frame is 120 inch diag 16x9. I'm going scope so I wouldn't be able to use my existing frame. Are dream screen frame sold separately anywhere? I could do wood DIY but problem is I do not own any cutting tools. lol


----------



## giomania

ereed said:


> Ah that make sense. But yeah I will need new frame since my existing frame is 120 inch diag 16x9. I'm going scope so I wouldn't be able to use my existing frame. Are dream screen frame sold separately anywhere? I could do wood DIY but problem is I do not own any cutting tools. lol




AVScience sells nice frames and the V6 material so contact @Mike Garrett 

Mark


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## ereed

giomania said:


> AVScience sells nice frames and the V6 material so contact @Mike Garrett
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Do they sell vertical masking as well for 16x9 movies on scope screen with the frame?


----------



## kis3dhc

Received my V6 on last month , the order came quickly from Norway and obvious is late for changing to V7, however the new info says the gain is minute and audio loss a bit higher than V6. So I keep the fabric and go for the change from non-AT scope 117”curve to flat 120”AT.

The build is a new Scope screen, slightly larger in size wood frame with eyelets and hangars just like the old one, so no need to use with supplied grip rails and tool.
The frame takes a lot less time to make than the old curve one so allow me more time to focus on the wall for the center speakers as I’ve no intention to move the two side main tower speakers behind the screen as there’re limited space for both of them.
The baffle wall is insulated with acoustic fiberglass panels covered with fabric.

To experiment a better center stage with broader audio dispersion especially movies dialog before I hang the new Screen , I add a pair of desk top with identical drivers to the left and right side of the center speaker separate by about 20 inches, the source come from the AVR pre-out and connect to an amplifier that feed the output through a Monoprice speakers selector which will balance the output and impedance of the two added speakers as one. 

Now I’ve one decent size center speaker at ear level across the wall behind the Screen.

The speakers are set within ½” from the screen with the metal grilles removed as I think the Screen fabric is a good diffuser itself.
After I hang the Screen, first is to adjust the Projector images and the Panamorph Phoenix Lens to its best with No distortion ,then follow by the Pixels alignment, for the previous curve screen has caused some Chroma Abreaction on screen sides .
After the adjustment, I already notice the clarity and sharpness improve significantly from those grid patterns and those red and blue line are easier to converge than before.

Next is to run the AVR Audyssey for the sound system then play the early Dolby Atmos demo disc for the set up result. 
After the audio calibration I heard the two add on speakers sound a bit harsh and recheck the mounting shelf and realize the speakers are ported at the back, lucky I can access to the back wall with ease and cut out a small opening to vent the port.

So rerun the Audyssey again and this time the demo disc Trailers sound amazing as if the screen is alive with a giant speaker. 
The picture colors look a lot richer/sharper and brighter from side to side, the audio center clearly is louder and crisp like the music video Bailando is stunning.
Later, I watch a few chapters of my favorite BD collections to test out the dialog of some movies that usually are obscured by surround sound and as well test the picture quality for the 3D.
The result is so immersive and breathtaking as if I'm in a new HT. I hope I have made that change few years ago and now the V7 is here, however the V6 and Phoenix Lens have given a new life to the old projector usage , such that 4K upgrade is going to be postponed.


----------



## Horta

I have ordered a sample of the V7 material. Let's hope its an obvious difference. I love my V6 I just want more brightness.


----------



## blake

How does the Dreamscreen v7 material compare with Seymour Screen Excellence Enlightor Neo? Pro/cons of each ?

It seems the Enlightor Neo was the highest reviewed and most recommended screen fitting the bill for acoustic transparency and non-visible structure (ie ability to sit close- 10 feet away in my theater). 

However , it appears the Dreamscreen v7 gain is 0.93 and Enlightor Neo is only 0.80 ! Has anyone actually compared these screens with a light meter ?

For me, this is a significant difference. I plan to use a JVC RS4500 (without DCR lens) on a 2.40 screen that is 140” wide (152” diagonal). On high laser mode (2500 lumens calibrated), the difference in brightness between the two screens is 26.6 vs 30.4 fL !


----------



## howiee

Horta said:


> I have ordered a sample of the V7 material. Let's hope its an obvious difference. I love my V6 I just want more brightness.


Impressions when you get it pls!


----------



## giomania

blake said:


> How does the Dreamscreen v7 material compare with Seymour Screen Excellence Enlightor Neo? Pro/cons of each ?
> 
> It seems the Enlightor Neo was the highest reviewed and most recommended screen fitting the bill for acoustic transparency and non-visible structure (ie ability to sit close- 10 feet away in my theater).
> 
> However , it appears the Dreamscreen v7 gain is 0.93 and Enlightor Neo is only 0.80 ! Has anyone actually compared these screens with a light meter ?
> 
> For me, this is a significant difference. I plan to use a JVC RS4500 (without DCR lens) on a 2.40 screen that is 140” wide (152” diagonal). On high laser mode (2500 lumens calibrated), the difference in brightness between the two screens is 26.6 vs 30.4 fL !




You should order the free samples of each fabric. That is what I did: DreamScreen (V6, not V7), Seymour NEO and XD, and Screen Innovations Maestro.

The SI material arrives today, but so far I am impressed with the V6 material. No in-room at seating distance comparisons yet, since I was waiting for the SI material.

Mark


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## ereed

I also did receive my sample from Craig on AVS. Can't even see the weave from few feet and the black backing is nice. I did place the sample over my Klipsch horn/mid and it only reduced 2db at the most from 2khz to 20khz. Nice! 

As far as gain, its hard to tell from sample between my non-AT silver ticket screen. The V6 gain is said to be .8 but it was actually measured by someone to be .84. Looks very close to my 1.0 gain silver ticket in brightness except with less blue push. Also nice!

The only thing is when standing up close between the non-AT screen and the V6 sample the sample text has more fuzzy/soft/blurry edges which I think is normal for AT material due to weave. But you can't see it at 10 feet which is my MLP distance.

So I'm still debating the size. I like the idea that AVS sells frames as well. Do they offer vertical masking for scope screens for 16x9 content? Or can you buy those separately?


----------



## blake

ereed said:


> I also did receive my sample from Craig on AVS. Can't even see the weave from few feet and the black backing is nice. I did place the sample over my Klipsch horn/mid and it only reduced 2db at the most from 2khz to 20khz. Nice!
> 
> 
> 
> As far as gain, its hard to tell from sample between my non-AT silver ticket screen. The V6 gain is said to be .8 but it was actually measured by someone to be .84. Looks very close to my 1.0 gain silver ticket in brightness except with less blue push. Also nice!
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing is when standing up close between the non-AT screen and the V6 sample the sample text has more fuzzy/soft/blurry edges which I think is normal for AT material due to weave. But you can't see it at 10 feet which is my MLP distance.
> 
> 
> 
> So I'm still debating the size. I like the idea that AVS sells frames as well. Do they offer vertical masking for scope screens for 16x9 content? Or can you buy those separately?




They make a Dreamscreen MotoMask Pro to side mask 2.40 to 16:9. The problem is, the masks themselves are not acoustically transparent. 

Which is a huge issue since I am sure AT is a top reason people look at v6 and v7. So unless your L and R speakers are really crowded centrally this solution won’t work for an AT setup.


----------



## bobof

blake said:


> They make a Dreamscreen MotoMask Pro to side mask 2.40 to 16:9. The problem is, the masks themselves are not acoustically transparent.
> 
> Which is a huge issue since I am sure AT is a top reason people look at v6 and v7. So unless your L and R speakers are really crowded centrally this solution won’t work for an AT setup.


One man's blessing is another man's curse... 

I have AT electric masks on my Screen Research screen, and the fabric of the mask is very AT but isn't that dark at all, so the projector can still light up the fabric enough to make it stand out against a well treated screen wall. 

I wonder if an optimal can be to get the LR just outside of the screen edge for many screen sizes, and have properly dark masks.


----------



## ereed

blake said:


> They make a Dreamscreen MotoMask Pro to side mask 2.40 to 16:9. The problem is, the masks themselves are not acoustically transparent.
> 
> Which is a huge issue since I am sure AT is a top reason people look at v6 and v7. So unless your L and R speakers are really crowded centrally this solution won’t work for an AT setup.


Thanks. For some reason I assumed they had both at version with speaker grill and non-at with velvet like Seymour does with their options. Looks like I may have to build my own using dark black speaker grill cloth. 



bobof said:


> One man's blessing is another man's curse...
> 
> I have AT electric masks on my Screen Research screen, and the fabric of the mask is very AT but isn't that dark at all, so the projector can still light up the fabric enough to make it stand out against a well treated screen wall.
> 
> I wonder if an optimal can be to get the LR just outside of the screen edge for many screen sizes, and have properly dark masks.


I have seen different speaker grill cloth materials and some are more darker/less see through than others. That's what I'm gonna do when I build my own if I can't get AT masks from AVS or anyone to go with frame. May not be as dark as velvet, but should be darker than just the black border on screen itself.


----------



## Mike Garrett

Pictures are from iphone 7. Tried to take the individual screen sample pictures closer, but from the same distance away for each of them. First picture is all three together with V6 upper left, V7 upper right and Neo on bottom. Next are three pictures taken about 6" from each material. The surface of V6 and V7 looks the same. V7 is just brighter than V6, but also lower AT qualities. The Neo is laying on a black backing. As is V6 and V7 since they have a black backing built in. With image on screen, it is very clear that V7 has higher gain than Neo and V6, but it does come at a trade off in sound loss. To the eye, Neo and V6 looks the same gain.


----------



## giomania

To my eye, up close, it looks like NEO has more gain than V6, but I didn’t have the black backing behind the NEO. I haven’t checked in the theater at seated distance yet, as this requires an assistant. 

Mark


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Mike Garrett

giomania said:


> To my eye, up close, it looks like NEO has more gain than V6, but I didn’t have the black backing behind the NEO. I haven’t checked in the theater at seated distance yet, as this requires an assistant.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


You need to use black backing behind the Neo, otherwise you will be picking up some gain from the screen behind it.


----------



## giomania

giomania said:


> To my eye, up close, it looks like NEO has more gain than V6, but I didn’t have the black backing behind the NEO. I haven’t checked in the theater at seated distance yet, as this requires an assistant.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro





Mike Garrett said:


> You need to use black backing behind the Neo, otherwise you will be picking up some gain from the screen behind it.


Sorry gents, I made a mistake, the Seymour material I have is Center Stage UF, not the NEO. I placed a black cloth behind it, and while it is a little darker, it still looks like a higher gain (whiter) than the DreamScreen V6 material. We will see when I hold it up to the screen at seated distance.

That said, the DreamScreen looks totally smooth even close up.

Any advice on what kind of black backing material to use for the test? Does it matter?

Thanks.

Mark


----------



## DerekV333

Does anyone else have issues getting Seymour people to respond to emails. It's take them a week or so to respond if they respond. It's as if they don't want to sell. I think it might be better to order a Dreamweaver over here since I am at least a little closer. I tried both Chris and Jon and it's the same. 

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## blake

DerekV333 said:


> Does anyone else have issues getting Seymour people to respond to emails. It's take them a week or so to respond if they respond. It's as if they don't want to sell. I think it might be better to order a Dreamweaver over here since I am at least a little closer. I tried both Chris and Jon and it's the same.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk




Chris responded quickly to my last email , last week (within 24 hours). They are probably scrambling as the host of their website is having issues, such that their website has been down.


----------



## DerekV333

blake said:


> Chris responded quickly to my last email , last week (within 24 hours). They are probably scrambling as the host of their website is having issues, such that their website has been down.


Ok makes sense then. I will be patient for a bit. 

Thanka

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## DerekV333

Question

Dreamscreen has v5 material for an 154" diag 2.35:1 screen for 499 euros. Is it worth triple price to go with v6 or 7? Or should I just jump on this deal. It's the size I was going for. Seems right. Not sure if the XD from Seymour would be better also. 

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Geordon

How significant is the additional db loss in the V7 over V6, if I only have my center channel (and subs) behind the screen? Will this be easy enough to compensate with Audyssey and bumping up the gain for the center? My left and right channel speakers are already outside the screen.


----------



## frontside720

bobof said:


> One man's blessing is another man's curse...
> 
> 
> 
> I have AT electric masks on my Screen Research screen, and the fabric of the mask is very AT but isn't that dark at all, so the projector can still light up the fabric enough to make it stand out against a well treated screen wall.
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if an optimal can be to get the LR just outside of the screen edge for many screen sizes, and have properly dark masks.




That’s what I was afraid of. It doesn’t look dark in the photos.


----------



## Mike Garrett

bobof said:


> One man's blessing is another man's curse...
> 
> I have AT electric masks on my Screen Research screen, and the fabric of the mask is very AT but isn't that dark at all, so the projector can still light up the fabric enough to make it stand out against a well treated screen wall.
> 
> I wonder if an optimal can be to get the LR just outside of the screen edge for many screen sizes, and have properly dark masks.


Are you masking image or black bar? AT masking is not that dark, since it is usually an open weave. But I never see anything lighting up my masking, since I am masking unused screen or black bar, no image. I do have a scope screen, so I am mainly masking unused screen.


----------



## bobof

Mike Garrett said:


> Are you masking image or black bar? AT masking is not that dark, since it is usually an open weave. But I never see anything lighting up my masking, since I am masking unused screen or black bar, no image. I do have a scope screen, so I am mainly masking unused screen.


Masking is of black bar area of the projector, but it is projected black bar and not purely unused screen.
It is nearly never visible. However if the masks are closed and I have a fade to black, or hit hide, then the masked area peaks through.
It could be a combination of the screen fabric (Clearpix 4k) and the mask material.

It's not the end of the world, but still you can wish it were a bit better (given the price of these mask screens).


----------



## ereed

bobof said:


> Masking is of black bar area of the projector, but it is projected black bar and not purely unused screen.
> It is nearly never visible. However if the masks are closed and I have a fade to black, or hit hide, then the masked area peaks through.
> It could be a combination of the screen fabric (Clearpix 4k) and the mask material.
> 
> It's not the end of the world, but still you can wish it were a bit better (given the price of these mask screens).


Since its AT material I did a test with my current non-AT screen. I put on a movie and used one of my speaker grill and hold it up where black bars are. Not as dark as pure black velvet but much darker than the black bar itself. And my speaker grill cloth is almost see through that I use on Klipsch RP 280 speaker. They do make darker less see through speaker cloth out there such as GOM fabric and I'm confident it would be total black at the black bar area. That's my plan once I build AT masking panels.


----------



## bobof

ereed said:


> Since its AT material I did a test with my current non-AT screen. I put on a movie and used one of my speaker grill and hold it up where black bars are. Not as dark as pure black velvet but much darker than the black bar itself. And my speaker grill cloth is almost see through that I use on Klipsch RP 280 speaker. They do make darker less see through speaker cloth out there such as GOM fabric and I'm confident it would be total black at the black bar area. That's my plan once I build AT masking panels.


A movie is no use - you won't see the bars with a movie on the rest of the screen. it tends to happen when there is nothing else on screen. When there is nothing on screen you'll see the main screen area lit up by the projector a bit, and the masks lit up a tiny bit.


----------



## Horta

Friends

I received my sample of V7. last night I hung it up in front of my V6 screen and wow, what a difference. Yes, it is brighter. Its a very visible improvement in brightness. 

I did not take pictures sorry. But anyone who has an AT screen and feel then need more brightness this will be a visible upgrade from V6. I have had V6 material for almost 2-years now and loved it. I looked at all the other "affordable" AT materials woven perf..etc and they all were somewhat compromised in close seating. The V6 material can not be seen up close. The V7 is the same but visibly brighter. 

I did not test for sound db loss. That is not a priority for me because my room correction will adjust for the loss.

Now lets work on a pre-order power buy 

Jerry


----------



## Mike Garrett

Horta said:


> Friends
> 
> I received my sample of V7. last night I hung it up in front of my V6 screen and wow, what a difference. Yes, it is brighter. Its a very visible improvement in brightness.
> 
> I did not take pictures sorry. But anyone who has an AT screen and feel then need more brightness this will be a visible upgrade from V6. I have had V6 material for almost 2-years now and loved it. I looked at all the other "affordable" AT materials woven perf..etc and they all were somewhat compromised in close seating. The V6 material can not be seen up close. The V7 is the same but visibly brighter.
> 
> I did not test for sound db loss. That is not a priority for me because my room correction will adjust for the loss.
> 
> Now lets work on a pre-order power buy
> 
> Jerry


V6 is around 1.5db loss.
V7 is around 3.5db loss.


----------



## howiee

Horta said:


> Friends
> 
> I received my sample of V7. last night I hung it up in front of my V6 screen and wow, what a difference. Yes, it is brighter. Its a very visible improvement in brightness.
> 
> I did not take pictures sorry. But anyone who has an AT screen and feel then need more brightness this will be a visible upgrade from V6. I have had V6 material for almost 2-years now and loved it. I looked at all the other "affordable" AT materials woven perf..etc and they all were somewhat compromised in close seating. The V6 material can not be seen up close. The V7 is the same but visibly brighter.
> 
> I did not test for sound db loss. That is not a priority for me because my room correction will adjust for the loss.
> 
> Now lets work on a pre-order power buy
> 
> Jerry


Cheers for the impressions, Jerry! Artifact wise did you notice any amount of shimmering/sparkling?


----------



## Horta

howiee said:


> Cheers for the impressions, Jerry! Artifact wise did you notice any amount of shimmering/sparkling?


Howiee, zero artifacts or negative issues. It looked just as smooth, clear, and detailed as the V6 material beside it, but brighter. Exactly what we would expect.


----------



## howiee

Horta said:


> Howiee, zero artifacts or negative issues. It looked just as smooth, clear, and detailed as the V6 material beside it, but brighter. Exactly what we would expect.


Sounds like a winner!


----------



## Mike Garrett

Horta said:


> Howiee, zero artifacts or negative issues. It looked just as smooth, clear, and detailed as the V6 material beside it, but brighter. Exactly what we would expect.


Yes, only differences is V7 is brighter and 3.5db loss vs 1.5db loss for V6


----------



## blake

Mike Garrett said:


> Yes, only differences is V7 is brighter and 3.5db loss vs 1.5db loss for V6




Multiple reflective layer screens like the V7 are a bad idea in general , no ? 

You get cross-light pixel contamination, a reduction of detail and worse ANSI contrast. I would think the v7 picture quality, for these reasons, will be a major compromise compared to v6 and Seymour AT products !


----------



## Lygren

blake said:


> Multiple reflective layer screens like the V7 are a bad idea in general , no ?
> 
> You get cross-light pixel contamination, a reduction of detail and worse ANSI contrast. I would think the v7 picture quality, for these reasons, will be a major compromise compared to v6 and Seymour AT products !


That would certainly depend on the engineering, and our patented method is quite unique as such... I guess seeing is believing, but the overall principle would be to reduce the depth of each layer to a minimum, and also to use an array of densities that would not compromise sharpness. Sure, placing several layers of a knit, and especially a thicker knit, would reduce sharpness. Even one layered knit of many variants and types has internal cross contaminations. In sum, due to our custom design of each and every layer as well as the bonded nature of the fabric, the sharpness is not reduced on the v7 in comparison to the v6.


----------



## Lygren

...just took a couple of shots with my iPhone on the v7 installed in our main reference room. JVC DLA-N7 and a DCI lens. Not the perfect "proof of pudding" shots for sure, but the screen really appears very sharp. On the eye closeup shot I have placed a sheet of paper to the right.


----------



## Lygren

...well, the eye-image flipped around for some reason, so paper to the left...


----------



## Horta

blake said:


> Multiple reflective layer screens like the V7 are a bad idea in general , no ?
> 
> You get cross-light pixel contamination, a reduction of detail and worse ANSI contrast. I would think the v7 picture quality, for these reasons, will be a major compromise compared to v6 and Seymour AT products !


I can tell you from seeing it in person in my theater there is no visible compromise at all pictures quality-wise between the V6 and V7 other than a brighter image. I had the V7 hanging right in front of my V6 screen. I walked up to it and looked very close to that. The last thing I wish to do is make one part of the image better (brighter) but hut another (image detail).

I say just order a sample and see for your self. I ordered mine directly from Dreamscreen. I got it within a week.


----------



## Mike Garrett

blake said:


> Multiple reflective layer screens like the V7 are a bad idea in general , no ?
> 
> You get cross-light pixel contamination, a reduction of detail and worse ANSI contrast. I would think the v7 picture quality, for these reasons, will be a major compromise compared to v6 and Seymour AT products !


I own V6 and have a sample of V7. I can't tell a difference in sharpness between V6 and V7. Made you should get samples of Neo, V6 and V7 and compare, like I have.


----------



## bobof

I just got my sample of V6 in the mail and I must say I'm a little conflicted by it. I was expecting a slam dunk...
Current screen is a Screen Research Clearpix 4k AT woven on a 92" AT top /bottom masking screen.

Offering up the A3 size sample to the screen I note:

(+) Absolutely no visible weave structure (a big improvement over the Clearpix 4k, easily visible at my seating distance, that is my main annoyance and reason I'm looking at other surfaces)
(-) Observable reduction in edge sharpness on the V6 vs Clearpix 4k, which surprised me given postings from others (on abeit huge screens) about pixel grids becoming visible.
No significant difference in gain (will measure later)

I wonder if my comparatively small size (92", smaller than any screen Dreanscreen actually sell pre-made) is a factor here in the loss of sharpness? Am I being unreasonable in expecting it to be sharper? Or just dumb? I don't think I've ever seen unfavourable mention of the sharpness for this surface.

On balance, would I prefer the reduction in grain structure at a small sharpness penalty? Probably, but just leaves me with that little doubt.


----------



## ereed

bobof said:


> I just got my sample of V6 in the mail and I must say I'm a little conflicted by it. I was expecting a slam dunk...
> Current screen is a Screen Research Clearpix 4k AT woven on a 92" AT top /bottom masking screen.
> 
> Offering up the A3 size sample to the screen I note:
> 
> (+) Absolutely no visible weave structure (a big improvement over the Clearpix 4k, easily visible at my seating distance, that is my main annoyance and reason I'm looking at other surfaces)
> (-) Observable reduction in edge sharpness on the V6 vs Clearpix 4k, which surprised me given postings from others (on abeit huge screens) about pixel grids becoming visible.
> No significant difference in gain (will measure later)
> 
> I wonder if my comparatively small size (92", smaller than any screen Dreanscreen actually sell pre-made) is a factor here in the loss of sharpness? Am I being unreasonable in expecting it to be sharper? Or just dumb? I don't think I've ever seen unfavourable mention of the sharpness for this surface.
> 
> On balance, would I prefer the reduction in grain structure at a small sharpness penalty? Probably, but just leaves me with that little doubt.


Its possible the grain structure you're seeing is from your projector?


----------



## Horta

Hello friends. 

I hope all are safe and enjoying their theaters. Quick question, does anyone know of any updates on the availability of V7 material?

Thank you
Jerry


----------



## Lygren

Horta said:


> Hello friends.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope all are safe and enjoying their theaters. Quick question, does anyone know of any updates on the availability of V7 material?
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Jerry




Still under production @Horta...  We plan to be able to supply limited quantities by end May, but these production processes are always filled with challenges throughout. Just now we are adding fire retandancy to all layers, as well as TextileShield to a limited portion of the production. As soon as this is done the production will move to bonding, then inspection, another inspection and finally packaging.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TimHamburg

*Black backing inevitable?*

I'm searching for a new AT screen material to upgrade my DIY screen.
I've been using Centerstage XD material until now, but you can see the weave from my seating distance (3.4 meters) with 4k.
Dreamscreen seems like a very nice material to use...
but:
I use the screen in my living room.
It's a fixed frame screen that, when not in use, hangs under the ceiling 
with the white backside of the Centerstage XD facing down.
Do I understand this correctly, that Dreamscreen V6 or V7 the back layer is black
and that the Dreamscreen needs this layer?
Having a huge black rectangle hanging from our living room ceiling might be difficult
to explain to my girl-friend...

P.S.: @Lygren, thanks for your detailed analysis of the XY screen material (in another thread), that some 
people or so happy with. I really want to preserve the sound of my Klipsch Palladium speakers as well as possible.
And it was great to read about your measuring results.


----------



## Lygren

Hi Tim!

The black backing of the v6 / v7 is integrated, so unfortunately not possible to take out... The backing is also important in terms of performance.

As for the XY vs. v6 / v7, we have had new measurements made out using the XY (same "4K" version) as one of the references (the Studiotek 100 being the main reference). You can find the measurements at the bottom of this page: https://dreamscreen.no/collections/...n-ultraweave-v7-screen-fabric-2-3x3-5m-2-3x5m. For the measurement we did in the XY thread it was really just a very fast one, and not properly controlled and re-measured, and the calibrator that performed it actually forgot to add a black backing behind the XY while performing the measures at that time and as such adding reflection from the Studiotek 100 that was located behind it. Now, with several re-measurements, and with black backing added to make sure only the fabric reflection is measured, the XY measures in at a gain of 0.86 (MFG specified to 1.1) vs. 0.81 on the v6 (MFG specified to 0.80), i.e. about 6% more light than the v6, while the v7 measures out comparably 0.93 (MFG specified to 0.93), i.e. about 8% more than the XY while maintaining significantly better acoustical properties as well as integrated backing.




TimHamburg said:


> I'm searching for a new AT screen material to upgrade my DIY screen.
> I've been using Centerstage XD material until now, but you can see the weave from my seating distance (3.4 meters) with 4k.
> Dreamscreen seems like a very nice material to use...
> but:
> I use the screen in my living room.
> It's a fixed frame screen that, when not in use, hangs under the ceiling
> with the white backside of the Centerstage XD facing down.
> Do I understand this correctly, that Dreamscreen V6 or V7 the back layer is black
> and that the Dreamscreen needs this layer?
> Having a huge black rectangle hanging from our living room ceiling might be difficult
> to explain to my girl-friend...
> 
> P.S.: @Lygren, thanks for your detailed analysis of the XY screen material (in another thread), that some
> people or so happy with. I really want to preserve the sound of my Klipsch Palladium speakers as well as possible.
> And it was great to read about your measuring results.


----------



## jj-34

Hi Jon,

still no news about rollable screen material ? :angel:


----------



## jj-34

TimHamburg said:


> I'm searching for a new AT screen material to upgrade my DIY screen.
> I've been using Centerstage XD material until now, but you can see the weave from my seating distance (3.4 meters) with 4k.
> Dreamscreen seems like a very nice material to use...
> but:
> I use the screen in my living room.
> It's a fixed frame screen that, when not in use, hangs under the ceiling
> with the white backside of the Centerstage XD facing down.
> Do I understand this correctly, that Dreamscreen V6 or V7 the back layer is black
> and that the Dreamscreen needs this layer?
> Having a huge black rectangle hanging from our living room ceiling might be difficult
> to explain to my girl-friend...


You can add another visually nice layer on the backside by yourself, I once had this idea myself at some point to have a "disappearing" hinged fixed screen too .....


----------



## Lygren

jj-34 said:


> Hi Jon,
> 
> still no news about rollable screen material ? :angel:


The v7-production is now in the final stage (inspection and packaging) and will be finished by early next week. As soon as we´re able to ship the fabrics to some various distribution locations (some will be available for shipment quite shortly) we will start testing it for rollable performance. Can´t make any promises yet, but the increased rigidness of the v7-buildup makes it potentially more suited for a tensioned, rollable solution than the v6, which does require the stretch of a framed solution. I will let you know of the results of our tests as soon as they are ready!


----------



## TimHamburg

jj-34 said:


> You can add another visually nice layer on the backside by yourself, I once had this idea myself at some point to have a "disappearing" hinged fixed screen too .....


Yeah, you are right! I have been thinking along those lines myself.
Maybe I'll wait for the V7.


----------



## Lygren

For anyone interested, the v7 production is now finished and we are able to ship small quantities within 7-10 days (bulk shipments available for our EU distributors in 6-8 weeks). Please contact the distributor (https://dreamscreen.no/pages/distributors) or contact us directly if there is no distributor in your country.


----------



## bobof

Lygren said:


> For anyone interested, the v7 production is now finished and we are able to ship small quantities within 7-10 days (bulk shipments available for our EU distributors in 6-8 weeks). Please contact the distributor (https://dreamscreen.no/pages/distributors) or contact us directly if there is no distributor in your country.


Do you ever have smaller pieces than the standard 2.3x4m available?
For my tiny screen in my micro theatre (a 92" diagonal 16:9 Screen Research electric masking setup) even that size is enough to do my screen 3 times!


----------



## Lygren

bobof said:


> Do you ever have smaller pieces than the standard 2.3x4m available?
> 
> For my tiny screen in my micro theatre (a 92" diagonal 16:9 Screen Research electric masking setup) even that size is enough to do my screen 3 times!




Actually, during inspection some smaller pieces has been cut out and is currently available at reduced prices (very limited quantities), contact your distributor or us directly ([email protected]) for more info. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ericglo

Congrats Lygren. 

I was reading over the page and it looks like you have another great screen material.
https://dreamscreen.no/collections/...fabric-2-3x3-5m-2-3x5m?variant=31255619862622



What I really want to know is will Mike Garrett be moving from V6 to V7?


----------



## bobof

ereed said:


> Its possible the grain structure you're seeing is from your projector?


I never did answer this, sorry. 
The grain structure visible is definitely in the Clearpix 4k fabric from what I can see. If I find a part of the screen I notice the grain on in eg some bright sky scene, and put the Dreamscreen sample over that part of screen, the grain disappears. 

I think I got to the bottom of the apparent softer image on the Dreamscreen when viewed up close.
From what I can see, the slight softness is in the projector image, not resulting from the screen. Because the Dreamscreen has a much tighter weave, you see all the softness.
With the Clearpix 4k, the surface is rough and there are quite a lot of "holes" visible through the weave. This means not all the projected image softness is visible - some of it is replaced by darkness from the lack of weave in the position. This makes it hard to assess the sharpness up close to the screen when comparing.

From seated benefit of the lack of the grain structure in the Dreamscreen is a big advantage IMHO.


----------



## Horta

In case anyone is looking for V6 material I have placed a post in our classified section selling my brand new unused 180" diag material.


----------



## howiee

Hey guys. Has anyone received a screen with V7 material? I'd be very interested in some impressions if so.


----------



## Craig Peer

howiee said:


> Hey guys. Has anyone received a screen with V7 material? I'd be very interested in some impressions if so.


We've gotten samples but the full sized rolls coming to the US are on a slow boat from Norway..........


----------



## Horta

I installed V7 into my theater in June this year. It replaced the V6 I used since 2017. I have used the same JVC RS500 all this time. Just keep the bulb fresh.
I can say 100% without any doubt the V7 is totally worth the upgrade. I felt like I got a new much brighter projector.

My screen is scope 12 feet wide. Totally dedicated theater. I could not be happier with the image.

I have been meaning to write up a review and start a new thread but just been busy.

So to anyone who has V6 and wishes they had a brighter image I say GO FOR IT !!

As far sound, that you could lose 1.5 dB well I honestly could not tell at all. I did redo my Audyssey calibration but only after like a week or two. But I never felt like I had to because I heard any difference at all. I did it because I added two more back subs. 6 subs total know in my theater. 2 front 2 sides 2 back. 7.6.4 Atmos.

My room is a Dennis Erskine designed room with full sound isolation and acoustically tuned so the sound is important to me. I use Procella P6 for my front stage. Triad everywhere else. Two front subs are PSA I listen to movies at reference always. My theater is used for movies only.

The material is thicker and a bit harder to instal in the grip rails included. My hands were soo soar when I was done. But once I fired up the projector the first time the cost and trouble was 100% worth it.

So to say it I have ZERO regrets or negatives of going thru the expense and trouble of changing the screen.

My girlfriend who loves movies but can never really tell when I do an upgrade unless I point it out and really show her, well she noticed immediately and keeps mentioning how awesome the image is.


----------



## bdht

Horta said:


> My girlfriend who loves movies but can never really tell when I do an upgrade unless I point it out and really show her, well she noticed immediately and keeps mentioning how awesome the image is.


Such a rarity, so satisfying when it happens.


----------



## ARROW-AV

Horta said:


> I installed V7 into my theater in June this year. It replaced the V6 I used since 2017. I have used the same JVC RS500 all this time. Just keep the bulb fresh.
> I can say 100% without any doubt the V7 is totally worth the upgrade. I felt like I got a new much brighter projector.
> 
> My screen is scope 12 feet wide. Totally dedicated theater. I could not be happier with the image.
> 
> I have been meaning to write up a review and start a new thread but just been busy.
> 
> So to anyone who has V6 and wishes they had a brighter image I say GO FOR IT !!
> 
> As far sound, that you could lose 1.5 dB well I honestly could not tell at all. I did redo my Audyssey calibration but only after like a week or two. But I never felt like I had to because I heard any difference at all. I did it because I added two more back subs. 6 subs total know in my theater. 2 front 2 sides 2 back. 7.6.4 Atmos.
> 
> My room is a Dennis Erskine designed room with full sound isolation and acoustically tuned so the sound is important to me. I use Procella P6 for my front stage. Triad everywhere else. Two front subs are PSA I listen to movies at reference always. My theater is used for movies only.
> 
> The material is thicker and a bit harder to instal in the grip rails included. My hands were soo soar when I was done. But once I fired up the projector the first time the cost and trouble was 100% worth it.
> 
> So to say it I have ZERO regrets or negatives of going thru the expense and trouble of changing the screen.
> 
> My girlfriend who loves movies but can never really tell when I do an upgrade unless I point it out and really show her, well she noticed immediately and keeps mentioning how awesome the image is.


Thank you for the detailed feedback. And great feedback regarding the comparative audio performance. Good to hear! I have not had opportunity to comprehensively evaluate the performance of the V7 versus V6 material yet but intend on doing so soon. The material used for the front layer is the same however I am intrigued to know whether ot not aside from the image luminance you have noticed any other differences in video image quality? I appreciate that the primary USP of the V7 is a significantly higher gain (circa 0.93 vs 0.80) but I am curious, have you noticed any other differences with respect to comparative video performance? 🙂


----------



## Horta

I don’t have any of the V6 material around any longer, but the V7 material seems to have a smoother front. Honestly if I did not tell someone it’s accousticly transparent they would think it’s a traditional screen. The material when stretched looks smooth as silk. 

I don’t know if What I’m seeing is because the image is brighter, but I feel like I got a shaper image. I see the edges of letters just a bit more. Again I just feel like I upgraded my projector. I have been in this hobby for may decades and have had many projectors and screens. I never saw the texture of the V6 and the screen always just dissapered like it was not there. So now with the V7 the screen seems like it’s not there but I got a new brighter better sharper projectors. But we all know you can’t upgrade a JVC for $2,000. 

You say the front material is the same. Well when I had both materials side by side I can remember saying to myself the V7 looks more solid/denser/less poures. So that would lead to a sharper crisper image.


----------



## Mike Garrett

Horta said:


> I don’t have any of the V6 material around any longer, but the V7 material seems to have a smoother front. Honestly if I did not tell someone it’s accousticly transparent they would think it’s a traditional screen. The material when stretched looks smooth as silk.
> 
> I don’t know if What I’m seeing is because the image is brighter, but I feel like I got a shaper image. I see the edges of letters just a bit more. Again I just feel like I upgraded my projector. I have been in this hobby for may decades and have had many projectors and screens. I never saw the texture of the V6 and the screen always just dissapered like it was not there. So now with the V7 the screen seems like it’s not there but I got a new brighter better sharper projectors. But we all know you can’t upgrade a JVC for $2,000.
> 
> *You say the front material is the same. Well when I had both materials side by side I can remember saying to myself the V7 looks more solid/denser/less poures.* So that would lead to a sharper crisper image.


Denser yes, due to the additional layer, but smoothness is the same.


----------



## ARROW-AV

The front material is indeed the same, however, the denser 4-layer material might yield a difference video performance properties further to increasing the gain from 0.80 --> 0.93. Where there is less light penetration this might result in a corresponding slight increase in MTF and sharpness. I will be objectively evaluating and analyzing this as and when I have opportunity to do so, and it is good to hear that you are subjectively seeing an improvement with respect to the video performance in this regard. That said, it might be an optical illusion because a bright image that pops more can appear to be sharper when in fact it is actually not. We shall see. I will be sure to report back our findings accordingly as and when. Thank you for the feedback 🙂


----------



## blake

ARROW-AV said:


> Thank you for the detailed feedback. And great feedback regarding the comparative audio performance. Good to hear! I have not had opportunity to comprehensively evaluate the performance of the V7 versus V6 material yet but intend on doing so soon. The material used for the front layer is the same however I am intrigued to know whether ot not aside from the image luminance you have noticed any other differences in video image quality? I appreciate that the primary USP of the V7 is a significantly higher gain (circa 0.93 vs 0.80) but I am curious, have you noticed any other differences with respect to comparative video performance?


I would love to see a comparison as well between Seymour screen excellence Enlightor Neo (gain 0.80) and Dreamscreen v7 (0.93) !


----------



## Mike Garrett

blake said:


> I would love to see a comparison as well between Seymour screen excellence Enlightor Neo (gain 0.80) and Dreamscreen v7 (0.93) !


I fastened a sample of V7 and Neo to my V6 screen and just did a sighted comparison. V6 and V7 looked a little smoother to me. V7 was clearly brighter. Hard to judge if there was a sharpness difference, since brighter looks sharper. I would guess that all three would be very close in sharpness.


----------



## blake

Mike Garrett said:


> I fastened a sample of V7 and Neo to my V6 screen and just did a sighted comparison. V6 and V7 looked a little smoother to me. V7 was clearly brighter. Hard to judge if there was a sharpness difference, since brighter looks sharper. I would guess that all three would be very close in sharpness.


I wonder how big an issue multi-layer detail reduction will be in the V7. They use multiple reflective layers, which causes cross-light pixel contamination, a reduction of detail and worse ANSI contrast ratio. Shows up as white glow is black areas. Can someone with V7 test this, ex starfield scene


----------



## Mike Garrett

I could not tell a sharpness difference between single layer Neo and V6 or V7.


----------



## ARROW-AV

blake said:


> I wonder how big an issue multi-layer detail reduction will be in the V7. They use multiple reflective layers, which causes cross-light pixel contamination, a reduction of detail and worse ANSI contrast ratio. Shows up as white glow is black areas. Can someone with V7 test this, ex starfield scene


I see you've been speaking with Chris Seymour 😉

You need to be careful making statements like: _*"causes cross-light pixel contamination, a reduction of detail and worse ANSI contrast ratio. Shows up as white glow is black areas"*_ when you have not actually evaluated and objectively measured the respective materials in addition to carrying out subjective analysis. This is purely theoretical and whilst it might indeed be true in some instances you cannot say for sure that it will be the case in ALL instances. As such, it is an overgeneralization.

Also worth noting that Seymour claim a Gain of 1.0 with respect to the Enlightor Neo... Which obviously is not accurate... So where are you getting 0.80 Gain from? Has somebody measured this?

Incidently, I am not knocking the Seymour AV screen materials by the way. They are fantastic. I just think we need to be careful about making such statements without being properly substantiated.

As it happens I intend on carrying out a comprehensive evaluation of all of the following screen materials:

*DreamScreen UltraWeave v6 *
*DreamScreen UltraWeave v7  *
*DT Screens ATPop*
*DT Screens ATWow *
*Severtson SAT-4K *
*Severtson TAT-4K *
*Screen Excellence Enlightor NEO*
*Xtrem Screen ABSOLUTE White 0.95 Super Acoustic *
However, it will be while before I am able to do so.

I am doing so in order to determine which is the best performing material to use with respect to the Christie Eclipse projector 🙂


----------



## howiee

ARROW-AV said:


> As it happens I intend on carrying out a comprehensive evaluation of all of the following screen materials:
> 
> *DreamScreen UltraWeave v6 *
> *DreamScreen UltraWeave v7  *
> *DT Screens ATPop*
> *DT Screens ATWow *
> *Severtson SAT-4K *
> *Severtson TAT-4K *
> *Screen Excellence Enlightor NEO*
> *Xtrem Screen ABSOLUTE White 0.95 Super Acoustic *
> However, it will be while before I am able to do so.
> 
> I am doing so in order to determine which is the best performing material to use with respect to the Christie Eclipse projector 🙂


Good stuff! I'm looking forward to your findings.


----------



## blake

ARROW-AV said:


> Also worth noting that Seymour claim a Gain of 1.0 with respect to the Enlightor Neo... Which obviously is not accurate... So where are you getting 0.80 Gain from? Has somebody measured this?


Yes multi layer distortion is theoretical but makes sense. So if we are following laws of physics , theory probably should be considered true as a starting point UNTIL disproven by real world testing. 

Re gain : From the SSE website. Neo gain is 1.0 but un-benchmarked (real world) is 0.80: 











Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mike Garrett

blake said:


> Yes multi layer distortion is theoretical but makes sense. So if we are following laws of physics , theory probably should be considered true as a starting point UNTIL disproven by real world testing.
> 
> Re gain : From the SSE website. Neo gain is 1.0 but un-benchmarked (real world) is 0.80:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Except the same should have applied to my comparison of EN4K and V6. There was no loss of sharpness and detail that I could see and that was with me studying the screen from inches away. Those two screens are about the same gain, so was pretty fair comparison.


----------



## ARROW-AV

blake said:


> Yes multi layer distortion is theoretical but makes sense. So if we are following laws of physics , theory probably should be considered true as a starting point UNTIL disproven by real world testing.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Re gain : From the SSE website. Neo gain is 1.0 but un-benchmarked (real world) is 0.80:


If you wish to adopt a 'Guilty until proven innocent' stance then I am going to need to see a bit more scientific substantiation than *"Yes multi layer distortion is theoretical but makes sense". *Please can you therefore kindly post some research papers and/or objective measurements which confirm that in all instances projection screen materials being multi-layered _*"causes cross-light pixel contamination, a reduction of detail and worse ANSI contrast ratio. Shows up as white glow is black areas."*_ If you cannot do so then your statement is an overgeneralization and you will have to please excuse me adopting an 'Innocent until proven guily' stance. 😉

That said, please be reassured that I will take objective measurements including ANSI contrast measurements for all materials as well as assess comparative blooming artifacts; and will include the salient details in my report accordingly. Thank you for the gain measurements table by the way 🙂


----------



## ARROW-AV

Mike Garrett said:


> Except the same should have applied to my comparison of EN4K and V6. There was no loss of sharpness and detail that I could see and that was with me studying the screen from inches away. Those two screens are about the same gain, so was pretty fair comparison.


Thank you for taking the time to carry out this evaluation Mike. Your findings are certainly very encouraging 👍👍🙂

We will be carrying out our evaluation using a full RGB laser projector with high light output. This will be the ultimate 'torture test' in this regard. If the DreamScreen UltraWeave v6 and/or v7 materials do not produce blooming or loss of ANSI contrast in this instance then I think it's fair to say that it never will. We will also evaluate Laser Speckle as well, which the DreamScreen UltraWeave materials are reportedly resistant to as well, and comment on how all the different materials perform with respect to Laser Speckle accordingly.


----------



## Lygren

Blooming is mainly an issue when using several layers that are not perfectly tensioned, or preferably bonded like the UltraWeave. As for reduced sharpness due to the use of several layers, sure, it can certainly happen, it depends on layer type, density and thickness, which is also what we have designed the UltraWeaves to avoid, including the v7. I am glad @ARROW-AV is taking upon himself to do such a comparison test, I have full respect for other manufacturers philosophies and design profiles, but we do believe ours has a current edge on several areas. I guess it´s a combination of having been lucky, spending some 15 years of R&D (I don´t even have a count any more as to how many different layouts, samplings etc etc we have tested up through the years) as well as being enthusiasts ourselves, really wanting the best possible solution for our own setup as a bonus...


----------



## DerekV333

I don't know about anyone else but getting a response from the company is nonexistent. If you need support or have questions after purchase good luck!!!


----------



## Lygren

Hi Derek! We are responding on all inquiries quite rapidly, did you use [email protected]? If your emails end up in spam for some reason you could also post a message to us via Facebook.


----------



## Dirk44

Hello Derek, I ordered one of first V 6 Fabrics shipped to Germany and allways get direct responses all the time.
You can check out my 148" wide x 61" tall 18" deep curve (2.39 : 1 aspect ratio) my woven dreamscreen V6 AT Fabric and Sony VW 1100 + Isco 1.25 and Lumagen Pro for DTM, depends where you located of course.
best dirk


----------



## Lygren

We changed our servers and unfortunately some emails ended up in the new, more aggressive spam filter, we found two inquiries from Derek there, we are sorry about that... Responding quickly is really important to us!  Derek has finally gotten the response now, but he had already built his screen. The question was regarding the lengths of grip rails accommodating the v5-screen he purchased whereas he received a little less than the maximum size of the screen (we always include one package, 6 pieces x 2m), and in the case of the v5-fabric we had the rails shortened down a little to fit the package. We would make sure to include FULL SIZE or at least ask what size one plans to build moving forwards and also in terms of the spam filter we will inspect it more closely and / or try to reduce the filtering levels.


----------



## clausdk

My 182" wide V7 going up tuesday. 

Really looking forward to it as it really finishes the room.


----------



## dlinsley

Horta said:


> I don’t have any of the V6 material around any longer, but the V7 material seems to have a smoother front. Honestly if I did not tell someone it’s accousticly transparent they would think it’s a traditional screen. The material when stretched looks smooth as silk.


Have you noticed any audio differences, other than needing to adjust trims / recalibrate? Do you toe in L/R? I'm very happy with my v6, and my speakers are just a couple of inches behind the screen with L/R toed in maybe 20d. Seriously considering upgrading to v7.


----------



## Horta

I had zero audio differences. I literally could not tell a difference sound-wise. 

Now picture-wise, it was a very visible difference. I felt like I got a new bright projector. A very worthwhile upgrade in my opinion. Especially since you coming from V6 which I had for 2+ years. 

Now I see you have a newer, brighter projector than mine and a smaller screen. So maybe you don't feel like you want a brighter image? But if you do sometimes wish the picture was brighter, then go for it!


----------



## Mike Garrett

Horta said:


> I had zero audio differences. I literally could not tell a difference sound-wise.
> 
> Now picture-wise, it was a very visible difference. I felt like I got a new bright projector. A very worthwhile upgrade in my opinion. Especially since you coming from V6 which I had for 2+ years.
> 
> Now I see you have a newer, brighter projector than mine and a smaller screen. So maybe you don't feel like you want a brighter image? But if you do sometimes wish the picture was brighter, then go for it!


Yes, very clear brightness advantage for V7 over V6 or NEO.


----------



## clausdk

Finally installed my V7. 

It is increadibly smooth looking. I mean it looks like a solid screen almost. A small crease from being folded but should go away as it settles. Packaging is very good and clever.

Compared to my previous screen is look way more advanced. Can't wait till my nx9 arrives and I can finally light this huge screen up!!


----------



## howiee

clausdk said:


> Finally installed my V7.
> 
> It is increadibly smooth looking. I mean it looks like a solid screen almost. A small crease from being folded but should go away as it settles. Packaging is very good and clever.
> 
> Compared to my previous screen is look way more advanced. Can't wait till my nx9 arrives and I can finally light this huge screen up!!


Good stuff man! Get some screenshots up. What size/ratio did you go for?


----------



## clausdk

howiee said:


> Good stuff man! Get some screenshots up. What size/ratio did you go for?


2.4 actually. It is quite tall so decided to overscan top botton rather than left right for any content under 2.4 ratio. Screen is 182" wide by ~ 76" tall.

Theater is 98% finished just need final details and the projector to arrive


----------



## howiee

clausdk said:


> 2.4 actually. It is quite tall so decided to overscan top botton rather than left right for any content under 2.4 ratio. Screen is 182" wide by ~ 76" tall.
> 
> Theater is 98% finished just need final details and the projector to arrive
> 
> View attachment 3040895


Nice - that's going to be epic!


----------



## Mark Burton

Hi guys, it’s probably in here somewhere, but how does the V7 compare to Seymour UF? Anyone have experience with both?

thanks 👍🏻


----------



## clausdk

Mark Burton said:


> Hi guys, it’s probably in here somewhere, but how does the V7 compare to Seymour UF? Anyone have experience with both?
> 
> thanks 👍🏻


I had the UF prior to the V7. Can say more about differences in a couple of weeks.


----------



## Mark Burton

clausdk said:


> I had the UF prior to the V7. Can say more about differences in a couple of weeks.


did you for it to an existing Seymour frame? If so, how difficult was it?


----------



## clausdk

Mark Burton said:


> did you for it to an existing Seymour frame? If so, how difficult was it?


Custom wood frame. I simply stabled it. Worked fine.

I must say that the UF is a very simple material compared to the V7. Also the V7 seems a thousand times more durable. I am currently testing it for various stains haha, since I have small kids. I was however very pleased with the UF.

It looks completely smooth as well and a lot finer in the weave, the V7 that is.

The V7 has some creases still, but I hope they will settle otherwise I am advised to steam them away.

Also still putting some finishing touches on the theater itself, about 99% done. My JVC NX9 is delayed, but dealer is working on a temp PJ while I wait


----------



## Mark Burton

clausdk said:


> Custom wood frame. I simply stabled it. Worked fine.
> 
> I must say that the UF is a very simple material compared to the V7. Also the V7 seems a thousand times more durable. I am currently testing it for various stains haha, since I have small kids. I was however very pleased with the UF.
> 
> It looks completely smooth as well and a lot finer in the weave, the V7 that is.
> 
> The V7 has some creases still, but I hope they will settle otherwise I am advised to steam them away.
> 
> Also still putting some finishing touches on the theater itself, about 99% done. My JVC NX9 is delayed, but dealer is working on a temp PJ while I wait
> 
> View attachment 3048435


awesome 👏🏻


----------



## howiee

Are you guys still making the native 2.4:1 Motomask screens, Lygren? I'm leaning towards a 3.5m wide AT screen with v7 material for a future build and can't see this option on your website.


----------



## blake

howiee said:


> Are you guys still making the native 2.4:1 Motomask screens, Lygren? I'm leaning towards a 3.5m wide AT screen with v7 material for a future build and can't see this option on your website.


This was one of the reasons I went with a competitor product. Their motorized masking options aren’t great and the mask itself is not AT as far as I recall.


----------



## Lygren

howiee said:


> Are you guys still making the native 2.4:1 Motomask screens, Lygren? I'm leaning towards a 3.5m wide AT screen with v7 material for a future build and can't see this option on your website.


Our motorised masking venture is currently a bit on the limited side, but we are certainly working on improving this. For now, however, we only have 1-way masking systems with non-AT masking fabrics. For 2.40:1 setups that is certainly not always the easiest thing to accommodate, so we are planning to introduce a 2-way masking system with AT masking panels in due time. However, as we are currently placing all efforts on the v7 productions (a new production is now undergoing for a 3.2m wide "XXL" version), it might take a while.

If you do shoot us an email, howiee (info @ dreamscreen . no) we can at least check the availability and offer on a 3,5m wide / 149" diagonal 2.40:1 masking solution. This size is currently sold out, but we can probably make one custom for you if you are able to accommodate non-AT masking in your setup.


----------



## howiee

Lygren said:


> If you do shoot us an email, howiee (info @ dreamscreen . no) we can at least check the availability and offer on a 3,5m wide / 149" diagonal 2.40:1 masking solution. This size is currently sold out, but we can probably make one custom for you if you are able to accommodate non-AT masking in your setup.


Cheers for the offer, Lygren. It's appreciated. This is for a build that could be as far as 12 months away so i'm in no mad rush. Your v7 material is top of my list atm and the only thing stopping it from being a done deal is the question mark re. masking. Some AT panels would be enough.

tbh making some diy panels wouldn't be that hard, but i'd rather something easier and a bit more fancy so will be watching this space!


----------



## mtbdudex

ARROW-AV said:


> Thank you for taking the time to carry out this evaluation Mike. Your findings are certainly very encouraging
> 
> We will be carrying out our evaluation using a full RGB laser projector with high light output. This will be the ultimate 'torture test' in this regard. If the DreamScreen UltraWeave v6 and/or v7 materials do not produce blooming or loss of ANSI contrast in this instance then I think it's fair to say that it never will. We will also evaluate Laser Speckle as well, which the DreamScreen UltraWeave materials are reportedly resistant to as well, and comment on how all the different materials perform with respect to Laser Speckle accordingly.


10 weeks... What are the results from this test?


Sent from my iPhone 11Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## Lygren

howiee said:


> Cheers for the offer, Lygren. It's appreciated. This is for a build that could be as far as 12 months away so i'm in no mad rush. Your v7 material is top of my list atm and the only thing stopping it from being a done deal is the question mark re. masking. Some AT panels would be enough.
> 
> tbh making some diy panels wouldn't be that hard, but i'd rather something easier and a bit more fancy so will be watching this space!


Basic, magnetic AT panels using AT velvet fabric is at our drawing board already and will hopefully be presented in not too long...


----------



## howiee

Lygren said:


> Basic, magnetic AT panels using AT velvet fabric is at our drawing board already and will hopefully be presented in not too long...


Perfect. I've a hunch they will be popular!


----------



## catinthehat85

Just placed my order for a v7 screen can’t wait!! Going to be building my own masking panels but still not 100% decided on the method I’d use. Will see what the frame looks like when it arrives.


----------



## sdeepak

+ Sub'd.. I should be getting my samples soon. Is it possible to install gromet / eyelets in v7 material ?.. Any other easy and safe way to install this on a wood frame?


----------



## Lygren

We´ve had customers installing with grommet / eyelets, and it works fine, but a lot of customers are getting good results by simply stapling it on a wooden frame. We also have those grip rails that are very popular, especially if retrofitting an aluminum frame.


----------



## uscpsycho

Not sure if I should ask this question here or in the JVC projector thread. 

JVC projectors have built in adjustments based on the screen you are using. 
_"Reflective characteristics that differ from screen to screen are precisely analyzed and the projector selects the best mode to match the screen being used. With the appropriate mode selected, the picture displayed will always be precisely adjusted to ensure excellent image reproduction with natural colour balance."_

They have a table of all the available screens but DreamScreen is not included. My screen is the V7, is there a closest match that I should use from this list or is it better to just not specify which screen I'm using since DS is not listed?


----------



## Lygren

The UltraWeaves are very close to Studiotek 100 in terms of white point, but we will certainly try to get these fabrics included in their db. Still, it is always the best advice to do a calibration, as every unit is different. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mark Burton

Ordered some V7 to replace my seymour UF. Will be going straight on to my old Seymour frame which has magnetic masking panels. Will let you know how it goes 👍🏻


----------



## FLX90

Is there a way to make the V7 retractable?
It should be possible.

Have someone tried that?


----------



## Lygren

FLX90 said:


> Is there a way to make the V7 retractable?
> It should be possible.
> 
> Have someone tried that?


We´re working on a motorised, tensioned solution for the v7, and our ongoing tests indicate this fabric is well suited for the purpose as it is a bit heavier and more rigid than the v6. We are undergoing a long-term test now in terms of stability over time, and if this test is successful we would move to production.


----------



## FLX90

Hey,
That's great news!
I'm looking forward to that.


----------



## Lygren

FLX90 said:


> Hey,
> That's great news!
> I'm looking forward to that.


The indications after several weeks of testing is quite positive for the v7 in a tensioned solution. Actually it seems to behave even better than many PVC-based screens (regular non-AT plastic screens) as there are no indications of horizontal lines after being rolled up for extended periods of time. We are currently testing it on a medium sized Ø7cm tube (the tube being used to roll the fabric onto within the cassette), and as this seems to be sufficient, the cassettes would not have to be overly large either.

We will continue our tests, but thus far it looks promising in terms of a future v7-based tensioned solution.


----------



## Mark Burton

Absolutely amazed at the video quality of the V7. Have used both non-AT material and AT material in the past, the clarity of the image is now as good as any non-AT material I have ever used, even from a few CM’s away, you can’t see any weave at all. Brightness is also much improved compared to my old material.
In terms of the acoustical qualities, I must admit, when I first saw it, I really questioned how it could let any sound through it due to the tightness of the weave and the thickness of the material. However, after testing on REW, it gave virtually the same response to my entire LCR that I had experienced previously, with a material that is a lot less dense and had 20% less brightness.
Very impressed with the material, this watching on a Sony 4k Laser Projector. 👏🏻


----------



## Craig Peer

Lygren said:


> The indications after several weeks of testing is quite positive for the v7 in a tensioned solution. Actually it seems to behave even better than many PVC-based screens (regular non-AT plastic screens) as there are no indications of horizontal lines after being rolled up for extended periods of time. We are currently testing it on a medium sized Ø7cm tube (the tube being used to roll the fabric onto within the cassette), and as this seems to be sufficient, the cassettes would not have to be overly large either.
> 
> We will continue our tests, but thus far it looks promising in terms of a future v7-based tensioned solution.
> 
> View attachment 3076424


That’s great news! Looks good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FLX90

Hey @Lygren,

From your website I can see two options for V7:

2.3 x 4 m --> 180" 16:9?
2.3 x 5.3 m --> 220" 21:9?

Will the motorised version be available in 100" 16:9?
And does it also have the black backing?


----------



## Lygren

FLX90 said:


> Hey @Lygren,
> 
> From your website I can see two options for V7:
> 
> 2.3 x 4 m --> 180" 16:9?
> 2.3 x 5.3 m --> 220" 21:9?
> 
> Will the motorised version be available in 100" 16:9?
> And does it also have the black backing?


These are our current available bulk sizes, and we realise they are both a bit excessive for a 100" frame. We do have a pending production ongoing for a smaller (and larger) version, but we are still early in the process, meaning it will be several months before a smaller size is available. We might have a few, smaller cuts available of the v7 though, please feel free to contact us via our webpages for more information.


----------



## Mark Burton

A couple of weeks of having my new screen I am absolutely blown away by the image.

Paired with a Sony 760, lumagen and cinema edition zappiti in a dedicated velvet covered batcave, I can honestly say I’ve never seen an image even close to what I’m getting now.

Razor sharp, incredible brightness and amazing uniformity. It looks absolutely stunning.

IMAX scenes of Dunkirk and Interstellar are out of this world crazy good!

A brilliant upgrade!

(velvet curtains pull over the acoustic panels)


----------



## Hawks07

Mark Burton said:


> A couple of weeks of having my new screen I am absolutely blown away by the image.
> 
> Paired with a Sony 760, lumagen and cinema edition zappiti in a dedicated velvet covered batcave, I can honestly say I’ve never seen an image even close to what I’m getting now.
> 
> Razor sharp, incredible brightness and amazing uniformity. It looks absolutely stunning.
> 
> IMAX scenes of Dunkirk and Interstellar are out of this world crazy good!
> 
> A brilliant upgrade!
> 
> (velvet curtains pull over the acoustic panels)
> View attachment 3078580


Very nice, what screen did you upgrade from?


----------



## Mark Burton

Hawks07 said:


> Very nice, what screen did you upgrade from?


Thanks.

seymour UF


----------



## Sam Ash

Lygren said:


> The indications after several weeks of testing is quite positive for the v7 in a tensioned solution. Actually it seems to behave even better than many PVC-based screens (regular non-AT plastic screens) as there are no indications of horizontal lines after being rolled up for extended periods of time. We are currently testing it on a medium sized Ø7cm tube (the tube being used to roll the fabric onto within the cassette), and as this seems to be sufficient, the cassettes would not have to be overly large either.
> 
> We will continue our tests, but thus far it looks promising in terms of a future v7-based tensioned solution.
> 
> View attachment 3076424



Very interesting indeed


----------



## OKGeek

Lygren said:


> The UltraWeaves are very close to Studiotek 100 in terms of white point, but we will certainly try to get these fabrics included in their db. Still, it is always the best advice to do a calibration, as every unit is different.


Hi, Jon. Any idea on timeline re jvc db inclusion?


----------



## ARROW-AV

I am pleased to report that tomorrow I will be upgrading my circa 15' wide 2.065:1 aspect ratio automated 4-way masking Display Technologies projection screen by upgrading the screen material to DreamScreen UltraWeave V7.

It is replacing the DT Screens ATWow acoustically transparent screen material.

This upgrade is long overdue and I consider to be an all-important necessity in advance of commencing my in-depth scientific analysis and review of both the Sony GTZ380 4K HDR laser projector and the Christie Griffyn HC 4K HDR RGB laser projector.

The screen material is due to be delivered tomorrow so I am hoping to have it fitted by close of play tomorrow!


----------



## ddgdl

Fantastic choice nigel- I have the v6 and love it


----------



## ARROW-AV

Upgrade complete! 😊


----------



## ddgdl

Nice! Enjoy!


----------



## Chuck Miller

Please share your thoughts on the material when you've had a chance to fully evaluate it.


----------



## Sam Ash

Nice upgrade Nigel, it will certainly be nice to have your views once you test it.


----------



## masayoshi_louis

Lygren said:


> The indications after several weeks of testing is quite positive for the v7 in a tensioned solution. Actually it seems to behave even better than many PVC-based screens (regular non-AT plastic screens) as there are no indications of horizontal lines after being rolled up for extended periods of time. We are currently testing it on a medium sized Ø7cm tube (the tube being used to roll the fabric onto within the cassette), and as this seems to be sufficient, the cassettes would not have to be overly large either.
> 
> We will continue our tests, but thus far it looks promising in terms of a future v7-based tensioned solution.
> 
> View attachment 3076424


I am actually looking for a retractable Dreamscreen. Just got a sample of v7 and it looks great.
However, I still prefer the v6 due to its superb AT performance. Unfortunately, the local dealer only offers the v7 option.
According to your previous post in 2017, shouldn't it be possible to make a retractable v6?


----------



## Lygren

masayoshi_louis said:


> I am actually looking for a retractable Dreamscreen. Just got a sample of v7 and it looks great.
> However, I still prefer the v6 due to its superb AT performance. Unfortunately, the local dealer only offers the v7 option.
> According to your previous post in 2017, shouldn't it be possible to make a retractable v6?


Yes, unfortunately that is accurate, the v7 fabric is a bit heavier and as such, more suited a retractable solution.


----------



## blake

Lygren said:


> Yes, unfortunately that is accurate, the v7 fabric is a bit heavier and as such, more suited a retractable solution.


So v7 is only retractable / roll up screen?
Not fixed tension?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## masayoshi_louis

Lygren said:


> Yes, unfortunately that is accurate, the v7 fabric is a bit heavier and as such, more suited a retractable solution.


Thanks. Does it mean that there will never be a retractable v6?


----------



## Lygren

masayoshi_louis said:


> Thanks. Does it mean that there will never be a retractable v6?


The v6 is just not a good match for a retractable version, it requires too much stretch for such a solution, so those solutions will be using the v7.


----------



## Lygren

blake said:


> So v7 is only retractable / roll up screen?
> Not fixed tension?


Yes, we are certainly using tension on the v7 motorised retractable screens, and it works very well as far as our tests thus far has confirmed (and we are still testing the stability over time), but as for the v6-fabric, the tension-requirements supersedes what we are able to do with those tension rods.


----------



## brazensol

What is the best way to get a sample of the V7 material?


----------



## mtbdudex

ARROW-AV said:


> I am pleased to report that tomorrow I will be upgrading my circa 15' wide 2.065:1 aspect ratio automated 4-way masking Display Technologies projection screen by upgrading the screen material to DreamScreen UltraWeave V7.
> 
> It is replacing the DT Screens ATWow acoustically transparent screen material.
> 
> This upgrade is long overdue and I consider to be an all-important necessity in advance of commencing my in-depth scientific analysis and review of both the Sony GTZ380 4K HDR laser projector and the Christie Griffyn HC 4K HDR RGB laser projector.
> 
> The screen material is due to be delivered tomorrow so I am hoping to have it fitted by close of play tomorrow!



Has anyone taken over for this man and his report ?

https://www.accucalav.com/wp-content/uploads/accucal_front_projection_screen_report.pdf











Sent from my iPhone 11Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## Lygren

brazensol said:


> What is the best way to get a sample of the V7 material?


We have had some issues with our current batch of samples due to an unfortunate storage incident at the warehouse, but as soon as our pending production is ready we´ll be sure to have samples available. Our US distributor AVScience.com might have some available (they are the only ones with any v7 left in the world at the moment...), so you could ask them, and if not, we´ll supply them with fresh samples ASAP.


----------



## brazensol

Lygren said:


> We have had some issues with our current batch of samples due to an unfortunate storage incident at the warehouse, but as soon as our pending production is ready we´ll be sure to have samples available. Our US distributor AVScience.com might have some available (they are the only ones with any v7 left in the world at the moment...), so you could ask them, and if not, we´ll supply them with fresh samples ASAP.


Thank you!


----------



## Dirk44

Wow Nigel congrats , what upgrade screen side
After 4,5 Years i'm still happy with my 12" curved V6 an 12 feet wide screen!

Upgrade to V7 is no way for me, I would like to have the higher gain, but finance and acoustical reasons are bigger points against it.
@Lygren I saw the screen
at your new upcoming Democinema in Oslo will get a V8 fabric. Can you share same further informations here ?

Best Dirk


----------



## ddgdl

Dirk44 said:


> Wow Nigel congrats , what upgrade screen side
> After 4,5 Years i'm still happy with my 12" curved V6 an 12 feet wide screen!
> 
> Upgrade to V7 is no way for me, I would like to have the higher gain, but finance and acoustical reasons are bigger points against it.
> @Lygren I saw the screen
> at your new upcoming Democinema in Oslo will get a V8 fabric. Can you share same further informations here ?
> 
> Best Dirk


v8! do tell!


----------



## Lygren

Dirk44 said:


> Wow Nigel congrats , what upgrade screen side
> After 4,5 Years i'm still happy with my 12" curved V6 an 12 feet wide screen!
> 
> Upgrade to V7 is no way for me, I would like to have the higher gain, but finance and acoustical reasons are bigger points against it.
> @Lygren I saw the screen
> at your new upcoming Democinema in Oslo will get a V8 fabric. Can you share same further informations here ?
> 
> Best Dirk


Hi Dirk! Unfortunately, a v8 is far off if ever becoming a reality. The only way of increasing gain further than the v7 already has is going beyond a unity gain base. We have tested several solutions where this is possible, but never without too many visual drawbacks such as more visible structure and speckle. For a dark cinema room, my opinion is that unity gain, unless we can figure out how to move beyond without causing visible artefacts, is the best possible solution. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dirk44

thank you Lygren, maybe it was a typo in a fb post, or wishful thinking


----------



## jj-34

Lygren said:


> The indications after several weeks of testing is quite positive for the v7 in a tensioned solution. Actually it seems to behave even better than many PVC-based screens (regular non-AT plastic screens) as there are no indications of horizontal lines after being rolled up for extended periods of time. We are currently testing it on a medium sized Ø7cm tube (the tube being used to roll the fabric onto within the cassette), and as this seems to be sufficient, the cassettes would not have to be overly large either.
> 
> We will continue our tests, but thus far it looks promising in terms of a future v7-based tensioned solution.
> 
> View attachment 3076424


Hi Jon,
I stumbled over this thread and it reminded me of my last year or so inquiries about a rollable V6 fabric to replace my current acoustic one. I then abandoned the idea due to the V6 not being tensioned.
But wow now I see that this may well be back on my drawing board sooner or later ...... 
JJ.


----------



## stephenbr

I'd like the v7 in a motorised retractable screen - it is available to order?


----------



## Lygren

stephenbr said:


> I'd like the v7 in a motorised retractable screen - it is available to order?


We have done a test production for a tensioned screen using the v7, but we need to do some adjustments. We need to increase the diameter of the core somewhat, increase the weight a little on the bottom bar and run a small test batch again, hopefully in not too long. We have just finished a new v7 screen-fabric production now (we are currently completely sold out on v7 due to excessive demand), and as soon as this is shipped to the factory we will run a new test. I will let you guys know as soon as we´re ready to report on the new test batch.


----------



## stephenbr

That's great news - thanks for the update. I'll stay tuned and hold off ordering anything from someone else.


----------



## DMILANI

Looking at a V7 scope screen as a possible upgrade. How soon will new product be available in the US?


----------



## Lygren

DMILANI said:


> Looking at a V7 scope screen as a possible upgrade. How soon will new product be available in the US?


You should ask our US distributor AVScience about availability (www.avscience.com), they might still have some v7 left in stock at their end. We are trying our best to replenish their stocks regardless though (they have a new shipment on order from us already), but it will still take some time to arrive.


----------



## Lygren

Just in, the DreamScreen UltraWeave won the Residential Systems Best of Show at CEDIA 2021: 2021 CEDIA Expo Best of Show Winners Announced - Residential Systems. Thanks a lot Residential Systems! I guess we will have to prove next year in person that we were worth their award (we were not present at CEDIA this year due to covid), but still a nice attention towards what we believe is of critical importance moving forward - securing the best possible reflected image while allowing the audio to pass efficiently.


----------



## audioguy

A couple of questions. I currenly have a Seymour screen (and frame) and am using their XD materail. Do you only sell the screen material (V7) and not the frame. Since my current screen is attached via grommets, and apparenlty yours does not come that way, how would I use my exising frame? If I were to build a wooden frame to which I could staple your materail, how do I build such a frame so that it would not wobble/warp/bend, etc. Apparenty AVS if a dealer so I will check with them on getting a sample (and pricing).


----------



## Lygren

audioguy said:


> A couple of questions. I currenly have a Seymour screen (and frame) and am using their XD materail. Do you only sell the screen material (V7) and not the frame. Since my current screen is attached via grommets, and apparenlty yours does not come that way, how would I use my exising frame? If I were to build a wooden frame to which I could staple your materail, how do I build such a frame so that it would not wobble/warp/bend, etc. Apparenty AVS if a dealer so I will check with them on getting a sample (and pricing).


We use what we call "universal" grip rails as they fit just about all frames in terms of retrofitting them with the UltraWeave. We recommend using a strong construction adhesive such as Gorilla Glue (or any other, just not the cheapest / lowest end stuff), to attach the rails. Leave it for 24 hours or so to make sure it has healed sufficiently and then tuck the fabric. We do have a custom tool (DREAMSCREEN ULTRATUCKER PRO TOOL FOR INSTALLING ULTRAWEAVE – DreamScreen) available as well, but you can also use the FabricMate tool. Using the rails you would secure a very tight install. AVS should have rails available, and hopefully also some v7 fabric too. If not, we are doing our best to replenish them ASAP.


----------



## Lygren

Also, we do sell frames for sure, and AVS also carries compatible frames of their own, so give them a call and I´m sure they´ll come up with some good options for you.


----------



## audioguy

Lygren said:


> We use what we call "universal" grip rails as they fit just about all frames in terms of retrofitting them with the UltraWeave. We recommend using a strong construction adhesive such as Gorilla Glue (or any other, just not the cheapest / lowest end stuff), to attach the rails. Leave it for 24 hours or so to make sure it has healed sufficiently and then tuck the fabric. We do have a custom tool (DREAMSCREEN ULTRATUCKER PRO TOOL FOR INSTALLING ULTRAWEAVE – DreamScreen) available as well, but you can also use the FabricMate tool. Using the rails you would secure a very tight install. AVS should have rails available, and hopefully also some v7 fabric too. If not, we are doing our best to replenish them ASAP.


Thanks. if I can use my frame (via your rails) then I won't need another frame. I have requested a sample of the screen material from AVS.


----------



## dlinsley

Lygren said:


> We do have a custom tool (DREAMSCREEN ULTRATUCKER PRO TOOL FOR INSTALLING ULTRAWEAVE – DreamScreen) available as well, but you can also use the FabricMate tool.


My AVS frame came with a Betty Crocker pizza cutter  It's a little bendy, but worked.


----------



## DMILANI

I just spoke with Mike at AVS yesterday and they changed how the V7 material attaches to their frame. This is what he said: 

_The aluminum frame has a channel. The fabric is placed over this channel and then a plastic bar (cleat) is pressed into the channel locking the fabric in place._


----------



## DMILANI

I just spoke with Mike at AVS yesterday and they changed how the V7 material attaches to their frame. This is what he said: 

_The aluminum frame has a channel. The fabric is placed over this channel and then a plastic bar (cleat) is pressed into the channel locking the fabric in place._


----------



## DMILANI

Sorry for double post.


----------



## ddgdl

That sounds like a much better system than what v6 was. I used that betty crocker pizza cutter to push it into a channel, and accidentally cut a part of the material at one point!


----------



## Lygren

We just installed a fixed 4,8m wide v7 screen yesterday into one of our new demonstration rooms, and our "grip rail" system works really great, took us less than 30 minutes to tuck the entire screen. The trick is to run the tucker tool through the rails once prior to installation to expand the slot a little bit. I am sure, however, the AVScience compatible system works fine too though, what matters is to get the fabric properly stretched over the frame, and as long as that is the case even DIY solutions using staples would work fine with the flexible UltraWeave-materials. Having the black backing integrated also reduces the tucking time significantly, as you would only install one single fabric layer.






































​


----------



## steambreadbaby

Dear Lygren,

I would like to purchase a V6 screen. just wondering if I could use the method show in the video to attach screen to wooden frame. Can I pierce the edge of the screen and tie it to the frame with straps? Will that damage the material? Thanks a lot!


----------



## audioguy

^^ Love to watch clever people.


----------



## Lygren

steambreadbaby said:


> Dear Lygren,
> 
> I would like to purchase a V6 screen. just wondering if I could use the method show in the video to attach screen to wooden frame. Can I pierce the edge of the screen and tie it to the frame with straps? Will that damage the material? Thanks a lot!


The UltraWeave materials should work fine also with this type of installation. We have had many pro installs using this type of strap system. As with any material you would want to maintain as stabile stretch as possible, but due to the randomised structure of the surface, the material is not as sensitive as other non-randomised fabrics. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## steambreadbaby

Lygren said:


> The UltraWeave materials should work fine also with this type of installation. We have had many pro installs using this type of strap system. As with any material you would want to maintain as stabile stretch as possible, but due to the randomised structure of the surface, the material is not as sensitive as other non-randomised fabrics.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


thanks! That’s very helpful!


----------



## krholmberg

Lygren said:


> Hi Dirk! Unfortunately, a v8 is far off if ever becoming a reality. The only way of increasing gain further than the v7 already has is going beyond a unity gain base. We have tested several solutions where this is possible, but never without too many visual drawbacks such as more visible structure and speckle. For a dark cinema room, my opinion is that unity gain, unless we can figure out how to move beyond without causing visible artefacts, is the best possible solution.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Any chance you have an update on v8? Also, have you considered trying an ambient light rejecting alternative? I'd love to get a positive gain AT screen with moderate ambient light rejecting characteristics that mas minimal artifacts. I realize that is extremely difficult to produce but I'm hopeful you can 👍.


----------



## krholmberg

How will the v7 material do if absolute light control isn't possible? I do not have bat cave. The ceiling is beige and the screen is in an open loft. I installed floor to ceiling blackout curtains that helped a LOT, but light is able to get around the edges of the curtains. I plan to upgrade my PJ to an RS3100 and my goal is to go with a 120" wide scope screen. I currently have a JVC RS1 and an Elite CineGrey 5D 16:9 screen that is about 93" wide (103" diag). I originally had a Designer White DIY screen. Covering that material with the 5D material helped massively with daytime viewing, but that was before I installed the curtains. Either way I'm really looking forward to the update. Pics of my HT are attached. I appreciate any advice.


----------



## Lygren

krholmberg said:


> How will the v7 material do if absolute light control isn't possible?


Hi krholmberg. The v7 will behave like any unity gain type of screen, meaning it will reflect back from the ceiling etc. The advantage of unity gain is its wide viewing angle and potential for "invisible" projection reflection, meaning it behaves like a perfect reflector whereas positive gain and / or ALR-screens reduces viewing angles, potentially (and most often) adds sheen, speckle and so on.

That said, depending a little on the location of the screen in relations to the ceiling, adding a blacked out portion of some 1-2m will greatly reduce the back-reflections to the screen. Since you also have curtains available on each side I do believe there is potential for a good result with a unity gain type of screen in your room given that the ceiling is somewhat treated.

It should also be noted that even with a white ceiling, as long as the screen is located at some distance, like in your case, even using a unity gain / white screen would not automatically mean it looks terrible. Sure, contrast will be lowered, due to the back-spill of light, but not necessarily to the degree that it look worse than a positive gain / ALR-counterpart that has it´s own set of issues - that in my opinion most often are far worse than somewhat lowered contrast in a "medium treated" room such as yours.


----------



## Lygren

krholmberg said:


> Any chance you have an update on v8? Also, have you considered trying an ambient light rejecting alternative? I'd love to get a positive gain AT screen with moderate ambient light rejecting characteristics that mas minimal artifacts. I realize that is extremely difficult to produce but I'm hopeful you can 👍.


No v8 as of yet. Combining weave / knits and ALR capabilities has proven hard, we have been thinking about how to solve that for some years now. Adding a thin, microperfed top layered film with micro slats integrated is potentially doable, but requires machinery not currently available to us. Also, it would reduce AT regardless. Knitting the weave so that is works in an ALR fashion (i.e. front layer woven with a micro slat array integrated) is also potentially doable, but that too requires equipment not currently available in the sizes we require. So, we have been thinking and trying for sure, as I do agree that ALR as a concept is a good one. However, all our attempts, even though at least one of the two examples above has proven theoretically doable, is causing significant reduction of image- and audio quality. 

So, until further notice, the v7 is as stellar as it gets in terms of our hi-tech / patented AT fabrics. The combination of an almost invisible pattern, high AT qualities and a very practical-to-use type of fabric is the best we can do as of right now, and will remain so for at least some time, although we certainly won´t stop trying to improve...!


----------



## audioguy

krholmberg said:


> I currently have a JVC RS1


Wow! Going from an RS1 to the RS3100 will be a gigantic upgrade and improvement in every way. Love to see the look on your face when you fire the new PJ up. 

Nice room.


----------



## Richard Berg

Any plans to bring the MotoMask frames to the U.S.? Or have you seen any good examples of DIY masking added to the AVS frame?

I only need 1-way CIW (top or bottom).


----------



## dlinsley

Richard Berg said:


> Any plans to bring the MotoMask frames to the U.S.? Or have you seen any good examples of DIY masking added to the AVS frame?
> 
> I only need 1-way CIW (top or bottom).


I would need 2-way CIH, but likely using this DIY(139) SMX (Simple Masking eXperience) screen build/recipe | AVS Forum. I currently have an AVS frame 120" wide v6 screen, but thinking of also moving to 130" wide v7 at the same time as building the masking. The extra 16% brightness is about the same as the area increase. Of course, the material would now be front loaded on the masking frame (probably via Fabricmate 1/4" or 1/2" track) instead of on the back of the velvet frame.


----------



## Hawks07

Richard Berg said:


> Any plans to bring the MotoMask frames to the U.S.? Or have you seen any good examples of DIY masking added to the AVS frame?
> 
> I only need 1-way CIW (top or bottom).


I pretty much followed this thread for top motorized masking: DIY top masking It’s very easy.


----------



## Technology3456

What weave screen would be best for RGB laser projection? Dreamscreen V6, Dreamscren V7, Seymour Neo or other Seymour weave screen, or Severtson SAT? I want to use the screen with a 1080p RGB laser DLP projector.


----------



## Lygren

For the most recent hi-end RGB projectors like Christie Eclipse, the use of multiple bands has seemingly removed the entire RGB-speckle issue. As such, the speckle would not be enhanced further by a screen that is not completely matte. However, the v6 and v7, being completely matte, does work very well with RGB lasers that does have some speckle too - as the screen fabric is of such matte nature that the issue would not be pronounced any more than it needs to. Both the v6 and v7 are identical in terms of being superbly matte as they both use the same primary reflective layer. One of our clients, w. mayer from Germany, made the following statement using a v6 screen on his 6P RGB laser. He has also commented that the v6 reduced the visible speckle to a non-issue compared to his previous Harkness 1.0 gain PVC screen.

_This picture of the v6 is taken by one of our valued customers in Germany, w.mayer, depicting the extremely sharp reflection from his Barco Thor15.000 lumen 6P 3-chip DLP laser (please click the image for a larger, 4K, preview). Quote from w.mayer; 

“When you have a fabric screen that not show the pixels this material soften the picture to some degree for sure. This v6 material was the first that not do it! It act like a conventional screen so it not decrease at all details and sharpness and not soften the picture. This is “to my knowledge” the first fabric that act this way! WOW!”








_


----------



## Lygren

Richard Berg said:


> Any plans to bring the MotoMask frames to the U.S.? Or have you seen any good examples of DIY masking added to the AVS frame?
> 
> I only need 1-way CIW (top or bottom).


We already have 1-way top masking frames available with 110V / US power, AVScience should be able to quote you an offer.

You can find available sizes here: DREAMSCREEN MOTOMASK PRO 16:9 NATIVE 109″-212″ – DreamScreen


----------



## Richard Berg

Quite a jump from 129" to 158"  My ideal would be halfway between.

Thankfully the SMX recipe above looks like a great option!


----------



## Lygren

Richard Berg said:


> Quite a jump from 129" to 158"  My ideal would be halfway between.
> 
> Thankfully the SMX recipe above looks like a great option!


We are working on a new 2-way version as well and will probably add more sizes once that becomes available. We are also working on an "auto-mask" system, basically sniffing the exact image proportions via HDMI and adjusting the panels automatically to hit the aspect 100%. Both are "under development", so will take quite some time. We did place most of our resources towards the development of the actual fabrics at first, but moving forward we will strive to improve our selection of framing for sure.


----------



## Technology3456

Lygren said:


> For the most recent hi-end RGB projectors like Christie Eclipse, the use of multiple bands has seemingly removed the entire RGB-speckle issue. As such, the speckle would not be enhanced further by a screen that is not completely matte. However, the v6 and v7, being completely matte, does work very well with RGB lasers that does have some speckle too - as the screen fabric is of such matte nature that the issue would not be pronounced any more than it needs to. Both the v6 and v7 are identical in terms of being superbly matte as they both use the same primary reflective layer. One of our clients, w. mayer from Germany, made the following statement using a v6 screen on his 6P RGB laser. He has also commented that the v6 reduced the visible speckle to a non-issue compared to his previous Harkness 1.0 gain PVC screen.
> 
> _This picture of the v6 is taken by one of our valued customers in Germany, w.mayer, depicting the extremely sharp reflection from his Barco Thor15.000 lumen 6P 3-chip DLP laser (please click the image for a larger, 4K, preview). Quote from w.mayer;
> 
> “When you have a fabric screen that not show the pixels this material soften the picture to some degree for sure. This v6 material was the first that not do it! It act like a conventional screen so it not decrease at all details and sharpness and not soften the picture. This is “to my knowledge” the first fabric that act this way! WOW!”
> 
> View attachment 3178455
> _


I have heard this from other people as well, that the Dreamscreen is great at this. My only question is whether the Seymour or Severtson versions are equally as great, or even greater, at this? Has anyone taken an RGB laser projector with the screen samples from these three companies and compared to see which works the best with it? Or is Dreamscreen the only clear choice for this, not those two?


----------



## Lygren

Technology3456 said:


> I have heard this from other people as well, that the Dreamscreen is great at this. My only question is whether the Seymour or Severtson versions are equally as great, or even greater, at this? Has anyone taken an RGB laser projector with the screen samples from these three companies and compared to see which works the best with it? Or is Dreamscreen the only clear choice for this, not those two?


I´d suggest you ask @*PixelPusher15 *to include a "sheen test" as part of his ongoing review of a number of different screen materials. Normally, a non-coated thread such as what we are using for the UltraWeaves has the potential (but certainly not in every case) to be made very matte. Coated PVC-based threads tend to produce more sheen as the plastic is difficult to get sufficiently matte. Regardless, it would be better to leave these conclusions to objective third-parties, I am hardly neutral in this matter...


----------



## Technology3456

Lygren said:


> I´d suggest you ask @*PixelPusher15 *to include a "sheen test" as part of his ongoing review of a number of different screen materials. Normally, a non-coated thread such as what we are using for the UltraWeaves has the potential (but certainly not in every case) to be made very matte. Coated PVC-based threads tend to produce more sheen as the plastic is difficult to get sufficiently matte. Regardless, it would be better to leave these conclusions to objective third-parties, I am hardly neutral in this matter...


To clarify, is Dreamscreen the only manufacturer making a non-coated thread weave screen? When people mention weave screens by other manufacturers like the ones I mentioned, yes they are weave, but they are weave made of PVC? Am I understanding correctly? If so, maybe that answers the question...  But still either way it would be great to have them measured.


----------



## Lygren

Technology3456 said:


> To clarify, is Dreamscreen the only manufacturer making a non-coated thread weave screen? When people mention weave screens by other manufacturers like the ones I mentioned, yes they are weave, but they are weave made of PVC? Am I understanding correctly? If so, maybe that answers the question...  But still either way it would be great to have them measured. @PixelPusher15, if you have time, would it be possible for you to include a "sheen test" as part of your screen reviews? I am specifically wondering about RGB laser speckle on different materials. Supposedly the materials that show the least are weave screens, so it would be great to have comparisons of the top weave screens when it comes to this metric. The ones I have heard of are Seymour NEO, Severtson SAT, and Dreamscreen V6 and V7.


No, we are not the only ones using non-coated threads, I guess the NEO does as well, but not sure about that SAT, have never seen it. As for adding "sheen" as a parameter for the @PixelPusher15 test, I would suggest you ask him via PM or in his test thread: 25 Acoustically Transparent Screen Materials Reviewed....


----------



## DMILANI

Just ordered a 2.37:1, 120” wide scope screen from Mike at A/V Science. Very excited! Will be putting 3 new Triad Bronze LCRs directly behind the screen.


----------



## Lygren

DMILANI said:


> Just ordered a 2.37:1, 120” wide scope screen from Mike at A/V Science. Very excited! Will be putting 3 new Triad Bronze LCRs directly behind the screen.


Congrats @DMILANI! It would be great if you would post some pics and / or your feedback on how you experience it in your setup once the screen is installed.


----------



## DMILANI

Yes I will.


----------



## hokeyplyr48

Yes +1 to this as that is the exact setup I’m looking to do in the somewhat distant future. Have triads for everything else so curious how the LCRs sound.


----------



## Jdmag26

After soooo much reading in this and other forums, I find out about these Dreamscream options. They seem to be the answer to my prayers. Who sells them here in the U.S.? Do they also sell fixes frames or only the fabric rolls? If the latter, how do you attach them to a frame?


----------



## Lygren

In the US, you can contact avscience.com, they can also provide various framing.


----------



## DMILANI

I just installed my new V7 screen over the weekend, and I'm loving the picture quality so far. But I am disappointed in what I see are three "pulls" of the threads on the screen. Now I haven't yet noticed these while watching a movie, but certainly with the lights up I can see them even from my front row (about 12 feet away). Given the price of this material, I was hoping for closer to perfection. Is there anything I can do to "shave" off the small threads to make them less obvious? I'm nervous I will make it worse, so not sure what to do, or how to do it. The one single pull by itself is close to the center of the screen, unfortunately. I was super careful putting the material onto the frame, and had a new plastic drop cloth down on the floor as added protection for the "white" side as I stretch the fabric onto the frame.

I haven't reached out to Mike at AVS yet, but wanted to see what Lygren had to say first.



















Thanks,
Dino


----------



## Lygren

Sorry about that @DMINALI. I certainly understand your frustration, and normally we would see these issues and sort them out at inspection. However, those slightly loose threads are normally easy to address, get ahold of a nail cutter, move as close into the loose thread as possible and cut them off. Due to the randomised structure of the fabric, it should normally not be possible to see anything being off once this is done. Sorry again for your trouble!


----------



## DMILANI

Thanks, I didn’t think of using a nail clipper. I’ll try later and will report back.


----------



## DMILANI

Happy to report the nail clipper trick completely removed those threads and now everything looks great. Thanks again for the tip Lygren!

I’m loving this new scope screen. And with my new Triad Bronze LCRs behind it, my soundstage is much improved too. Big upgrade for my theater!


----------



## Lygren

Very glad to hear that!! Hope you find time to enjoy your new screen a lot forward, at least one small ‘bonus’ from covid is that the blockbusters seems to be lined up now moving forward! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Richard Berg

Is the level of blurring that @PixelPusher15 observed typical?

Internally, do you have any resolution specs that you try to meet?


----------



## Technology3456

Richard Berg said:


> Is the level of blurring that @PixelPusher15 observed typical?
> 
> Internally, do you have any resolution specs that you try to meet?
> 
> View attachment 3190928


Can you please clarify what is on the left and what is on the right? Thanks!


----------



## PixelPusher15

Technology3456 said:


> Can you please clarify what is on the left and what is on the right? Thanks!


Standard white printer paper.


----------



## Technology3456

PixelPusher15 said:


> Standard white printer paper.


Which side is which? Is the idea that the resolution of the screen is worse than standard white paper? And is standard white paper considered a good screen surface to begin with or is it already very poor?


----------



## PixelPusher15

Technology3456 said:


> Which side is which? Is the idea that the resolution of the screen is worse than standard white paper? And is standard white paper considered a good screen surface to begin with or is it already very poor?


White paper is on the left and is about as sharp as it gets.


----------



## Lygren

This is a pic I just shot with my iPhone on the v7 (this was using a pretty sharp projector though, a VPL-GTZ380 4K native Sony), and we also have some other sharpness shots on our website, one from mr Wolfgang Mayer on his Barco Thor 6P laser. As for why PixelPusher15s results does not seem to match those I am not quite sure of. If I am to try to understand the physics of this, what we did see on our v5, which also used quite a fine top layer, but a somewhat coarser second layer, the sharpness appeared better at some distance. This is caused by the initial layer needing some "breathing space" before appearing properly. This phenomena, however, is reduced on the v6 and v7 as the secondary (and third on the v7) is more dense.

Regardless, it would probably be better that owners of the v6 and v7 chime out in regards to perceived sharpness. I use the v6 at my own cinema at the moment, and we have the v7 showcased in several setups at our HQ, and they all really appear sharp and solid. We have been developing these materials for some 15 years, and the sum of qualities these fabrics produce is really pleasing as far as I am concerned. Sure, I am not objective in stating this, but I am indeed an AV -nerd as well, and if it had been looking like mr PixelPusher15 states I would hardly be able to use this material myself, honestly speaking... 

On a more general note, a coarser woven screen fabric might look sharper on account of a number of reasons. The threads do produce sharpness, even excessive as such if being too shiny, but at the same time, the far more coarse surface might have other issues. I did see PixelPusher stated there was no obvious weave pattern @8ft distance on his fabric of choice, the XY 4K, but I certainly do not agree on that statement. Perhaps on a small sample he might be accurate, but as soon as you run a full screen, at least to my eyes, the coarse surface will appear quite visible. Specifically on pans and tilts, I would see the fabric remaining static while the camera is moving. I guess the issue of visible pattern is somewhat subjective though, so for others it might not be an issue.

On the below pic, the XY is located on the lower right and the v7 on the top, and although some might regard these as almost identical, for me at least, this accounts for quite a difference. Again, whether one is bothered by the structure or not would depend on the eye that sees, but reviewing this without using a full screen to compare is really hard in my opinion.


----------



## PixelPusher15

Lygren said:


> This is a pic I just shot with my iPhone on the v7 (this was using a pretty sharp projector though, a VPL-GTZ380 4K native Sony), and we also have some other sharpness shots on our website, one from mr Wolfgang Mayer on his Barco Thor 6P laser. As for why PixelPusher15s results does not seem to match those I am not quite sure of. If I am to try to understand the physics of this, what we did see on our v5, which also used quite a fine top layer, but a somewhat coarser second layer, the sharpness appeared better at some distance. This is caused by the initial layer needing some "breathing space" before appearing properly. This phenomena is reduced on the v6 and v7 as the secondary (and third on the v7) is more dense.
> 
> Regardless, it would probably be better that owners of the v6 and v7 chime out in regards to perceived sharpness. I use the v6 at my own cinema at the moment, and we have the v7 showcased in several setups at our HQ, and they all really appear sharp and solid. We have been developing these materials for some 15 years, and the sum of qualities these fabrics produce is really pleasing as far as I am concerned. Sure, I am not objective in stating this, but I am indeed an AV -nerd as well, and if it had been looking like mr PixelPusher15 states I would hardly be able to use this material myself, honestly speaking...
> 
> On a more general note, a coarser woven screen fabric might look sharper on account of a number of reasons. The threads do produce sharpness, even excessive as such if being too shiny, but at the same time, the far more coarse surface might have other issues. I did see PixelPusher stated there was no obvious weave pattern @8ft distance on his fabric of choice, the XY 4K, but I certainly do not agree on that statement. Perhaps on a small sample he might be accurate, but as soon as you run a full screen, at least to my eyes, the coarse surface will appear quite visible. Specifically on pans and tilts, I would see the fabric remaining static while the camera is moving. I guess the issue of visible pattern is somewhat subjective though, so for others it might not be an issue.
> 
> On the below pic, the XY is located on the lower right and the v7 on the top, and although some might regard these as almost identical, for me at least, this accounts for quite a difference. Again, whether one is bothered by the structure or not would depend on the eye that sees, but reviewing this without using a full screen to compare is really hard in my opinion.
> 
> View attachment 3190975
> 
> 
> View attachment 3190996


Hey Jon, I'm not really going to push back on what you said since we clearly just have some different experiences. Here is a shot I just took with the DreamScreen v7/Doubled up paper/XY SoundMax 4K:









I think it does show a little sharper here than the photo I posted in my report (and which was shared here) but so does the paper. Relationally, I think it's the same. I want to make clear that I specifically labeled the categories in my report as OK/Good/Better/Best for a reason. It is not me saying the OK materials are bad, they're just not as good as the others. I find it interesting that you brought up visible texture since I did see a pretty decent correlation between smoothness and sharpness. With the exception of the micro-perf screens (since they have a different sorta problem), typically the smoother the material (lack of visible texture) the softer the image got. So there is a tradeoff here. I personally picked the XY SoundMax 4K because from reasonable seating distances I literally _cannot_ see the texture. I have installed the screen and I'm currently watching panning Apple TV screen saver snow shots. These would expose texture more than any other footage. These type of panning videos are what I tested each screen with. My limited sample size of extrapolating a letter-sized screen material to a 123" screen currently holds water. (Sample size spandex to full screen, and sample size XY 4K to full screen) 

Ok, I just stared, hard, at the whitest panning sections from 8', and yes, I can see a faint bit of texture. But I literally have to strain my eyes to see it. I've got well-adjusted glasses that give me 20/20 vision as an FYI. My wife checked too and she couldn't (she has slightly worse than 20/20 and not glasses). 

Whether these pixel peeping images and their differences are noticeable at seating distances is a bit of a question. I feel like I see a difference switching from spandex (which I rated the same as the DreamScreen v7 on sharpness) to this XY 4K material. But, perceived sharpness is closely related to brightness when there isn't a comparable benchmark nearby. The XY 4K and v7 are both brighter than spandex so that would be my guess as to the biggest difference in a perceived sharpness increase.

Would you be able to take a pixel-peeping level photo as I did above of the difference between paper and the full-size v7 material so we can do an apple to apple comparison? We both have the same pattern so you should be able to snap a photo of the same section too.


----------



## Hawks07

PixelPusher15 said:


> Hey Jon, I'm not really going to push back on what you said since we clearly just have some different experiences. Here is a shot I just took with the DreamScreen v7/Doubled up paper/XY SoundMax 4K:
> View attachment 3191025
> 
> 
> I think it does show a little sharper here than the photo I posted in my report (and which was shared here) but so does the paper. Relationally, I think it's the same. I want to make clear that I specifically labeled the categories in my report as OK/Good/Better/Best for a reason. It is not me saying the OK materials are bad, they're just not as good as the others. I find it interesting that you brought up visible texture since I did see a pretty decent correlation between smoothness and sharpness. With the exception of the micro-perf screens (since they have a different sorta problem), typically the smoother the material (lack of visible texture) the softer the image got. So there is a tradeoff here. I personally picked the XY SoundMax 4K because from reasonable seating distances I literally _cannot_ see the texture. I have installed the screen and I'm currently watching panning Apple TV screen saver snow shots. These would expose texture more than any other footage. These type of panning videos are what I tested each screen with. My limited sample size of extrapolating a letter-sized screen material to a 123" screen currently holds water. (Sample size spandex to full screen, and sample size XY 4K to full screen)
> 
> Ok, I just stared, hard, at the whitest panning sections from 8', and yes, I can see a faint bit of texture. But I literally have to strain my eyes to see it. I've got well-adjusted glasses that give me 20/20 vision as an FYI. My wife checked too and she couldn't (she has slightly worse than 20/20 and not glasses).
> 
> Whether these pixel peeping images and their differences are noticeable at seating distances is a bit of a question. I feel like I see a difference switching from spandex (which I rated the same as the DreamScreen v7 on sharpness) to this XY 4K material. But, perceived sharpness is closely related to brightness when there isn't a comparable benchmark nearby. The XY 4K and v7 are both brighter than spandex so that would be my guess as to the biggest difference in a perceived sharpness increase.
> 
> Would you be able to take a pixel-peeping level photo as I did above of the difference between paper and the full-size v7 material so we can do an apple to apple comparison? We both have the same pattern so you should be able to snap a photo of the same section too.


What seating distance are you at?
I haven't seen the XY screen yet but from 12' back I simply cannot see any texture at all on the V7 sample I have.
Are you saying you saw more texture on the V7 than the XY?
Just interested in what distance you saw texture on the V7.


----------



## PixelPusher15

Hawks07 said:


> What seating distance are you at?
> I haven't seen the XY screen yet but from 12' back I simply cannot see any texture at all on the V7 sample I have.
> Are you saying you saw more texture on the V7 than the XY?
> Just interested in what distance you saw texture on the V7.


Oh no. There’s zero texture on the v7. Technically the smoothest material I tested is spandex but the difference is so insignificant they’re in practicality the same.


----------



## Hawks07

PixelPusher15 said:


> Oh no. There’s zero texture on the v7. Technically the smoothest material I tested is spandex but the difference is so insignificant they’re in practicality the same.


Got it, so are you saying the XY is sharper than the V7 while maintaining the same smoothness and brightness and that's why you chose it?
I had my mind set on the V7 but might be tempted to look at samples of the XY if I can get them.


----------



## PixelPusher15

Hawks07 said:


> Got it, so are you saying the XY is sharper than the V7 while maintaining the same smoothness and brightness and that's why you chose it?
> I had my mind set on the V7 but might be tempted to look at samples of the XY if I can get them.


Yep, to me the XY and v7 are very similar but the XY is sharper while the v7 is smoother if you are close enough to see the difference. A big reason why I personally picked the XY 4K is its price for the material only is very reasonable.


----------



## Hawks07

PixelPusher15 said:


> Yep, to me the XY and v7 are very similar but the XY is sharper while the v7 is smoother if you are close enough to see the difference. A big reason why I personally picked the XY 4K is its price for the material only is very reasonable.


Great, thanks for this. What is your seating distance?


----------



## bobof

PixelPusher15 said:


> Yep, to me the XY and v7 are very similar but the XY is sharper while the v7 is smoother if you are close enough to see the difference. A big reason why I personally picked the XY 4K is its price for the material only is very reasonable.


The XY looks a similar style material to my Scrern Research Clearpix 4k, which I guess likely means some texture during some panning scenes?


----------



## howiee

Hawks07 said:


> Great, thanks for this. What is your seating distance?


Pixel mentions it being between 11'-12' on his website. Which is good to know as I'm looking at around the same distance


----------



## PixelPusher15

howiee said:


> Pixel mentions it being between 11'-12' on his website. Which is good to know as I'm looking at around the same distance


Yup, I’m pretty much at 12’. 11’ if a movie has me at the edge of my seat


----------



## Lygren

OK, so attached are some directly comparisons on the v7 vs. the XY (or generally most regularly 1-layered woven screens). In my opinion, one has to differentiate between the sharpness produced by the actual structure of the fabric, as this in reality is not always sharpness per se, it might also be structural noise. The fact that the coarse pattern of the threads generate what appears as sharpness, this is not necessarily actual image information, but he rigidity of the surface appearing as such. You might not regard this as an issue, thinking "as long as I cannot see it at my seating distance, it is not a problem"; however this is not necessarily so in real life. The second image I took depicts how solidness over a bit larger areas is also a potential issue with a coarser type of screen fabric. Although you might not see the structure from some distance, when depicted in pans or tilts with typically a more solid type of colour, such as a brighter horizon, the fabric as a whole might appear static while the image pans. This is why reducing the structural surface of a screen is super important, and also one of the reasons why fabrics such as the Studiotek 100 with its extremely fine surface is as popular as it it (as a non-AT screen that is). Even a somewhat coarse regular non-AT PVC screen might produce visible structure on moving, more solid images, emphasising the importance of this parameter. 

Furthermore, the fact that the UltraWeaves uses this very special randomised type of top layer removes the risk of moiré, which might occur all of a sudden with one projector / resolution / angle, while working fine with another, meaning, if you replace your projector with one of a higher solution or different technology, a non-randomised type of structure such as spandex, a regular knit (I see mr pixelpusher is not differentiating on knit and weave in his test), this particular weave or just about any fabric except for regular non-AT PVC-based screens that apply such a randomised structure to avoid this issue - moiré might occur. This is a very important aspect in our opinion when investing in a fabric that normally should outlast several projectors for a lot of us.


----------



## PixelPusher15

Lygren said:


> OK, so attached are some directly comparisons on the v7 vs. the XY (or generally most regularly 1-layered woven screens). In my opinion, one has to differentiate between the sharpness produced by the actual structure of the fabric, as this in reality is not always sharpness per se, it might also be structural noise. The fact that the coarse pattern of the threads generate what appears as sharpness, this is not necessarily actual image information, but he rigidity of the surface appearing as such. You might not regard this as an issue, thinking "as long as I cannot see it at my seating distance, it is not a problem"; however this is not necessarily so in real life. The second image I took depicts how solidness over a bit larger areas is also a potential issue with a coarser type of screen fabric. Although you might not see the structure from some distance, when depicted in pans or tilts with typically a more solid type of colour, such as a brighter horizon, the fabric as a whole might appear static while the image pans. This is why reducing the structural surface of a screen is super important, and also one of the reasons why fabrics such as the Studiotek 100 with its extremely fine surface is as popular as it it (as a non-AT screen that is). Even a somewhat coarse regular non-AT PVC screen might produce visible structure on moving, more solid images, emphasising the importance of this parameter.
> 
> Furthermore, the fact that the UltraWeaves uses this very special randomised type of top layer removes the risk of moiré, which might occur all of a sudden with one projector / resolution / angle, while working fine with another, meaning, if you replace your projector with one of a higher solution or different technology, a non-randomised type of structure such as spandex, a regular knit (I see mr pixelpusher is not differentiating on knit and weave in his test), this particular weave or just about any fabric except for regular non-AT PVC-based screens that apply such a randomised structure to avoid this issue - moiré might occur. This is a very important aspect in our opinion when investing in a fabric that normally should outlast several projectors for a lot of us.
> 
> View attachment 3191820
> 
> View attachment 3191815
> View attachment 3191816


And this is exactly why my recommendation in my screen report is to not take my results as gospel and just pick based on them. Instead, get samples of the materials that stand out and compare.

Your photos do appear to have both of these materials be very similar in sharpness compared to mine. The only real difference between our two setups is that your v7 material is tensioned in a full-screen setup and my XY 4K is tensioned. This could make for some marginal differences. I can attempt to tension my sample and see if it makes a difference.

I still can't agree with you on visible texture though. Maybe you have way over 20/20 vision but I just simply cannot see any texture from 8' without straining and from 10 and 12' it's completely smooth. Because of this recent conversation, over the past couple of days I have been studying my XY 4K screen for texture and I just can't see it with real content. One thing I have noticed with the full-screen XY 4K material on close inspection is that I do see moire at less than sharp angles. But, once again this is when I'm standing less than 5' from my screen. It completely goes away when backing up.

I'll share the images and videos I used for testing so others can get a sense for what I see. Here's the link. There are two panning aerial shots that are from the Apple TV screen savers that do a good job at showing texture. I also used a full white field to look for texture and moire. As well as a still cloud photo. This wasn't as useful but still was used.

In that link are also the 4K and 1080p versions of the QBF pattern. It would be interesting to what others see with screen comparisons like this. If owners would compare their v7 material to paper that could be a very useful data point. I found that doubling up printer paper was better than just using a single sheet. The single sheet was susceptible to blooming if overlayed on top of another screen material. That, or just use heavyweight card stock.

I'm going to underscore my recommendation that everyone should get samples before buying a screen.

I do believe I need to politely push back a bit on an overall sentiment that you're hitting at. You've shown a couple of photos of the XY material at close range and at an angle that shows its weave a lot. But, we don't view screens like that. Most are viewing their screens at 8' and further. This is the real test of visible texture and I believe where evaluations should take place. Sharpness too, to be honest. That's why I said earlier in this conversation that it is a question of whether these sharpness differences are noticeable at seating distances.


----------



## Lygren

I am taking closer up photos to better try to depict how the sharpness appears at close distances, to hopefully give folks a somewhat better insight on how it looks up close. As for structure not being apparent in seating locations, I agree that it might not be for static content, but I have stared and glared at so many fabrics up through, including non-AT fabrics on projectors ranging from CRT to DLP and D-ILA techs, and the structure of even the non-AT fabrics I always preferred in terms of providing the most possibly "invisible" screen was those of low texture. This is also why my favourite non-AT fabric is the legendary Studiotek 100, whereas our goal has always been to get as close as possible to that quality while maintaining the highest possible AT. I am not saying we´re all the way there yet, but as you are also indicating yourself - at normal viewing distances, there is really no "defocused" type of image produced by the UltraWeaves, and while I respect your attempt to provide the best possible grounds of comparison, I do feel it is acceptable to provide some data that is more in line - in my opinion at least - to what people can expect to experience using one of the UltraWeaves. It would really be too bad that folks ended up believing that either the v6 or the v7 might end up in a blurred, defocused image, as that is really far from the truth. The image we are showcasing on our main reference demo room now, using the Sony VPL-GTZ380 on a 4,8m wide v7 is really one of the most stellar pictures I have ever seen, and there is really no lack of sharpness, whatsoever. 

So, as for screen structure being a factor or not I guess we would have to agree to disagree on that matter. For some it might not be an issue, but me personally would want as little structure in the fabric as possible - I want the screen to simply "disappear".


----------



## PixelPusher15

Lygren said:


> I am taking closer up photos to better try to depict how the sharpness appears at close distances, to hopefully give folks a somewhat better insight on how it looks up close. As for structure not being apparent in seating locations, I agree that it might not be for static content, but I have stared and glared at so many fabrics up through, including non-AT fabrics on projectors ranging from CRT to DLP and D-ILA techs, and the structure of even the non-AT fabrics I always preferred in terms of providing the most possibly "invisible" screen was those of low texture. This is also why my favourite non-AT fabric is the legendary Studiotek 100, whereas our goal has always been to get as close as possible to that quality while maintaining the highest possible AT. I am not saying we´re all the way there yet, but as you are also indicating yourself - at normal viewing distances, there is really no "defocused" type of image produced by the UltraWeaves, and while I respect your attempt to provide the best possible grounds of comparison, I do feel it is acceptable to provide some data that is more in line - in my opinion at least - to what people can expect to experience using one of the UltraWeaves. It would really be too bad that folks ended up believing that either the v6 or the v7 might end up in a blurred, defocused image, as that is really far from the truth. The image we are showcasing on our main reference demo room now, using the Sony VPL-GTZ380 on a 4,8m wide v7 is really one of the most stellar pictures I have ever seen, and there is really no lack of sharpness, whatsoever.
> 
> So, as for screen structure being a factor or not I guess we would have to agree to disagree on that matter. For some it might not be an issue, but me personally would want as little structure in the fabric as possible - I want the screen to simply "disappear".


We're pretty far into the enthusiasts-only nit-picking minutiae details here I might add. From up close I think something like the XY 4K materials adds texture and the UltraWeave fabrics have a loss of detail. But I honestly don't know if I could detect the differences from 10 or 8 feet away. The only knock I had against the v7 fabric in all my testing was its slight bit of blurriness. But as we have seen by our photos that can differ and I need to take another peek at stretching the fabric to see if it holds true in my setup.

Furthermore, I have to agree that the UltraWeaves have less potential to add artifacts to the image that can remove you from the film. If the slight blurriness is there, it is consistent across the image. If you are susceptible to seeing screen structure in the weave fabrics like the XY 4K then that structure will reveal itself at times and other times it won't. This can obviously be distracting. Akin to a dynamic iris. I am clearly not susceptible to it.

So, one more time for the people in the back: _order samples and evaluate for yourself._

(That's honestly been one of my fears with my comparisons/results. That someone will blindly drop a lot of money on a screen based on my findings and then find out that they see something or hear something that I didn't or couldn't see. As you pointed out, each display tech or resolution could render differently on each screen material. It's very important that people make their own decisions)


----------



## DMILANI

I will only add that I’ve been extremely pleased with my new V7 screen and frame that I got from AV Science. I compared to Seymour XD, and while the gain seemed to be about the same (the XD was maybe a tad brighter). I could see the weave from my 12’ seating distance during pans. I have better than 20/20 corrected vision, so maybe that was part of it.


----------



## PixelPusher15

DMILANI said:


> I will only add that I’ve been extremely pleased with my new V7 screen and frame that I got from AV Science. I compared to Seymour XD, and while the gain seemed to be about the same (the XD was maybe a tad brighter). I could see the weave from my 12’ seating distance during pans. I have better than 20/20 corrected vision, so maybe that was part of it.


I'm not surprised by that. The XD and related Enlightor Bright material had the most noticeable weave out of the most common woven screens. It isn't really the same as the XY 4K fabric. Something that has an identical weave is the Elite AcousticPro UHD material if some have that and would like to get an idea of the differences here.


----------



## Technology3456

From my conversations with people, many seem to feel the Dreamscreen V7 is at or near the top of the weave screen options. But I'd like to ask everyone, including @Lygren, do you think there would be anything _noticeable _visual differences, besides brightness, when watching an ST100 vs a Dreamscreen V7 from 1.5 screen distance away? Or is that far enough to get equal visual sharpness and clarity, but the V7 is AT and the ST100 is not? Or even from 1.5 away, the ST100 makes a difference compared to any weave screen even the V7?


----------



## Lygren

Technology3456 said:


> From my conversations with people, many seem to feel the Dreamscreen V7 is at or near the top of the weave screen options. But I'd like to ask everyone, including @Lygren, do you think there would be anything _noticeable _visual differences, besides brightness, when watching an ST100 vs a Dreamscreen V7 from 1.5 screen distance away? Or is that far enough to get equal visual sharpness and clarity, but the V7 is AT and the ST100 is not? Or even from 1.5 away, the ST100 makes a difference compared to any weave screen even the V7?


Beating the ST100 is a hard call for any AT screen (the ST100 can be made AT, but in such case you would be using perforations, requiring at least 12+ feet of distance and significantly reduced audio transmission compared to other non-perf AT solutions). What the v7 or v6 will match is the colour neutrality (i.e. very close to the same D65 point of the ST100) and the lack of sheen (the v6 / v7 even has slightly less sheen, i.e. zero sheer, compared to the ST100, BUT, the ST100 is very good in that regards). The ST100 will appear somewhat sharper, and it will also have even less screen structure, i.e. it would behave even more "invisible". So, if no AT is needed, the ST100 is a hard one to beat, stating otherwise is just nonsense... 

However, the difference will not be enormous in my opinion, and most people would be very happy with how the v6 / v7 appears, due to its very tight surface and other qualities making up the reflected image. It is basically as close as we have been able to get thus far in achieving our goal of replicating a ST100 type of surface while still maintaining high audio transparency. There is always room for improvement, but it is certainly getting more challenging for every generation we develop. We have some ideas for further improving our solution, but it is often at the cost of other areas such as AT, installation flexibility (which is also super important) and added manufacturing complexity (and the v7 particularly already has a very complex manufacturing process).


----------



## Technology3456

Lygren said:


> Beating the ST100 is a hard call for any AT screen (the ST100 can be made AT, but in such case you would be using perforations, requiring at least 12+ feet of distance and significantly reduced AT-transmission compared to other non-perf AT solutions). What the v7 or v6 will match is the colour neutrality (i.e. very close to the same D65 point of the ST100) and the lack of sheen (the v6 / v7 even has slightly less sheen, i.e. zero sheer, compared to the ST100, BUT, the ST100 is very good in those regards). The ST100 will appear somewhat sharper, and it will also have even less screen structure, i.e. it would behave even more "invisible". So, if no AT is needed, the ST100 is a hard one to beat, stating otherwise is just nonsense...
> 
> However, the difference will not be enormous in my opinion, and most people would be very happy with how the v6 / v7 appears, due to its very tight surface and other qualities making up the reflected image. It is basically as close as we have been able to get thus far in achieving our goal of replicating a ST100 type of surface while still maintaining high audio transparency. There is always room for improvement, but it is certainly getting more challenging for every generation we develop. We have some ideas for further improving our solution, but it is often at the cost of other areas such as AT, installation flexibility (which is also super important) and added manufacturing complexity (and the v7 particularly already has a very complex manufacturing process).


No question the ST100 is the best non-AT surface according to what I have heard, but there are many imperfections in a picture itself, regardless of screen, that are visible from 5 feet away, but not from 15 feet away. I have heard people say they cannot see the weave of the V7 material from 1 or 2 feet away. So will the projected image truly be any less sharp from 1.5 screen width distance away from the screen for people with 20/20 vision? Has anyone tested this?


----------



## Lygren

Technology3456 said:


> No question the ST100 is the best non-AT surface according to what I have heard, but there are many imperfections in a picture itself, regardless of screen, that are visible from 5 feet away, but not from 15 feet away. I have heard people say they cannot see the weave of the V7 material from 1 or 2 feet away. So will the projected image truly be any less sharp from 1.5 screen width distance away from the screen for people with 20/20 vision? Has anyone tested this?


Here´s a review comparing the v7 to the ST100, might give you some pointers; 'Screen Science by AVS’ Screen Review - Featuring the UltraWeave v7 AT Material - Screens (General) - AVS Discussions.


----------



## Hawks07

DMILANI said:


> I will only add that I’ve been extremely pleased with my new V7 screen and frame that I got from AV Science. I compared to Seymour XD, and while the gain seemed to be about the same (the XD was maybe a tad brighter). I could see the weave from my 12’ seating distance during pans. I have better than 20/20 corrected vision, so maybe that was part of it.


I had the same experience comparing the V7 to the XD at the same distance as you.
The XD was a tad brighter but on panning scenes I could make out the weave slightly on the XD but zero on the V7.
I myself am pretty sensitive to screen structure on panning scenes so I am interested in comparing the XY sample to the V7 when I get it.


----------



## PixelPusher15

Hawks07 said:


> I had the same experience comparing the V7 to the XD at the same distance as you.
> The XD was a tad brighter but on panning scenes I could make out the weave slightly on the XD but zero on the V7.
> I myself am pretty sensitive to screen structure on panning scenes so I am interested in comparing the XY sample to the V7 when I get it.


Please report back. I'm really curious if others have the same experiences or if maybe I'm just less susceptible to seeing screen texture. (I don't think I am but if it turns out that I am then it would be important for me to note that in my test thread)


----------



## audioguy

Hawks07 said:


> I had the same experience comparing the V7 to the XD at the same distance as you.
> The XD was a tad brighter but on panning scenes I could make out the weave slightly on the XD but zero on the V7.
> I myself am pretty sensitive to screen structure on panning scenes so I am interested in comparing the XY sample to the V7 when I get it.


So did the V7 provide improved clarity/detail/sharpness over the XD material?


----------



## howiee

I must admit to being more concerned by the 0.79 gain measurement of the v7 material Vs the advertised 0.93, which I have always taken as a true gain reading, than any issues re. image sharpness. Visible texture is my main concern with an AT screen, with gain being a very close second.


----------



## Lygren

howiee said:


> I must admit to being more concerned by the 0.79 gain measurement of the v7 material Vs the advertised 0.93, which I have always taken as a true gain reading, than any issues re. image sharpness. Visible texture is my main concern with an AT screen, with gain being a very close second.


Those gain measurements are collectively far lower than anyone has measured them in at before, including the accucal report. Our in-house measurements are referenced towards Studiotek 100, and we use high-end probes, and our professional in-house THX / ISF calibrator (Gorm Sorensen) does know his business. What we certainly should do at our end, given that perhaps our Studiotek 100 reference is not performing correctly (which is highly doubly, but still), is to obtain a neutral gain reference at our end as well. We will certainly look into that, as providing accurate gain readings is very important to us. For the time being, our measurements, which are all referenced on the v7 products page, stands as is. That said, I have very little respect for the overall gain misrepresentation of the industry as a whole. Stewart seems to be one of the very few manufacturer listing proper values, while almost every other manufacturer lists 20-40% inflated values. We are certainly not one of those companies, and if we do figure out the gain is actually 0.8 on the v7, we will certainly make sure this is corrected.


----------



## Hawks07

audioguy said:


> So did the V7 provide improved clarity/detail/sharpness over the XD material?


I would say sharpness and detail are the same between the two but on brighter scenes there is less noise with the V7.
The V7 really is like looking at a non AT smooth screen.
Other than that both are equal in picture quality.


----------



## PixelPusher15

Capturing the details here is hard and I don't even think the above fully represents what I see with my eyes. Tightening the v7 fabric did make a small, but noticeable difference in sharpness. I tried taking a dozen or so photos with my iPhone XS and it either made the v7 look less sharp or sharper than reality. This was taken with a FujiFilm XT-10. In-person the v7 is the least sharp and I think that's noticeable above. I taped the v7 fabric on my screen (well actually on my masking since I'm not a madman) and watched some real-world content. The super sharp YouTube 4K demos and such. This was non-tensioned and I saw an ever so slight difference in detail between the XY 4K and v7. I believe if the v7 was tensioned then that difference would almost disappear. Here's what I'll say though, from my seating distance (10-12') if you randomly put a full screen of each material I'm not sure I could tell a difference.

With regard to gain measurements. I'd encourage @Lygren to get a reflectance standard. When I had a phone conversation with Stewart Filmscreen and told them I was using the ST100 as my reference they said they were flattered but that was straight wrong. My measurements are reported by using one as the reference. Now, it was used and wasn't calibrated so it could be off slightly. To put some validity to my measurements, Sound and Vision recently reviewed the Stewart Harmony G2 and recorded its gain at .66. They too used a reflectance standard. That is the exact reading I have for the Harmony G2 as well. Furthermore, if I were to order each screen I have (32+) based on what my eyes see then they would be in the exact order they are measured. Meaning if the ST100 is 1.00, the Enlightor Bright is clearly not as bright as even the ST100 MP, and the DreamScreen v7 isn't brighter than the Enlightor Bright. Here's a photo I took with my FujiFilm XT-10 of a few materials:








Each photo was taken with the exposure locked to the brightest AT material I have (Severtson CWMP). Now you might notice that the XY 4K appears a bit darker here than the v7 even though I have the XY 4K at .79 and the v7 at .78. I had to take these photos at a bit more of an angle than how I measured each material. My guess is that the XY v7 with its vinyl coating is slightly less Lambertian and this is what you are seeing. Either way, they're essentially identical. And actually, when holding the sample up in front of my screen (as seen above) the v7 does look ever so slightly dimmer).

Anyway, the point here is that the Enlightor Bright is clearly brighter than both of these materials and is still a good way away from the ST100. The Enlightor Bright is rated at 1.1 gain which is clearly not accurate. You can also see the weave structure in this photo pretty well. It is identical to the XD material. These photos were cropped and then resized down. You can see how different the weave is of the XY 4K compared to something like the Enlightor Bright/XD. You pretty much just see the diagonal pixel structure from my Epson's pixel-shifting on the ST100, XY 4K, and UltraWeave v7. It's important to not just lump woven screens together, they are not created equally.


----------



## audioguy

Hawks07 said:


> I would say sharpness and detail are the same between the two but on brighter scenes there is less noise with the V7.
> The V7 really is like looking at a non AT smooth screen.
> Other than that both are equal in picture quality.


Thank you. No need for me to purchase the V7 if it is no improvement over the XD I already have. I'm disappointed - but just saved a bunch of money.


----------



## PixelPusher15

audioguy said:


> Thank you. No need for me to purchase the V7 if it is no improvement over the XD I already have. I'm disappointed - but just saved a bunch of money.


Have you had a chance to see a sample of the v7 material? I really don't like the XD's amount of visible weave structure. If you are sitting 14-15' away then it could be fine but closer than that I'd look for a different material like the v7.


----------



## Lygren

PixelPusher15 said:


> View attachment 3192506
> 
> 
> Capturing the details here is hard and I don't even think the above fully represents what I see with my eyes. Tightening the v7 fabric did make a small, but noticeable difference in sharpness. I tried taking a dozen or so photos with my iPhone XS and it either made the v7 look less sharp or sharper than reality. This was taken with a FujiFilm XT-10. In-person the v7 is the least sharp and I think that's noticeable above. I taped the v7 fabric on my screen (well actually on my masking since I'm not a madman) and watched some real-world content. The super sharp YouTube 4K demos and such. This was non-tensioned and I saw an ever so slight difference in detail between the XY 4K and v7. I believe if the v7 was tensioned then that difference would almost disappear. Here's what I'll say though, from my seating distance (10-12') if you randomly put a full screen of each material I'm not sure I could tell a difference.
> 
> With regard to gain measurements. I'd encourage @Lygren to get a reflectance standard. When I had a phone conversation with Stewart Filmscreen and told them I was using the ST100 as my reference they said they were flattered but that was straight wrong. My measurements are reported by using one as the reference. Now, it was used and wasn't calibrated so it could be off slightly. To put some validity to my measurements, Sound and Vision recently reviewed the Stewart Harmony G2 and recorded its gain at .66. They too used a reflectance standard. That is the exact reading I have for the Harmony G2 as well. Furthermore, if I were to order each screen I have (32+) based on what my eyes see then they would be in the exact order they are measured. Meaning if the ST100 is 1.00, the Enlightor Bright is clearly not as bright as even the ST100 MP, and the DreamScreen v7 isn't brighter than the Enlightor Bright. Here's a photo I took with my FujiFilm XT-10 of a few materials:
> View attachment 3192514
> 
> Each photo was taken with the exposure locked to the brightest AT material I have (Severtson CWMP). Now you might notice that the XY 4K appears a bit darker here then the v7 even though I have the XY 4K at .79 and the v7 at .78. I had to take these photos at a bit more of an angle than how I measured each material. My guess is that the XY v7 with its vinyl coating is slightly less Lambertian and this is what you are seeing. Either way, they're essentially identical. And actually, when holding the sample up in front of my screen (as seen above) the v7 does look ever so slightly dimmer).
> 
> Anyway, the point here is that the Enlightor Bright is clearly brighter than both of these materials and is still a good way away from the ST100. The Enlightor Bright is rated at 1.1 gain which is clearly not accurate. You can also see the weave structure in this photo pretty well. It is identical to the XD material. These photos were cropped and then resized down. You can see how different the weave is of the XY 4K compared to something like the Enlightor Bright/XD. You pretty much just see the diagonal pixel structure from my Epson's pixel-shifting on the ST100, XY 4K, and UltraWeave v7. It's important to not just lump woven screens together, they are not created equally.


Thanks, I highly appreciate your due diligence on this matter, your latest sharpness comparison seems far more in line with what we see at our end. We measured the XY 8% lower than the v7 at our end, but I do agree that a reflectance standard might be a better bet than using the Studiotek 100 as reference, particularly in order to root out the reason for our misaligned measurements.


----------



## audioguy

PixelPusher15 said:


> Have you had a chance to see a sample of the v7 material? I really don't like the XD's amount of visible weave structure. If you are sitting 14-15' away then it could be fine but closer than that I'd look for a different material like the v7.


I have been waiting for quite some time for a sample form AV Sciences so I can directly compare. But I am confused. You say can see the XD weave but yet say there is no difference in picture quality. I sit about 13 feet from a 10 foot wide 2:35 screen.


----------



## bobof

@PixelPusher15 - what reflectance standard do you use?


----------



## PixelPusher15

audioguy said:


> I have been waiting for quite some time for a sample form AV Sciences so I can directly compare. But I am confused. You say can see the XD weave but yet say there is no difference in picture quality. I sit about 13 feet from a 10 foot wide 2:35 screen.


I think you're confusing what I'm saying with what @Hawks07 said. I would put the v7 material above the XD material in terms of overall picture quality from 13'. 13.5' is the max distance I tested and I could still see the sorta crosshatch pattern the XD material has. If you want to get a sense of how smooth the DreamScreen materials are then go to your local craft store and buy a sample of matte white spandex. Or order it online. It'll cost you $10 bucks for a yard. The visual characteristics aren't identical and if you just drape it over your current screen then you're going to get some blooming/ghosting. But, you should be able to immediately see how smooth it is. This is the difference you will see going to the UltraWeaves.

To prevent the blooming/ghosting then just find something dark to put behind it.


----------



## PixelPusher15

bobof said:


> @PixelPusher15 - what reflectance standard do you use?


It was made by a now defunct company called Optikon out of Canada. Labsphere either bought them or had a partnership with them at some point.


----------



## Hawks07

audioguy said:


> I have been waiting for quite some time for a sample form AV Sciences so I can directly compare. But I am confused. You say can see the XD weave but yet say there is no difference in picture quality. I sit about 13 feet from a 10 foot wide 2:35 screen.


Yes you really should still try to get samples to try out.
If you do not see the weave structure at your distance now then upgrading may not be really worth it you.
I know of plenty of people that sit 11-12' from the XD and simply cannot see the weave at all.
The only difference in picture quality for me was seeing the weave slightly at my distance. If I moved back to about 14 feet the only way I could tell a difference between the two is the slight bump in brightness on the XD.
Personally, if I currently had an XD and could not see the weave at all then I wouldn't upgrade to the V7. I currently have a Falcon screen and both the XD and V7 are better.
Not trying to talk you out of it because you really should see it for yourself.


----------



## bobof

PixelPusher15 said:


> It was made by a now defunct company called Optikon out of Canada. Labsphere either bought them or had a partnership with them at some point.


Nice, I love me some test equipment. They're usually pretty small - what do you use to measure off them?


----------



## PixelPusher15

bobof said:


> Nice, I love me some test equipment. They're usually pretty small - what do you use to measure off them?


Just an i1 Display Pro for now


----------



## catinthehat85

I’ll throw my unbiased opinion in here since some folks are asking about real world use, brightness, sharpness, etc. I own a v7 screen paired with a jvc rs4500. Yes the v7 is nice, zero visible weave even with my eye an inch away. Yes the screen is very bright, I do not have measurement tools but have experience with many different screens, and have no reason to doubt it isn’t the advertised .93 gain. If it is off it’s not off by much, and certainly no where near the .8 range.

My main complaint is with sharpness….and maybe I should clarify this might be an issue in general with AT screens. If you hold a piece of printer paper in front of the v7 screen, the image on the paper looks razor sharp and the image on the v7 screen kind of “glows” and softens the edges of whatever the image is. When I did a similar test with some of the Seymour fabrics I didn’t see the “glow”, instead I saw the weave of the material, which is another way of killing sharpness. Essentially, if you are OCD like me and know what a sharp image looks like, don’t expect any of the current AT fabrics to meet your expectations. I do believe this v7 material is about as good as it gets from any manufacture with the technology available today. The tradeoff you make with an AT screen is minimal compared to how much the overall setup is improved. Having voices come from out of the screen is something hard to live without once you’ve experienced it.


----------



## Technology3456

catinthehat85 said:


> I’ll throw my unbiased opinion in here since some folks are asking about real world use, brightness, sharpness, etc. I own a v7 screen paired with a jvc rs4500. Yes the v7 is nice, zero visible weave even with my eye an inch away. Yes the screen is very bright, I do not have measurement tools but have experience with many different screens, and have no reason to doubt it isn’t the advertised .93 gain. If it is off it’s not off by much, and certainly no where near the .8 range.
> 
> My main complaint is with sharpness….and maybe I should clarify this might be an issue in general with AT screens. *If you hold a piece of printer paper in front of the v7 screen, the image on the paper looks razor sharp and the image on the v7 screen kind of “glows” and softens the edges of whatever the image is. When I did a similar test with some of the Seymour fabrics I didn’t see the “glow”, instead I saw the weave of the material, which is another way of killing sharpness.* Essentially, if you are OCD like me and know what a sharp image looks like, don’t expect any of the current AT fabrics to meet your expectations. I do believe this v7 material is about as good as it gets from any manufacture with the technology available today. The tradeoff you make with an AT screen is minimal compared to how much the overall setup is improved. Having voices come from out of the screen is something hard to live without once you’ve experienced it.


Thanks for sharing this! Very helpful.

From how far away did you notice this sharpness difference when doing this test?

How big is your screen and how close do you sit normally?

If you would be willing to do a test where you put a lot of white paper on the screen, but also leave part of the screen, and then you walk backwards until you can no longer see any sharpness difference between the white paper and the AT screen, that would be really helpful.


----------



## blake

Does anyone have pictures of sharpness comparing white paper, v7 and Seymour Enlightor Neo ?


----------



## Lygren

Regarding sharpness on the v7, we currently have one of the new DLA-NZ9s in for testing, this particular test pattern shot is from a 109" v7. Sure, this is a very sharp projector, but the fabric is really taking very little off of the absolute sharpness. Also, if you compare the shot taken by pixel comparing the v7 to the Studiotek and the XY you also kind of see my point on what we are trying to achieve. While the ST100 also appears somewhat "diffuse", the v7, in comparison has much of the same characteristics. The XY, however, adds an additional layer of sharpness caused by the coarser woven structure, which might appear sharper per se, but is not what we are trying to achieve. A natural, completely matte reflection, as "invisible" as possible is our goal, and seen on a full-size screen, this also will produce what we believe is the best possible image quality in a blacked-out room, free of artefacts not produced by the content or projector.


----------



## audioguy

Lygren said:


> Regarding sharpness on the v7, we currently have one of the new DLA-NZ9s in for testing, this particular test pattern shot is from a 109" v7. Sure, this is a very sharp projector, but the fabric is really taking very little off of the absolute sharpness. Also, if you compare the shot taken by pixel comparing the v7 to the Studiotek and the XY you also kind of see my point on what we are trying to achieve. While the ST100 also appears somewhat "diffuse", the v7, in comparison has much of the same characteristics. The XY, however, adds an additional layer of sharpness caused by the coarser woven structure, which might appear sharper per se, but is not what we are trying to achieve. A natural, completely matte reflection, as "invisible" as possible is our goal, and seen on a full-size screen, this also will produce what we believe is the best possible image quality in a blacked-out room, free of artefacts not produced by the content or projector.
> 
> View attachment 3193282


Don't know if that sharpness if from the NZ9 and/or your screen, but that is REALLY a crisp, clean, sharp image - and I noticed that you had e-shift engaged!!


----------



## Lygren

audioguy said:


> Don't know if that sharpness if from the NZ9 and/or your screen, but that is REALLY a crisp, clean, sharp image - and I noticed that you had e-shift engaged!!


EDIT: replied in my car (Tesla self driving is not there yet... ), and as for what caused the nice amount of sharpness I would absolutely attribute to the projector, the NZ7 in comparison is sharp too, but one can clearly see the difference between the two. In relations to the screen, if the screen had been diffuse and lacked the ability to reproduce sharpness, we probably would not even had been able to see the difference between the NZ7 and 9, as the NZ7 is quite a sharp one too.


----------



## Richard Berg

Forum software doesn't let me click-to-zoom...here's the raw image for pixel peeping: https://www.avsforum.com/attachments/img_5548-jpg.3193282/


----------



## Lygren

Here is one off of the NZ7 (same screen size, 109" and type, v7), and we turned the E-shift off as it only has 2-way shift, but it really did not make a whole lot of a difference. Both are sharp units, but the NZ9 does appear slightly sharper - which is expected of course, but the argument being in relations to the v7-fabric relevant in this thread that it does reproduce those differences in sharpness.


----------



## Lygren

Richard Berg said:


> Forum software doesn't let me click-to-zoom...here's the raw image for pixel peeping: https://www.avsforum.com/attachments/img_5548-jpg.3193282/


How did you locate that raw image? It would probably be interesting to link the NZ7 comparison too in full size...


----------



## catinthehat85

Technology3456 said:


> Thanks for sharing this! Very helpful.
> 
> From how far away did you notice this sharpness difference when doing this test?
> 
> How big is your screen and how close do you sit normally?
> 
> If you would be willing to do a test where you put a lot of white paper on the screen, but also leave part of the screen, and then you walk backwards until you can no longer see any sharpness difference between the white paper and the AT screen, that would be really helpful.


Okay I had some free time after putting the kiddo to sleep to mess around with this. First off, as I was playing with projector settings I realized my laser convergence was off so I corrected that. Test patterns didn’t have nearly the same “glow” but still there. Either way a big thank you, if you didn’t ask this question I wouldn’t have fooled around with my projector’s settings =). With white text against a black background on the screen, I can distinguish the glow back to about 10 feet. Beyond that I can’t see it. It’s kind of a loaded question though because in real movie scenes I can’t see a “glow” effect at any distance, the image just isn’t sharp until you’re at least 10 feet back.

Again I’m not trying to knock anyone’s opinion, just being as honest as I can. You’re never going to see weave, the construction method of this fabric is incredible, but if you know what a sharp 4k image should look like, you won’t be happy with this screen until you’re at least 10 feet, or maybe even 12 feet back for some. My corrected vision is close to 20/20 and leaning forward on my couch puts me about 10 feet away, and the picture is very sharp. Staring at the screen from 8 feet is blurry to the point of being annoying and visually fatiguing.


----------



## Technology3456

catinthehat85 said:


> Okay I had some free time after putting the kiddo to sleep to mess around with this. First off, as I was playing with projector settings I realized my laser convergence was off so I corrected that. Test patterns didn’t have nearly the same “glow” but still there. Either way a big thank you, if you didn’t ask this question I wouldn’t have fooled around with my projector’s settings =). With white text against a black background on the screen, I can distinguish the glow back to about 10 feet. Beyond that I can’t see it. It’s kind of a loaded question though because in real movie scenes I can’t see a “glow” effect at any distance, the image just isn’t sharp until you’re at least 10 feet back.
> 
> Again I’m not trying to knock anyone’s opinion, just being as honest as I can. You’re never going to see weave, the construction method of this fabric is incredible, but if you know what a sharp 4k image should look like, you won’t be happy with this screen until you’re at least 10 feet, or maybe even 12 feet back for some. My corrected vision is close to 20/20 and leaning forward on my couch puts me about 10 feet away, and the picture is very sharp. Staring at the screen from 8 feet is blurry to the point of being annoying and visually fatiguing.


Thanks for the info. How big is your screen again? What model projector do you have? Im most interested if it is RGB laser or laser phosphor. And do you know how far back you have to get for the image to be sharp on a white piece of paper or non-weave screen? A few feet from my screen and there is lots of image noise and dithering and stuff even on a white screen, but not from 10 feet back.

I wonder if sharpness would be more affected, or less affected, on a weave screen using a 1080p laser projector instead of 4K.


----------



## catinthehat85

Technology3456 said:


> Thanks for the info. How big is your screen again? What model projector do you have? Im most interested if it is RGB laser or laser phosphor. And do you know how far back you have to get for the image to be sharp on a white piece of paper or non-weave screen? A few feet from my screen and there is lots of image noise and dithering and stuff even on a white screen, but not from 10 feet back.
> 
> I wonder if sharpness would be more affected, or less affected, on a weave screen using a 1080p laser projector instead of 4K.


All great points, I have a jvc rs4500. Pretty sure it’s laser phosphor. My screen is about 160” diagonal. It’s hard to show you what I’m seeing in a photo because everything looks razor sharp when viewing an image on your phone. The difference in how far back you have to get for a non AT screen probably isn’t too far off what Lygren is implying. Even the super sharp lens on the RS4500 cannot resolve a perfect crisp line when you look at the image from a few feet back, regardless of material. I would also add I think some of these lines of thinking is moot because if someone has a setup where they are sitting closer than 10 feet, you might as well get a non AT screen, raise the image a bit high and get a center channel right below it. It’s only with the really large screens does center channel placement become a problem. My 160” diag. Screen is 18 inches from the floor.


----------



## Technology3456

catinthehat85 said:


> All great points, I have a jvc rs4500. Pretty sure it’s laser phosphor. My screen is about 160” diagonal. It’s hard to show you what I’m seeing in a photo because everything looks razor sharp when viewing an image on your phone. The difference in how far back you have to get for a non AT screen probably isn’t too far off what Lygren is implying. Even the super sharp lens on the RS4500 cannot resolve a perfect crisp line when you look at the image from a few feet back, regardless of material. I would also add I think some of these lines of thinking is moot because if someone has a setup where they are sitting closer than 10 feet, you might as well get a non AT screen, raise the image a bit high and get a center channel right below it. It’s only with the really large screens does center channel placement become a problem. My 160” diag. Screen is 18 inches from the floor.


Thanks that helps a lot. So do you think from 10 feet away, the Dreamscreen and a ST100 or white piece of paper now become indistinguishable? Equally sharp? Or did you mean, 10 feet away, it finally looks sharp and normal, but still would be less sharp than an ST100 or white piece of paper at that distance? I would be curious at what distance do the two become equally sharp, where you are now getting absolutely zero negative effect on the image from using a weave screen compared to an ST100.

Because, 160" is a fairly big screen, so 10 feet away is close enough that most people wouldnt want to sit closer than that anyway, in which case differneces in sharpness at closer distances are not relevant. So long as long as the difference between the weave and the ST100 disappears from a distance that is equal to or lower than the ideal seating distance, then it's as if that difference doesn't exist, or is irrelevant. In contrast, I plan to sit 14 feet away from a 130" or so diagonal 2.35:1 screen, so I have even more leeway. But if you tell me even from 20 feet back, the Dreamscreen is less sharp than the ST100, then, without me knowing whether that is related also to image size or if only the distance matters when it comes to the screen material itself (as opposed to the projected image where the bigger size does matter because it makes each pixel bigger), then even with my extra leeway it might still be a problem. But if you can't see any difference at 10 feet away from a 160" screen then I'm _definitely _in the clear.


----------



## catinthehat85

Technology3456 said:


> Thanks that helps a lot. So do you think from 10 feet away, the Dreamscreen and a ST100 or white piece of paper now become indistinguishable? Equally sharp? Or did you mean, 10 feet away, it finally looks sharp and normal, but still would be less sharp than an ST100 or white piece of paper at that distance? I would be curious at what distance do the two become equally sharp, where you are now getting absolutely zero negative effect on the image from using a weave screen compared to an ST100.
> 
> Because, 160" is a fairly big screen, so 10 feet away is close enough that most people wouldnt want to sit closer than that anyway, in which case differneces in sharpness at closer distances are not relevant. So long as long as the difference between the weave and the ST100 disappears from a distance that is equal to or lower than the ideal seating distance, then it's as if that difference doesn't exist, or is irrelevant. In contrast, I plan to sit 14 feet away from a 130" or so diagonal 2.35:1 screen, so I have even more leeway. But if you tell me even from 20 feet back, the Dreamscreen is less sharp than the ST100, then, without me knowing whether that is related also to image size or if only the distance matters when it comes to the screen material itself (as opposed to the projected image where the bigger size does matter because it makes each pixel bigger), then even with my extra leeway it might still be a problem. But if you can't see any difference at 10 feet away from a 160" screen then I'm _definitely _in the clear.


Technology3465, if you live in the socal area you are welcome to visit my home theater. 14’ away from a 130” screen is no debate, regardless of projector choice. At that distance the XD material may be completely fine as well. Word on these forums is the weave on XD goes away at 12 ft, but I saw it at a far greater distance. Everyone is different.


----------



## Technology3456

catinthehat85 said:


> Technology3465, if you live in the socal area you are welcome to visit my home theater. 14’ away from a 130” screen is no debate, regardless of projector choice. At that distance the XD material may be completely fine as well. Word on these forums is the weave on XD goes away at 12 ft, but I saw it at a far greater distance. Everyone is different.


Thanks that's very kind of you! I'm not close otherwise that would be great. Do you think the screen size matters or just the distance? I know screen size vs distance affects motion blur and things like that, but the screen material, it could be causing loss of sharpness on a small screen a few feet away, or causing it a few feet away on a big screen. A few feet away = a few feet away, unless the loss of sharpness is more visible the bigger the pixels are, in which case, then the screen size does matter to this issue.

Also if you're using the XD, I think the Neo is definitely finer, and possibly the UF is as well but I believe the Neo is the top one. There is also Severtson 4K SAT but I dont know where it ranks. So 4K SAT is a question mark, could be up there could not be, but otherwise if you are looking for more sharpness with an AT screen, my guess is the Neo and the Dreamscreen V7 are the two best ones. But it's just a guess I haven't tested anything. I just know most people say the Dreamscreen V7 is the best. Dreamscreen might even have a patent on some unique technology used with it, not sure. But a lot of people love the XD also, although not as fine as the Dreamscreen, and I believe the Neo is Seymour's top model, at least most expensive one and the one I have been told is most similar to the Dreamscreen V7.

So if you're wondering what options to look if you are looking to change screen material, V7, Neo, and maybe 4K SAT maybe not, is where I would look. The XY screens one that Pixelpusher liked, that's the first I've heard of that material, or XY screens for that matter. But it sounds like the weave itself is more visible so there is a trade off. I'd still bet that overall, these ones are better, but again I haven't tested them, just going off strength of reputation really.


----------



## PixelPusher15

Technology3456 said:


> Thanks that's very kind of you! I'm not close otherwise that would be great. Do you think the screen size matters or just the distance? I know screen size vs distance affects motion blur and things like that, but the screen material, it could be causing loss of sharpness on a small screen a few feet away, or causing it a few feet away on a big screen. A few feet away = a few feet away, unless the loss of sharpness is more visible the bigger the pixels are, in which case, then the screen size does matter to this issue.
> 
> Also if you're using the XD, I think the Neo is definitely finer, and possibly the UF is as well but I believe the Neo is the top one. There is also Severtson 4K SAT but I dont know where it ranks. So 4K SAT is a question mark, could be up there could not be, but otherwise if you are looking for more sharpness with an AT screen, my guess is the Neo and the Dreamscreen V7 are the two best ones. But it's just a guess I haven't tested anything. I just know most people say the Dreamscreen V7 is the best. Dreamscreen might even have a patent on some unique technology used with it, not sure. But a lot of people love the XD also, although not as fine as the Dreamscreen, and I believe the Neo is Seymour's top model, at least most expensive one and the one I have been told is most similar to the Dreamscreen V7.
> 
> So if you're wondering what options to look if you are looking to change screen material, V7, Neo, and maybe 4K SAT maybe not, is where I would look. The XY screens one that Pixelpusher liked, that's the first I've heard of that material, or XY screens for that matter. But it sounds like the weave itself is more visible so there is a trade off. I'd still bet that overall, these ones are better, but again I haven't tested them, just going off strength of reputation really.


The XY 4K and Elite UHD materials have the tightest, least noticeable weave of all the vinyl coated woven fabrics. The Neo is smooth but I wouldn’t really rate it above the v7 in sharpness after my recent test of tensioning the v7. The Severtson SAT fabric on the other hand I saw grain and shimmer from 8’, but said it was smooth from 10’. Both of these are around a gain of .7 in my testing so you are sacrificing brightness too.

Ya gotta just get samples of everything you’re considering.

Edit: the XY Soundmax 8K is actually the tightest woven vinyl coated material I saw. Stellar acoustics too. Just lower on gain


----------



## audioguy

The idea of the importance of sharpness potentially decreasing as a function of increased distance seems to make some sense in that the effect of 4K over 1080P (not HDR over SDR) also seems to be related to distance. 

In my specific case, I have a 120" x 51" (130" diagonal) scope screen, XD material (AT) and sit about 13.5 feet away. I HAD an RS4500 (sold) and am waiting for the RS4100. I have been waiting for a sample of V7 (now too late since I no longer have a projector) just to see if there was any value in buying a new V7 screen. Based upon what I am reading, it appears there would be no advantage - and a "possible" disadvantage due to lower screen gain?


----------



## PixelPusher15

audioguy said:


> The idea of the importance of sharpness potentially decreasing as a function of increased distance seems to make some sense in that the effect of 4K over 1080P (not HDR over SDR) also seems to be related to distance.
> 
> In my specific case, I have a 120" x 51" (130" diagonal) scope screen, XD material (AT) and sit about 13.5 feet away. I HAD an RS4500 (sold) and am waiting for the RS4100. I have been waiting for a sample of V7 (now too late since I no longer have a projector) just to see if there was any value in buying a new V7 screen. Based upon what I am reading, it appears there would be no advantage - and a "possible" disadvantage due to lower screen gain?


I disagree. The gain difference I measured between the v7 and XD was .04. That’s really not much. There’s two aspects here that are related but not the same thing. Sharpness and visible texture. The v7 completely removes any visible texture. I myself noted that of all the woven materials I tested (close to 20) only the XD, Enlightor Bright, and Carl’s shear weave had distracting levels of texture at your specific viewing distance. At 13.5’ I don’t think you could tell the difference in sharpness between the XD and v7, but I do believe you will notice the lack of texture.


----------



## audioguy

PixelPusher15 said:


> I disagree. The gain difference I measured between the v7 and XD was .04. That’s really not much. There’s two aspects here that are related but not the same thing. Sharpness and visible texture. The v7 completely removes any visible texture. I myself noted that of all the woven materials I tested (close to 20) only the XD, Enlightor Bright, and Carl’s shear weave had distracting levels of texture at your specific viewing distance. At 13.5’ I don’t think you could tell the difference in sharpness between the XD and v7, but I do believe you will notice the lack of texture.


So does not the appearance of texture affect “sharpness”?


----------



## PixelPusher15

audioguy said:


> So does not the appearance of texture affect “sharpness”?


I personally would say they are two different things but are sometimes hard to separate. Up close the weave could add a perception of sharpness. Kinda like a pixel gap. But as you back up that weave structure just turns to grain and is apparent in brighter parts of the image. (Actually, the XD material never full turned to grain for my eyes. I was always able to see its diagonal weave struture and noted in my test that it looks like a crosshatch pattern. Even from 12'+). When there are detailed areas of the image you probably won't notice much of a difference. It's those bright panning shots that the weave structure will be more apparent than any difference in sharpness.

Does that make sense? Basically the negative of texture outweighs any perception of an increase in sharpness.


----------



## catinthehat85

PixelPusher15 said:


> I personally would say they are two different things but are sometimes hard to separate. Up close the weave could add a perception of sharpness. Kinda like a pixel gap. But as you back up that weave structure just turns to grain and is apparent in brighter parts of the image. (Actually, the XD material never full turned to grain for my eyes. I was always able to see its diagonal weave struture and noted in my test that it looks like a crosshatch pattern. Even from 12'+). When there are detailed areas of the image you probably won't notice much of a difference. It's those bright panning shots that the weave structure will be more apparent than any difference in sharpness.
> 
> Does that make sense? Basically the negative of texture outweighs any perception of an increase in sharpness.


I too would like to add to pixelpusher’s comment here. Weave you will see in test patterns and real movies alike. Sharpness is something you’re only going to notice in a test pattern with text sitting 8-10 feet or closer depending on setup. In an actual movie, sharpness is going to be more a function of the movie quality and how good your lens is. I have to clarify for the group here, my OCD need for sharpness goes to the extent that I can’t stand streamed content for movies. Don’t get me started on the hdr grading or audio either. I’ll tolerate tv shows but even then I have a setting to shrink the image down so the lower quality isn’t so apparent. Like a good sound system, once you’ve experienced a stunning image it’s hard to go back, for me anyway =).


----------



## Technology3456

PixelPusher15 said:


> The XY 4K and Elite UHD materials have the tightest, least noticeable weave of all the vinyl coated woven fabrics. The Neo is smooth but I wouldn’t really rate it above the v7 in sharpness after my recent test of tensioning the v7. The Severtson SAT fabric on the other hand I saw grain and shimmer from 8’, but said it was smooth from 10’. Both of these are around a gain of .7 in my testing so you are sacrificing brightness too.
> 
> Ya gotta just get samples of everything you’re considering.
> 
> Edit: the XY Soundmax 8K is actually the tightest woven vinyl coated material I saw. Stellar acoustics too. Just lower on gain


Thanks a lot. Is the Dreamscreen V7 also vinyl coated woven? I wonder why people always talk about Dreamscreen V7 and Seymour weaves if Elite and XY are as good or better. This would be the first time I've heard of an Elite screen material being better than the best that Seymour has to offer, for example. But you're right I should get samples of all the weave materials. I had actually thought there were only a few of them, and that Dreamscreen V7 was the only one of its type, before your thread.

Edit: which weaves are the finest? The finest threads? That might be more important for my purposes than which is sharpest.


----------



## PixelPusher15

Technology3456 said:


> Thanks a lot. Is the Dreamscreen V7 also vinyl coated woven? I wonder why people always talk about Dreamscreen V7 and Seymour weaves if Elite and XY are as good or better. This would be the first time I've heard of an Elite screen material being better than the best that Seymour has to offer, for example. But you're right I should get samples of all the weave materials. I had actually thought there were only a few of them, and that Dreamscreen V7 was the only one of its type, before your thread.


I can't really tell you why one material has gotten more chatter than others. TBH, I'm a bit surprised with how much the XD fabric gets talked about with how noticeable its weave is. The Neo is a good material with no noticeable defects. Its gain just can't compare with the best woven materials.

My theory on why the XY screens don't get much chatter is that they are Chinese based and to the best of my knowledge don't have any US-based dealers. You have to buy them by contacting someone over email and getting a PayPal invoice. It isn't the most traditional buying process and there isn't a large presence like the other companies. I can't really guess what's going on with the Elite AcousticPro UHD material. Its acoustics didn't quite match the others so maybe that has been noticed.

I understand the Dreamscreen v7 material getting all of its accolades. It's one of the higher gain woven materials that has very easy to correct acoustic attenuation, is extremely smooth with zero chance of moire, is color neutral, and has a founder that loves this stuff as much as the rest of us and is engaged with the community. Its only knock is that it is ever so slightly less sharp. Oh, it is also DIY-friendly and rather foolproof since it has a built-in black backing.

It isn't vinyl coated.


----------



## Technology3456

PixelPusher15 said:


> I can't really tell you why one material has gotten more chatter than others. TBH, I'm a bit surprised with how much the XD fabric gets talked about with how noticeable its weave is. The Neo is a good material with no noticeable defects. Its gain just can't compare with the best woven materials.
> 
> My theory on why the XY screens don't get much chatter is that they are Chinese based and to the best of my knowledge don't have any US-based dealers. You have to buy them by contacting someone over email and getting a PayPal invoice. It isn't the most traditional buying process and there isn't a large presence like the other companies. I can't really guess what's going on with the Elite AcousticPro UHD material. Its acoustics didn't quite match the others so maybe that has been noticed.
> 
> I understand the Dreamscreen v7 material getting all of its accolades. It's one of the higher gain woven materials that has very easy to correct acoustic attenuation, is extremely smooth with zero chance of moire, is color neutral, and has a founder that loves this stuff as much as the rest of us and is engaged with the community. Its only knock is that it is ever so slightly less sharp. Oh, it is also DIY-friendly and rather foolproof since it has a built-in black backing.
> 
> It isn't vinyl coated.


Is the V7 the finest weave you would say? Which are the finest ones? I edited my prior post but not in time. Not finest of the vinyl coated ones, but finest overall?


----------



## PixelPusher15

Technology3456 said:


> Is the V7 the finest weave you would say? Which are the finest ones? I edited my prior post but not in time. Not finest of the vinyl coated ones, but finest overall?


I’ll get you an up close picture of all these but Lygren described it as a knit. It’s not like the other woven materials. The only other non DreamScreen materials that are like it are the new unreleased (I believe) Eite AcousticPro 8K and CineWhite 8K materials. They are bonded materials but done have two front layers like the v7 as that is proprietary to DreamScreen. They are pretty similar to the v6 fabric.

Other than that, spandex is the only AT screen material that I have seen that is practically smooth as butter.


----------



## Lygren

We use a hybrid, patented layout; woven primary layer to secure density and knitted secondary, third and fourth (backing) on the v7. For the v6, same primary woven layer and then two knitted layers (3rd is backing). 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Lygren

Our woven primary layer is made out of a thin, non-coated ultra matte thread btw. We also supply a ‘textileshield’ version, whereas the primary and secondary layer is infused with a dirt repellent substance. Everything is custom made.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Technology3456

Lygren said:


> Our woven primary layer is made out of a thin, non-coated ultra matte thread btw. We also supply a ‘textileshield’ version, whereas the primary and secondary layer is infused with a dirt repellent substance. Everything is custom made.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I am trying to determine what works well with RGB laser projectors, which I cant buy yet but hopefully very soon. The manufacturer has only tested it with Dreamscreen compared to non-weave screens and recommends Dreamscreen, however without a motorized tensioned pulldown option I may or may not be locked into alternatives depending on other factors with my room and gear. 

As far as I understand, RGB laser speckle is caused by having a set angle of your eyes to the reflection of the image onscreen, so weaves work because the lasers shoot in between the weaves and reflect in different directions, or something like that. So Im guessing whatever has the finest thread count, or the best combination of fine thread count and multiple layers and angles, is what would work best, but without someone being able to define what exactly is responsible, in a screen fabric, for eliminating laser speckle, it's hard to know what exactly to look for.

Maybe the question is best phrased as, "what screen material besides Dreamscreen V7 and V6 is most similar to Dreamscreen V7?" @PixelPusher15. But even then I have no idea if something non-similar would be more effective at eliminating laser speckle since I dont fully know what goes in to eliminating it.


----------



## PixelPusher15

Technology3456 said:


> I am trying to determine what works well with RGB laser projectors, which I cant buy yet but hopefully very soon. The manufacturer has only tested it with Dreamscreen compared to non-weave screens and recommends Dreamscreen, however without a motorized tensioned pulldown option I may or may not be locked into alternatives depending on other factors with my room and gear.
> 
> As far as I understand, RGB laser speckle is caused by having a set angle of your eyes to the reflection of the image onscreen, so weaves work because the lasers shoot in between the weaves and reflect in different directions, or something like that. So Im guessing whatever has the finest thread count, or the best combination of fine thread count and multiple layers and angles, is what would work best, but without someone being able to define what exactly is responsible, in a screen fabric, for eliminating laser speckle, it's hard to know what exactly to look for.
> 
> Maybe the question is best phrased as, "what screen material besides Dreamscreen V7 and V6 is most similar to Dreamscreen V7?" @PixelPusher15. But even then I have no idea if something non-similar would be more effective at eliminating laser speckle since I dont fully know what goes in to eliminating it.


I haven't looked into the speckle issue much. I'm sure there are others that have more info on it than I do but I can say that from my understanding the more additives to the screen fabric to boost the gain of the natural material used the more likelihood speckle will develop. If you can see a sheen on the material then it is probably going to show some speckle. A lot of the woven fabrics are more matte but you can see in my texture notes that some do have a shimmer to them. I suspect these will have some speckle issues. But that is merely a guess.

I'd be very surprised if in the future all RGB laser projectors have speckle issues. I'm not sure of the technicals that go into reducing that on the projector side but it would make a lot of screens unusable if they all have the issue.


----------



## Technology3456

PixelPusher15 said:


> I haven't looked into the speckle issue much. I'm sure there are others that have more info on it than I do but I can say that from my understanding the more additives to the screen fabric to boost the gain of the natural material used the more likelihood speckle will develop. If you can see a sheen on the material then it is probably going to show some speckle. A lot of the woven fabrics are more matte but you can see in my texture notes that some do have a shimmer to them. I suspect these will have some speckle issues. But that is merely a guess.
> 
> I'd be very surprised if in the future all RGB laser projectors have speckle issues. I'm not sure of the technicals that go into reducing that on the projector side but it would make a lot of screens unusable if they all have the issue.


It's baked into the physics of RGB lasers, and so far no 100% solution exists that I know of. The best solution is 6P lasers, having two sets of RGB lasers, one slightly different wavelengths than the other, and if you think of the speckle from the first three like splashes from a paintball hitting a wall, the next three sort of cover up the splashes with more paintballs, something like that. So yes, it's not ideal for a lot of screens. Definitely high gain is a no-no, but even the ST100 is not recommended according to the person I talked to. He recommends only the Dreamscreen basically. Not the ST100, definitely not the G4130, and not ALR screens (at least, not 1 gain or above).


----------



## Technology3456

PixelPusher15 said:


> I haven't looked into the speckle issue much. I'm sure there are others that have more info on it than I do but I can say that from my understanding the more additives to the screen fabric to boost the gain of the natural material used the more likelihood speckle will develop. If you can see a sheen on the material then it is probably going to show some speckle. A lot of the woven fabrics are more matte but you can see in my texture notes that some do have a shimmer to them. I suspect these will have some speckle issues. But that is merely a guess.
> 
> I'd be very surprised if in the future all RGB laser projectors have speckle issues. I'm not sure of the technicals that go into reducing that on the projector side but it would make a lot of screens unusable if they all have the issue.


I forgot to add, vibrating screens apparently work great for RGB laser speckle. So if there's a fixed frame vibrating ST100 type of screen that will work better than a non-vibrating Dreamscreen V7 that is within my budget, provided I can use fixed frame with this, or any motorized tensioned drop down vibrating screen that is within my budget, provided I have to go with drop down screens, then I'd have to look hard at that. But I assumed from the start that these either didnt exist or would be expensive. Maybe I read somewhere they are really expensive. But possibly that was an older article so I should probably check the prices in 2021.


----------



## Lygren

I also agree that laser RGB speckle is an issue that will be solved for most manufacturers moving forward. Christie already seems to have solved it by using an array of different wavelength lasers within the same primary colour, and I am sure others will follow. The current "budget" RGB engines are, in my opinion at least, not suited for any hi-end cinema use yet. The Samsung RGB short throw, for example, has a huge amount of speckle. I have actually tested that one on a DreamScreen v7, and it does remove quite a bit of the issue, but not all. If you have any sheen at all in the material, speckle will become more visible, so the completely matte appearance of the UltraWeaves is certainly an advantage. 

As for vibrating screens with high gain, you have the realD one, which seems like a good screen per se (albeit with the issues higher gain produces in terms of reduced viewing angles I should add), but it is not AT and it costs a fortune. I believe it is more feasible to solve the RGB speckle issue, and simply wait for that to happen, than to go that route. However, for slightly speckled RGB solutions, the UltraWeaves might reduce the speckle issue to a level that makes it less relevant. A client of ours in Germany, W. Mayer, uses a UltraWeave on a Barco Thor 6P, that does have a little speckle, but is reportedly far better off using the UltraWeave than his previous, also quite matte, Harkness PVC-based non-AT screen.


----------



## audioguy

PixelPusher15 said:


> I personally would say they are two different things but are sometimes hard to separate.





> Basically the negative of texture outweighs any perception of an increase in sharpness.


Let me give the background of why I am looking at a possible screen change. My 4500 was used on Seymour XD material and I have a client who is using an RS3000 on a screen by a UK company called Display Technologies. The image he was getting (2:35 screen about 10.5 feet wide) was easily the cleanest sharpest I have ever seen. And he sits about the same distance from his screen as I do mine. But those Display Technoplogies folks are quite proud of their products as indicated by their prices. Hence my search for other options.

All of that said, I am still trying to understand what you are saying in the two quotes above. From my viewing distance of ~13 feet, will the image be I get be *substantively* "better" (cleaner? sharper? crisper? more detailed?) using a V7 screen vs my current XD screen??


----------



## DMILANI

Audioguy can you see any of the weave structure on your current XD? If no, then I don’t think the V7 will offer any significant improvement. I compared samples of V7 and XD and the weave structure was too obvious to me at 13’. I have excellent corrected vision however. I went with the V7 and I am loving it.


----------



## audioguy

DMILANI said:


> Audioguy can you see any of the weave structure on your current XD? If no, then I don’t think the V7 will offer any significant improvement. I compared samples of V7 and XD and the weave structure was too obvious to me at 13’. I have excellent corrected vision however. I went with the V7 and I am loving it.


I have 20/20 vision uncorrected. Unfortunately, I am projector-less at the moment. But (and maybe it was because I was not looking for it) I don't recall seeing (with an image on the screen) the weave unless I was up close. I guess this decision will have to wait until I get another projector (come on JVC) AND a sample of the V7 screen material and see for myself.

Thanks for your response.


----------



## PixelPusher15

audioguy said:


> Let me give the background of why I am looking at a possible screen change. My 4500 was used on Seymour XD material and I have a client who is using an RS3000 on a screen by a UK company called Display Technologies. The image he was getting (2:35 screen about 10.5 feet wide) was easily the cleanest sharpest I have ever seen. And he sits about the same distance from his screen as I do mine. But those Display Technoplogies folks are quite proud of their products as indicated by their prices. Hence my search for other options.
> 
> All of that said, I am still trying to understand what you are saying in the two quotes above. From my viewing distance of ~13 feet, will the image be I get be *substantively* "better" (cleaner? sharper? crisper? more detailed?) using a V7 screen vs my current XD screen??


I can’t say for certain since we have different eyes and preferences always plays a factor in this stuff. But, I would say IMO there is a substantial difference in cleanliness to the image from 13.5’ away. Maybe you could describe it as clarity too. Crisper and detailed? That’s where I have a hard time saying yes but someone else might say so. The XD material doesn’t really take away sharpness it just adds noise. Imagine using a photo editor and turning up the sharpness. Eventually it will add additional noise that’s unwanted. Sometimes a slightly softer image looks “cleaner” and more realistic. Spears and Munsil even recommend unfocusing a projector with large pixel gaps (LCD) so the image is smoother.

This is an exaggeration of the differences in sharpness between the two screens. Just using an analogy to convey my thinking. From 13.5’ I’m not sure you’d notice a difference in sharpness but you should in noise/texture.

If you happen to be in Michigan at some point I’d be happy to show you the differences in person!


----------



## Richard Berg

I think it makes more sense to talk of sharpness in terms of screen-widths rather than raw distance. Unlike texture, which is an immutable property of the screen itself, sharpness is highly dependent on the size of individual pixels.


----------



## PixelPusher15

Richard Berg said:


> I think it makes more sense to talk of sharpness in terms of screen-widths rather than raw distance. Unlike texture, which is an immutable property of the screen itself, sharpness is highly dependent on the size of individual pixels.


Yes and no. The pixel on one material will be the same size on the other. A woven screen can affect different sized pixels differently. Sharpness here isn’t like comparing two different projectors.


----------



## Technology3456

Lygren said:


> I also agree that laser RGB speckle is an issue that will be solved for most manufacturers moving forward. Christie already seems to have solved it by using an array of different wavelength lasers within the same primary colour, and I am sure others will follow. The current "budget" RGB engines are, in my opinion at least, not suited for any hi-end cinema use yet. The Samsung RGB short throw, for example, has a huge amount of speckle. I have actually tested that one on a DreamScreen v7, and it does remove quite a bit of the issue, but not all. If you have any sheen at all in the material, speckle will become more visible, so the completely matte appearance of the UltraWeaves is certainly an advantage.
> 
> As for vibrating screens with high gain, you have the realD one, which seems like a good screen per se (albeit with the issues higher gain produces in terms of reduced viewing angles I should add), but it is not AT and it costs a fortune. I believe it is more feasible to solve the RGB speckle issue, and simply wait for that to happen, than to go that route. However, for slightly speckled RGB solutions, the UltraWeaves might reduce the speckle issue to a level that makes it less relevant. A client of ours in Germany, W. Mayer, uses a UltraWeave on a Barco Thor 6P, that does have a little speckle, but is reportedly far better off using the UltraWeave than his previous, also quite matte, Harkness PVC-based non-AT screen.


I'm definitely looking at RGB laser with the techniques to reduce speckle similar to Christie 3P models, however I believe Dreamscreen or vibrating screen still can't hurt. All I know is Dreamscreen was recommended, and I was told no PVC screen is a good option. I'm not sure any technology has been developed that 100% gets rid of speckle on a PVC screen, although there would be much less than with the Samsung based on your description. Whether you can see it after you get 5 feet away from the PVC screen or not is another matter. It sounds like there are plenty of happy Christie RGB laser customers using it on a normal screen. The Christie's sound like the best projectors on the market to me.

When you say ultraweaves, is that just Dreamscreen V7, or what other options do you put in that category?

Regarding the realD vibrating screen, yeah I dont want anything super expensive. How hard can it be to get a normal fixed frame screen and put 5 vibrating motors on each side of it or something like that? Hopefully there is some cost-effective way to do it without much trouble if there is no cost-effective way to buy it pre-made, but maybe there is and I havent heard of it yet since I just started asking very recently.

Edit: I am curious if you went far enough back from the Dreamscreen, that even with the Samsung RGB, the speckle was no longer visible? Or was it a problem even in normal viewing from a normal distance?


----------



## Lygren

Both the v6 and the v7 has the same ultra matte surface, so both would work very well with slightly speckled RGB lasers. I have not seen any of the RGB setups personally, so I can not conclude on the matter, but the Ilep distributor in Switzerland uses our v7 and states it an excellent combination too, so the feedback from several RGB laser experts is certainly very positive on using the UltraWeaves for that purpose. As for the Samsung, I only tested it at quite close distance, I am sure the speckle-issue would be less if you move further away, but I am really not a huge fan of that model for more reasons than speckle...


----------



## Drexler

In which circumstance would you recommend the v6 over the v7?


----------



## Lygren

Drexler said:


> In which circumstance would you recommend the v6 over the v7?


Image-wise they are just about identical except for the added 16% or so gain on the v7, so if you have light to spare, the v6 is still a very good choice.


----------



## Drexler

And audio wise v6 has an advantage, but perhaps not after running a calibration to correct for the dropoff?


----------



## Lygren

Drexler said:


> And audio wise v6 has an advantage, but perhaps not after running a calibration to correct for the dropoff?


We have had both the v6 and v7 installed for extended periods of time and have had a lot of critical listening done during development of both (using reference audio systems, specifically from Alcons Audio in doing so). With correction applied, neither the v6 or the v7 will appear muffled in any way, but in the audiophile world I am sure some might still prefer the lower drop of the v6. I have to say, it´s not like choosing between the plague and cholera in term of audio or video performance, both are great performers on both areas, but each tilts the performance in two subtle directions... 

To be a bit more concrete; if you, let´s say, are considering one of the new JVC NZ-series projectors, for example the NZ7, and you plan to install a 3m wide screen, the v6 would provide you with about 110 nits prior to calibration (just an example, might be a bit more, or a bit less, we still don´t know the actual performance of this series), and perhaps about 80-90 nits after, in full laser. Lower the laser to mid level, and you´re perhaps down to 50-60 nits. 50-60 nits is fine for SDR, but might be a bit on the low end for HDR. Changing to the v7, you might end up at typically 60-70 nits instead given all else identical, perhaps a bit more HDR-friendly as such. Alternatively one could run the laser at full for HDR material, rather choose the NZ8 or NZ9 for more overall light output, or alternatively reduce the screen width a little. A lot of possibilities and options, which has to be considered for each case and preferences.


----------



## Craig Peer

audioguy said:


> I have 20/20 vision uncorrected. Unfortunately, I am projector-less at the moment. But (and maybe it was because I was not looking for it) I don't recall seeing (with an image on the screen) the weave unless I was up close. I guess this decision will have to wait until I get another projector (come on JVC) AND a sample of the V7 screen material and see for myself.
> 
> Thanks for your response.


Let me know if you need a V7 sample, when you get your projector.


----------



## audioguy

Craig Peer said:


> Let me know if you need a V7 sample, when you get your projector.


Mike has tried twice to get me a sample and it has yet to show up.


----------



## Craig Peer

audioguy said:


> Mike has tried twice to get me a sample and it has yet to show up.


The mailman is keeping them to slowly build a pieced together screen!


----------



## TeriyakiT

Apologies for a naive question: Is the v7 substantially better than a DIY spandex solution? 2-layered white over black milliskin spandex is often recommended in the DIY forum for its strong performance. Appears to have similar smoothness, AT qualities, and possibly gain if using PixelPusher's measurement (.79 vs .70 on white-black spandex). I assume image quality would be the big differentiator?


----------



## PixelPusher15

TeriyakiT said:


> Apologies for a naive question: Is the v7 substantially better than a DIY spandex solution? 2-layered white over black milliskin spandex is often recommended in the DIY forum for its strong performance. Appears to have similar smoothness, AT qualities, and possibly gain if using PixelPusher's measurement (.79 vs .70 on white-black spandex). I assume image quality would be the big differentiator?


I had spandex at 0.64 gain. My recent explorations may indicate that the v7 is a bit sharper too...maybe. Spandex can also show some horizontal lines from the weave. I noticed it myself but it isn't super-duper obvious. 

For the cost of spandex, it is a phenomenal performer. You just need to be able to account for the brightness loss.


----------



## TeriyakiT

Got it. So about a 0.15 gain increase over spandex at a large jump in cost. And even more $ for higher gain screens like a microperf ST or Cima. A very costly hobby I'm discovering


----------



## catinthehat85

TeriyakiT said:


> Got it. So about a 0.15 gain increase over spandex at a large jump in cost. And even more $ for higher gain screens like a microperf ST or Cima. A very costly hobby I'm discovering


Please take my comment with a grain of salt, as I am not brave enough to perform gain measurements and post them here. But, there is a significant increase in brightness over spandex (white over black). I don’t know what number or percentage better, but it is very noticeable. I’ve done both setups, 140” for the spandex, and 160” for the V7. V7 has a slight sharpness advantage, and image is a bit cleaner as well. Is it worth the huge jump in cost? I don’t know…but I wanted the best available this (hopefully last) time around.


----------



## Hawks07

catinthehat85 said:


> Please take my comment with a grain of salt, as I am not brave enough to perform gain measurements and post them here. But, there is a significant increase in brightness over spandex (white over black). I don’t know what number or percentage better, but it is very noticeable. I’ve done both setups, 140” for the spandex, and 160” for the V7. V7 has a slight sharpness advantage, and image is a bit cleaner as well. Is it worth the huge jump in cost? I don’t know…but I wanted the best available this (hopefully last) time around.


I agree, there is a pretty big brightness difference between the two. 
As it has been said many times in the past, it is crucial to get samples of both and more to let your own eyes decide.


----------



## newoski

For what it’s worth, I did a quick comparison photo of DreamScreen V6, V7, Seymour UF and my temporary EliteScreen MaxWhite2. The results were rather shocking, as V7 is whiter than even my EliteScreen which is “supposed to be” 1.1

Whitest small sample = v7
2nd small sample = v6
Large sample = UF
Screen: EliteScreen MaxWhite

this is with lights on, but the relative white levels are consistent w content, as well


----------



## AndreNewman

newoski said:


> For what it’s worth, I did a quick comparison photo of DreamScreen V6, V7, Seymour UF and my temporary EliteScreen MaxWhite2. The results were rather shocking, as V7 is whiter than even my EliteScreen which is “supposed to be” 1.1
> 
> Whitest small sample = v7
> 2nd small sample = v6
> Large sample = UF
> Screen: EliteScreen MaxWhite


Now that's interesting, I recently got a sample of DreamScreen v7 and was surprised that it was duller than my supposedly 1.0 Beamax High Contrast White, I guess the Beamax really is 1.0.

I'll take a pic when it's dark later, would be good to have some reference point for real world gains with these different fabrics.


----------



## newoski

AndreNewman said:


> Now that's interesting, I recently got a sample of DreamScreen v7 and was surprised that it was duller than my supposedly 1.0 Beamax High Contrast White, I guess the Beamax really is 1.0.
> 
> I'll take a pic when it's dark later, would be good to have some reference point for real world gains with these different fabrics.


I was totally thrown by how good the V7 (and 6) look. No texture from nearly any distance.

now I just need to figure out if I’m up for DIY masking panels, as I want my Cinescope image centered on a 16:9 screen, not at the bottom

/:


----------



## newoski

Can anyone recommend an approach to DIY masking panels for the DreamScreen? As I don’t have one yet, I’m not sure the options for attaching the panels.


----------



## Hawks07

newoski said:


> I was totally thrown by how good the V7 (and 6) look. No texture from nearly any distance.
> 
> now I just need to figure out if I’m up for DIY masking panels, as I want my Cinescope image centered on a 16:9 screen, not at the bottom
> 
> /:


If your viewing distance is pretty close, which I assume yours is since you are trying the UF, you simply cannot beat the V7.


----------



## newoski

Hawks07 said:


> If your viewing distance is pretty close, which I assume yours is since you are trying the UF, you simply cannot beat the V7.


the lack of masking option is currently holding me back. Did you do DIY masking on yours?


----------



## Hawks07

Yes I did. However I shift the picture down and do just top masking which is really easy.


----------



## newoski

Hawks07 said:


> Yes I did. However I shift the picture down and do just top masking which is really easy.


Ah ya, my goal is 2 way


----------



## AndreNewman

newoski said:


> I was totally thrown by how good the V7 (and 6) look. No texture from nearly any distance.
> 
> now I just need to figure out if I’m up for DIY masking panels, as I want my Cinescope image centered on a 16:9 screen, not at the bottom
> 
> /:


I haven't seen any sign of objectionable texture, our viewing distance is 3m but nothing truly objectionable even up close.

This is how it looks on the Beamax max contrast 1.0, brightness wise.










Unfortunately the sample isn't really big enough to get a light reading from for a proper relative measurement.


----------



## rbolen

I have a V7 screen and JVC NX5. I have a question that was asked before, but I didn’t see a clear answer (it was either in this thread or the massive JVC NX thread).

What screen number would fit best for the V7 material in the “Screen No.” setting of the “Screen Adjust” part of the theater optimizer? I have the list of screens from the JVCKenwood website, but this screen is not on the list.

Thanks.


----------



## Lygren

rbolen said:


> I have a V7 screen and JVC NX5. I have a question that was asked before, but I didn’t see a clear answer (it was either in this thread or the massive JVC NX thread).
> 
> What screen number would fit best for the V7 material in the “Screen No.” setting of the “Screen Adjust” part of the theater optimizer? I have the list of screens from the JVCKenwood website, but this screen is not on the list.
> 
> Thanks.


The UltraWeaves are included as #175 (v6) and #176 (v7) on the new NZ-series from JVC, but it is not available for the NX-series. However, they track almost identically to the ST100 (#70). However, I would always rather recommend doing a proper pro-calibration as even JVC has variations from unit-to-unit...


----------



## rbolen

Lygren said:


> The UltraWeaves are included as #175 (v6) and #176 (v7) on the new NZ-series from JVC, but it is not available for the NX-series. However, they track almost identically to the ST100 (#70). However, I would always rather recommend doing a proper pro-calibration as even JVC has variations from unit-to-unit...


thank you very much!


----------



## kiddbios

Is it possible to get these screens in a motorized (retractable) unit?


----------



## Lygren

kiddbios said:


> Is it possible to get these screens in a motorized (retractable) unit?


We´re working on making that happen. We were not pleased with our initial test batch, and have made a new one now adjusting some of the parameters to hopefully get where we want to be. I´ll post some test pics / info if the next test batch looks good in about 4-6 weeks time.


----------



## bcurtis53

I am building my first home theater and have an RS2100 arriving next week (!). I am trying to decide which screen to go with. I am basically down to the V7 and the Enlightor NEO. I'm in a 14' x 21.5' space...well there is a false wall for the screen 30" from one end so the room, as far as the screen goes, is 14' x 18'. Throw distance will be 16ft and viewing distance will be 11.5'-12.5'. I've heard that both of these screens are great, but I am leaning toward the NEO mainly because of the existing manual masking option it has. The cost of the V7 is more appealing but since I will have a 2.35 scope screen, I will want to side mask for the times I watch something in 16:9. Does anyone know if there are any manual side masking options for the V7 outside of DIY? If not, does anyone know a thread that covers DIY AT masking panels?

Also, on another note. Does anyone know of any independent tests done on the AT characteristics of the V7? I see people singing its praises, which is great, but I am interested in actual data (I can't help it. I'm a physics teacher.). I never imagined it would be more difficult to choose a screen than a projector. Shows what my newb *%& knows. Haha!

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Lygren

bcurtis53 said:


> I am building my first home theater and have an RS2100 arriving next week (!). I am trying to decide which screen to go with. I am basically down to the V7 and the Enlightor NEO. I'm in a 14' x 21.5' space...well there is a false wall for the screen 30" from one end so the room, as far as the screen goes, is 14' x 18'. Throw distance will be 16ft and viewing distance will be 11.5'-12.5'. I've heard that both of these screens are great, but I am leaning toward the NEO mainly because of the existing manual masking option it has. The cost of the V7 is more appealing but since I will have a 2.35 scope screen, I will want to side mask for the times I watch something in 16:9. Does anyone know if there are any manual side masking options for the V7 outside of DIY? If not, does anyone know a thread that covers DIY AT masking panels?
> 
> Also, on another note. Does anyone know of any independent tests done on the AT characteristics of the V7? I see people singing its praises, which is great, but I am interested in actual data (I can't help it. I'm a physics teacher.). I never imagined it would be more difficult to choose a screen than a projector. Shows what my newb *%& knows. Haha!
> 
> Thanks in advance.


We´re currently working on manual, magnetic masking panels that would fit our regular frames, so it´s in the pipeline for sure. Other than that, our first alpha 2-way motorised masking system will be tested in some weeks, albeit a higher price-range than manual masking. In general, we have placed most of our resources towards the development of the actual fabrics up until now. We are currently working on increasing our v7 widths from 2.3m to 3m, which is taking a huge toll on our R&D resources at the moment, as it is quite challenging for us due to the intricate buildup of these fabrics. As for the manual masking panels however, we will certainly make sure they are retrofittable on our current fixed frames.

EDIT: as for an objective review on the AT characteristics on the v7 (as well as the NEO I believe), you could have a look at this page: https://pixelht.com/25-acoustically...-and-measured/#4_Between_Material_and_Speaker, a review made out by an enthusiast on this forum actually; @PixelPusher15.


----------



## Tuning

Lygren said:


> EDIT: as for an objective review on the AT characteristics on the v7 (as well as the NEO I believe), you could have a look at this page: https://pixelht.com/25-acoustically...-and-measured/#4_Between_Material_and_Speaker, a review made out by an enthusiast on this forum actually; @PixelPusher15.


Interesting review and seems comprehensive. Very well done @PixelPusher15. I thought the V7 had higher gain, closer to 0.91, than what was measured as 0.78. @Lygren Any thoughts on this?


----------



## Lygren

Tuning said:


> Interesting review and seems comprehensive. Very well done @PixelPusher15. I thought the V7 had higher gain, closer to 0.91, than what was measured as 0.78. @Lygren Any thoughts on this?


All the AT fabrics, including the v7, measured lower in this particular test, and we have remeasured at our end and come up with the same values as before when comparing to our ST100 reference. We are trying to get ahold of a unity gain reference block to make sure our ST100 reference material is up to spec, but we have no indication that is not the case. The reason for these low values in this particular test has been discussed in length already, we are using a different type of meter, a Klein K10A, but we have also control-measured using our Colorimeter Research CR-250 spectroradiometer, and we get the same values. These are high-end probes, and the THX/ISF calibrator measuring these fabrics has some 20 years experience, so I believe our measurements are accurate, meaning the only variable that might not be up to spec is our Stewart ST100 screen that we measure off of, so we will do our due diligence for sure.


----------



## fatallerror

Lygren said:


> To be a bit more concrete; if you, let´s say, are considering one of the new JVC NZ-series projectors, for example the NZ7, and you plan to install a 3m wide screen, the v6 would provide you with about 110 nits prior to calibration (just an example, might be a bit more, or a bit less, we still don´t know the actual performance of this series), and perhaps about 80-90 nits after, in full laser. Lower the laser to mid level, and you´re perhaps down to 50-60 nits. 50-60 nits is fine for SDR, but might be a bit on the low end for HDR. Changing to the v7, you might end up at typically 60-70 nits instead given all else identical, perhaps a bit more HDR-friendly as such. Alternatively one could run the laser at full for HDR material, rather choose the NZ8 or NZ9 for more overall light output, or alternatively reduce the screen width a little. A lot of possibilities and options, which has to be considered for each case and preferences.


Have you done testing on max screen size with NZ7 since? Based on the above I guess that if someone want 3.5m or so width with decent brightness then the minimum is the NZ8 with the v7.


----------



## Lygren

This was just an example, figures might be better (or worse) depending on how the production NZ-series perform after calibration. Autocal seems to be able to juice out more than some has reported, but I would say that in general, a 3,5m wide screen is quite large regardless at typically 1800-2000 lumens, although the NZ series has increased output compared to the previous generation. However, they do compensate quite well by adding super dynamics / blacks, as well as the dynamic tone mapping system, and therefore many will be quite happy although you might not reach quite the measured levels one might read from others being the most optimal. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 3ll3d00d

I have been considering switching my screen to dreamscreen so was thinking about to attach the rails. Am I right in thinking that the rails need a slot approx 12mm by 12mm?


----------



## Lygren

We normally say 14mm, but I will double check and get back to you on that. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Lygren

@*3ll3d00d, *just checked to confirm, the rails are indeed 14mm wide and 12mm tall. Including a picture for your reference.


----------



## DMILANI

I suppose you could cut off 2mm of the “flat” part to make it fit. Just won’t have as much surface area for glue, but should be enough I would think. Maybe use some tin snips?


----------



## Lygren

Sure, should be possible. As for the type of glue, a number of variants would work, we normally use construction glue such as this one: Gorilla 9 oz. Heavy Duty Construction Adhesive-8010003 - The Home Depot.


----------



## 3ll3d00d

thanks

I was thinking of how to retrofit it to my current frame, it's a wood frame I made myself with the material stretched over the flat face of the wood. Some chamfered architrave wrapped in velvet is pinned on top. 

I was wondering whether it would be feasible to do something like this, basically route a rabbet along in the inside edge of the frame, insert the screen material and then velvet stretched back over the architrave and pinned on the rear of the frame. I'm not sure how neat this would look though? does the rail function as per a fabric track system (i.e. all the material is neatly tucked into it)?










if not, and i use the same approach you show in your video (with the rails on the outer edge), how much excess material do I need to allow for? The frame is 284cm wide so is a 3m wide piece cutting it too fine?


----------



## Lygren

Not sure I understand your model completely, but the rails are not black, so I would probably not recommend making them visible at the front unless you plan to put velvet into the same slot to cover it completely? If so, when properly glued down, the rails should be quite straight if glued towards a similarly straight edge. Wood in general do tend to live its own life though, so stiffening it up and / or considering using another, more stiff material such as MDF might be a good idea. As for required material additionally in terms of tucking, 15cm should suffice quite fine (you can do with less, but always better to have a little fabric available in order to pull it more easily upon tucking).


----------



## 3ll3d00d

Lygren said:


> Not sure I understand your model completely


let me try to clarify. The frame is like the image below. The red line is where I was thinking of routing out a slot for the grip rail to fit into. The velvet would be inserted and pulled in the direction of the blue arrows & stapled to the rear of the frame. Assuming the grip section is on the inside edge then it seems like the velvet would hide that horizontal section or do you think the rail would still be visible through the top of the edge of the screen material?












Lygren said:


> As for required material additionally in terms of tucking, 15cm should suffice quite fine


I think you mean 15cm in total not per side, am I right?


----------



## Lygren

Sure, that plan should work fine. Only thing is that it would be an advantage to have a straight section on one of the sides of that red line to glue the rails against. 15cm in total should be more than enough.


----------



## Drexler

I think it will be difficult to get a good result with that method. I would recommend to divide it into two frames. One that stretches the screen as you already depicted. And a second frame without support bars with only the black velvet that can be added/hung on top of the other. If the screen material is a bit bigger than the inside of the velvet border you would get a very nice, sharp and straight distinction between the two without folds, which I think would be impossible with the other method. Especially in the corners.


----------



## Lygren

Thanks for the input @Drexler. You might be correct that it is easier to get a good result using your suggested method. We have made some frames out in wood using a similar method as suggested by @*3ll3d00d *though, and the corners ended up quite nice.


----------



## Drexler

Hi Lygren,
That looks nice! I think the issue tough is if you want a border that you can overscan on. Since the outside of the border is wider than the inside you need to accommodate for that somehow without making folds or holes in the velvet. Of course, it's not impossible, but it seems difficult to me. I think I would have made the frame border and staple the velvet to the four sides one by one and removing excess material before assembling them to make the full frame to avoid these issues.


----------



## 3ll3d00d

I had been thinking along those lines as I was struggling to think of how I would manage to get the corners done neatly. Currently my border is stuck on top of the screen so probably I will continue with that same approach.


----------



## graticular

The design you are suggesting Drexler seems extremely similar to the one I have been thinking about for a few weeks. It would have a frame as shown by *3ll3d00d *above, just under 3m wide, with added wood corner braces, made from 100x32mm poplar, with a 15mm wide and 6mm deep groove routed along the middle for the rails. I would then cover some chamfered architrave with black velvet and attach to the front face, using either a nail gun, or upholstered buttons.

One question I would like to ask Lygren. Since buying the V7 fabric I have decided to maximise the screen width. Based on upholstery work I have done it would seem that you could manage with a total of 60mm excess fabric, both ends combined. By following the line of the fabric down 1 side of the screen at the start you could get very close (20mm?) at one side which would then leave 40 mm at the other side for stretching. Do you think this would be reasonable?


----------



## Lygren

graticular said:


> The design you are suggesting Drexler seems extremely similar to the one I have been thinking about for a few weeks. It would have a frame as shown by *3ll3d00d *above, just under 3m wide, with added wood corner braces, made from 100x32mm poplar, with a 15mm wide and 6mm deep groove routed along the middle for the rails. I would then cover some chamfered architrave with black velvet and attach to the front face, using either a nail gun, or upholstered buttons.
> 
> One question I would like to ask Lygren. Since buying the V7 fabric I have decided to maximise the screen width. Based on upholstery work I have done it would seem that you could manage with a total of 60mm excess fabric, both ends combined. By following the line of the fabric down 1 side of the screen at the start you could get very close (20mm?) at one side which would then leave 40 mm at the other side for stretching. Do you think this would be reasonable?


That should work fine, although I would recommend tucking the side with the least fabric available first.


----------



## graticular

Lygren said:


> That should work fine, although I would recommend tucking the side with the least fabric available first.


Thanks Lygren.

The pattern that was recommended for upholstering panels which works well for me is the following order, starting with the left side fro example:
The centre of the left side
The centre of the right side
The centre of the top 
The centre of the bottom

Then go round again:
Expanding out from the centre of the left side
Expanding out from the centre of the right side, etc

How do you think this approach compares with the pattern of doing 2 adjacent sides first, such as the left side then the top?


----------



## Lygren

Due to the randomised front layer of this fabric, even uneven tensioning will not cause any negative effect as is the case with other fabrics using a fixed pattern. As such, as long as the end-result is tucked well and the surface is flat, it does not matter much how the tensioning is done.


----------



## JakobsenDK

@Lygren Can you share any updates on your motorised tab tension screen as mentioned earlier in this thread?


----------



## Lygren

JakobsenDK said:


> @Lygren Can you share any updates on your motorised tab tension screen as mentioned earlier in this thread?


Still waiting for our second test batch, hopefully within a couple of weeks we’ll be able to run some tests and figure out whether further adjustments are needed. Developments are taking far longer these days in general, but I guess that’s the name of the game in these peculiar times unfortunately… 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ksdehoff

Can anyone speak to the concerns of visible moire' patterns on all the microperf screens? When I did my last screen this was a big concern (>10 yrs) but seems like no one is worried about it - I'm planning an nz8/4m scope screen and wonder if moire' is an issue at 15 ft. (yes I know that's a big screen!)


----------



## ddgdl

There is zero texture or moire to the Dreamscreen. It is unbelievable how smooth it is for an AT screen - even 1 foot away has no texture.

Microperf is visible up until about 12' away. Moire can also be an issue but I'll leave others to speak of that as I couldn't get over the visible perforations from my seating distance and went with the Dreamscreen v6


----------



## BilliumB

I've got a roll of DreamScreen V6 along with the associated grip rails that I’m planning to use on a DIY screen - I’m thinking about using 80:20 aluminium extrusions for the frame and wondering if anyone else has done this?


----------



## Lygren

BilliumB said:


> I've got a roll of DreamScreen V6 along with the associated grip rails that I’m planning to use on a DIY screen - I’m thinking about using 80:20 aluminium extrusions for the frame and wondering if anyone else has done this?


We have never made a DIY frame using aluminum extrusions, so unfortunately not too many practical tips, but you can basically glue down the rails wherever you see fit, any regular construction glue will work. Perhaps you could even fit the rail within one of the cavities?


----------



## dlinsley

BilliumB said:


> I've got a roll of DreamScreen V6 along with the associated grip rails that I’m planning to use on a DIY screen - I’m thinking about using 80:20 aluminium extrusions for the frame and wondering if anyone else has done this?


I was going to replace my frame with this masking screen recipe, but my LCR speaker positioning doesn't really work. The 80:20 aspect may be of interest to you though.
(220) SMX (Simple Masking eXperience) screen build/recipe | AVS Forum

I was going to glue the rails like Lygren suggests, though I think it was earlier in this thread that someone used weathering stripping foam rods.
Edit: Found it: Aluminum Frame Different thread, and material thickness may be an issue, but worth testing with a sample.


----------



## Rock Danger

@Lygren My plan is to replace the Seymour Centre Stage XD material, with V6 or V7 by having grommet holes punched and fitted, so the DreamScreen material can use the existing fittings (frame pegs, with rubber loops) will that be ok? 

The only thing I have to decide is V6 or V7. Other than the disadvantage of V7 being less acoustically transparent, how would it better the V6 and by how much?


----------



## ddgdl

It's about 10-15% (I think the exact number is 12%) brighter


----------



## Lygren

Rock Danger said:


> @Lygren My plan is to replace the Seymour Centre Stage XD material, with V6 or V7 by having grommet holes punched and fitted, so the DreamScreen material can use the existing fittings (frame pegs, with rubber loops) will that be ok?
> 
> The only thing I have to decide is V6 or V7. Other than the disadvantage of V7 being less acoustically transparent, how would it better the V6 and by how much?


You should be fine using grommets, many have done so using either v6 or v7. V7 measured about 15% higher when we did our latest benchmarking, and other than that difference, the v6 and v7 appears as good as identical image-wise. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rock Danger

@Lygren Thanks, I'll get it all sorted out then - my current screen I can see the weave at 13.5ft and because it's out from the wall by a few feet I really need a proper black backing, the makeshift one if have now is fine, but the DS seems to tick most boxes for me.


----------



## flyers10

Looking at have a seating distance of either 7.5 ft or 8 ft from possibly a 99" wide 2.4 or 2.0 screen. What material would be best to use?
Also where can I get samples? I'm in Arizona.


----------



## Lygren

flyers10 said:


> Looking at have a seating distance of either 7.5 ft or 8 ft from possibly a 99" wide 2.4 or 2.0 screen. What material would be best to use?
> Also where can I get samples? I'm in Arizona.


The v6 and v7 has the same surface layer, meaning they are both similarly well suited to handle that seating distance. As for samples in the US, please reach out to AVScience.com, they should have some available.


----------



## confinoj

Hi all. Planning a dedicated a basement HT. Projector will likely be upcoming JVC NP5. Screen will be about 120" 16:9 AT. Front row will be about 10ft. I was initially looking at Seymour Center Stage XD with Premier frame and magnetic masking (and I do have a sample coning) but I have been told that 10ft is too close to see weave. I could go UF but then I'm loosing brightness. After doing more reading here and speaking with Mike Garret over at AV Science I'm now leaning towards DreamScreen V7 as it seems the best of both with just a little more audio attenuation that should be easy to correct for. If I go this route need to figure out what screen frame to go with. Simplest and cheapest is to purchase AV Science screen with V7. With that option no magnetic AT masking options. I could fashion my own masking panel that hangs from top and shift image down for scope content. I'm not terribly handy but that seems relatively easy. Not sure I like the idea of the image having to move down though. Alternatively it seems some have used the Seymour premier screen frame and installed the V7 material with the Dreamscreen grip rail system. Then I could use the Seymour masking option. Not sure how easy that is and that does add more cost. Any thoughts or alternatives? Or in a light controlled room with a JVC NP5 class projector is masking overrated and may not even need it? I'm new to the projector world. Thanks.


----------



## Lygren

We´re still working on our own detachable masking panels, but project is still pending. I´ll post as soon as we have an update. We´re also working on a 2nd generation 2-way motorised masking solution, but this project is also pending. As for using the v7 with another frame; you only need a 14mm wide slot on the back to accommodate the universal grip rails, a number of folks has installed it for a variety of different brands up through, and I have yet to hear of anyone not being able to retrofit the fabric.


----------



## confinoj

Lygren said:


> We´re still working on our own detachable masking panels, but project is still pending. I´ll post as soon as we have an update. We´re also working on a 2nd generation 2-way motorised masking solution, but this project is also pending. As for using the v7 with another frame; you only need a 14mm wide slot on the back to accommodate the universal grip rails, a number of folks has installed it for a variety of different brands up through, and I have yet to hear of anyone not being able to retrofit the fabric.


Thanks. Do the grip rails have to be glued or screwed in all cases?


----------



## Lygren

confinoj said:


> Thanks. Do the grip rails have to be glued or screwed in all cases?


Our own frames has a fitted slot, and in some cases you might find a suited slot on other frames as well. However, gluing it on is really not a big deal, just apply a general construction glue and let it heal for some 10+ hours.


----------



## Richard Berg

Lygren said:


> We´re still working on our own detachable masking panels, but project is still pending. I´ll post as soon as we have an update. We´re also working on a 2nd generation 2-way motorised masking solution, but this project is also pending. As for using the v7 with another frame; you only need a 14mm wide slot on the back to accommodate the universal grip rails, a number of folks has installed it for a variety of different brands up through, and I have yet to hear of anyone not being able to retrofit the fabric.


Are you designing panels to retrofit the existing frames, or does it require a new frame + panel packaging?


----------



## Lygren

Richard Berg said:


> Are you designing panels to retrofit the existing frames, or does it require a new frame + panel packaging?


We´re certainly aiming at retrofitting.


----------



## confinoj

Just got samples of Dreamscreen V7 and Seymour XD + UF. The V7 material is really impressive. I won't be stating anything new here but one would never know it' an AT screen by looking at it. I plan to sit at 10ft (HT is in planning phase) and everyone has said (including Seymour) this is too close for the XD material hence the recommendation by many for the V7. There is the UF and Neo but I really didn't want to sacrifice the gain. I currently have a temp inexpensive pull down Elite screen and an Epson HC-1060 projector (purchased initially for outdoor movie nights) so that's what I have as a reference for now. I will say that I had a hard time seeing weave on the XD at 10ft but I do need a new glasses prescription. I could see it closer to 8ft and really only slightly when panning on white/bright material. I can certainly imagine though on a full XD screen that would become noticeable just hard to tell on a small sample. My 12 yo son was more easily able to see texture at 10ft. I did not notice any brightness difference. I will say that text and graphics viewed up close appeared sharper on the XD and my pull down screen compared with V7 but on video content not noticeable. Hard to say whether this is pseudo sharpening from the weave and structure of my inexpensive pull down screen or a true sharpness loss of the V7. Overall I will definitely be choosing the V7 for my screen.

I have to decide whether to use the AV Science frame or go the significantly more expensive route and use a Seymour frame (both 16:9) so I can use their very nice magnetic AT masking. Mike at AVS has instructed me how to make a DIY panel that hangs from the top of their frame but then you would have to shift image down for scope content. Not sure I want to do that. While my current projector certainly has terrible black levels I'm planning on a JVC NP5 (or maybe NZ7) and room will be light controlled so not even sure how much I will be bothered by it without masking but I have no reference. Any strong opinions on the frame/masking decisions?


----------



## Lygren

Testing our new 2-way masking system on this 200" 2.40:1 native frame. The system now has 5 memory stops, plus of course, manual adjustment, meaning that you would be able to mask down most formats perfectly. Can be controlled using RS232 or the included RF remote.

We are also working on a refresh of the actual frame. This frame will be 15cm wide instead of the current 20cm. The new frame will be customisable in terms of size. Meanwhile, we still have a few sizes left of the current frames that can be modified to fit this new masking system. 

As for manual masking panels, we are also working on a new solution, and hopefully I can post some info on that shortly.


----------



## Lygren

So, following the gain measurements done by @PixelPusher15, we decided to do our due diligence and get ahold of a reflectance standard. It took some time, as most reflectance standards are simply too small to get any meaningful measures off of them, but we finally found a very nice one in 5" x 5" made by the US company Optronic Laboratories.

















*Equipment and measurement methodoly*

We use a Klein K10A colorimeter, referenced by a Colorimetry Research CR-250 spectroradiometer. Measurements are made by professional THX / ISF L3 calibrator Gorm Sorensen. All samples are measured at the same distance and A / B / C referenced.








​*Measurement samples*

For this round of measurements, we are comparing the Stewart Studiotek 100, our previous reference material, DreamScreen UltraWeave v7 as well as the XY 4K material. All samples are of adequate size (about 30x30cm).

*Measurement results*

Reflectance standard: 247,4cd/m2
Stewart Studiotek 100: 246,2cd/m2
DreamScreen UltraWeave v7: 211,5cd/m2
XY 4K: 200cd/m2 with black backing

Since the Reflectance Standard is not 1.0 gain, but 0,9940 according to the included Reflectance Distribution Values within the video nm wavelength-range, this has to be accounted for, meaning the deducted values to compensate for this would amount to:

Stewart Studiotek 100: 244,7cd/m2
DreamScreen UltraWeave v7: 210,2cd/m2
XY 4K: 198,8cd/m2 with black backing

Gain would calculate to:

*Stewart Studiotek 100: 0.99
DreamScreen UltraWeave v7: 0.85
XY 4K: 0.80*

This would explain the slight difference we have measured the v7 in at previously, as the ST100 in reality is a bit under 1.0 gain. We did add a 5% "margin" for our previous measurements, and doing the same here, we end up at an "official" gain of about 0.9 for the v7 as opposed to the 0.93 we have posted in the past.

As for the XY screens measuring higher than the v7 in @PixelPusher15 measurements we are not sure as to why. We do see that the XY, without black backing, but rather overlaid a white screen, measures more in accordance with the values he is getting, but with the appropriate black backing we are reconfirming a slightly higher gain on the v7 vs. the XY. We might have received a bad sample though, or they might have alternated the composition since we received our sample, but these are the results regardless.

The measurement screens are included in the attached PDFs.


----------



## ddgdl

Did you re-measure the V6 as well, by any chance?


----------



## Lygren

ddgdl said:


> Did you re-measure the V6 as well, by any chance?


We didn´t, as we have measured it so many times in the past. It would basically follow be the same "equation", a little lower gain vs. the reflectance standard than the previous measurements made vs the studiotek 100, so I´d guess some 0.75 without that 5% "buffer".


----------



## ddgdl

That is what I figured, but just thought I'd ask. Thank you


----------



## PixelPusher15

Lygren said:


> So, following the gain measurements done by @PixelPusher15, we decided to do our due diligence and get ahold of a reflectance standard. It took some time, as most reflectance standards are simply too small to get any meaningful measures off of them, but we finally found a very nice one in 5" x 5" made by the US company Optronic Laboratories.
> 
> View attachment 3247725
> 
> 
> View attachment 3247726​
> *Equipment and measurement methodoly*
> 
> We use a Klein K10A colorimeter, referenced by a Colorimetry Research CR-250 spectroradiometer. Measurements are made by professional THX / ISF L3 calibrator Gorm Sorensen. All samples are measured at the same distance and A / B / C referenced.
> 
> View attachment 3247727
> ​*Measurement samples*
> 
> For this round of measurements, we are comparing the Stewart Studiotek 100, our previous reference material, DreamScreen UltraWeave v7 as well as the XY 4K material. All samples are of adequate size (about 30x30cm).
> 
> *Measurement results*
> 
> Reflectance standard: 247,4cd/m2
> Stewart Studiotek 100: 246,2cd/m2
> DreamScreen UltraWeave v7: 211,5cd/m2
> XY 4K: 200cd/m2 with black backing
> 
> Since the Reflectance Standard is not 1.0 gain, but 0,9940 according to the included Reflectance Distribution Values within the video nm wavelength-range, this has to be accounted for, meaning the deducted values to compensate for this would amount to:
> 
> Stewart Studiotek 100: 244,7cd/m2
> DreamScreen UltraWeave v7: 210,2cd/m2
> XY 4K: 198,8cd/m2 with black backing
> 
> Gain would calculate to:
> 
> *Stewart Studiotek 100: 0.99
> DreamScreen UltraWeave v7: 0.85
> XY 4K: 0.80*
> 
> This would explain the slight difference we have measured the v7 in at previously, as the ST100 in reality is a bit under 1.0 gain. We did add a 5% "margin" for our previous measurements, and doing the same here, we end up at an "official" gain of about 0.9 for the v7 as opposed to the 0.93 we have posted in the past.
> 
> As for the XY screens measuring higher than the v7 in @PixelPusher15 measurements we are not sure as to why. We do see that the XY, without black backing, but rather overlaid a white screen, measures more in accordance with the values he is getting, but with the appropriate black backing we are reconfirming a slightly higher gain on the v7 vs. the XY. We might have received a bad sample though, or they might have alternated the composition since we received our sample, but these are the results regardless.
> 
> The measurement screens are included in the attached PDFs.


Hey Jon,

I'm really happy to see your updated testing with a reflectance standard! I've got a couple of comments and questions. I think our measurements seem to be within the margin of error for unit to unit variance. I measured the v7 at 8% less and the XY 4K at about 1% less than you. These are fairly small. Here's my list of questions:

Was each material measured identically in the setup? (Full screen vs full screen, sample vs sample)
Is this still the same XY 4K material you tested a while ago?
Do you know your unit-to-unit or run-to-run variance with regard to gain?
Did you use the black backing that XY provides or something else? 
Did you measure it with and without the black backing? 

Did I read it correctly that you're rating the V7 now at a 0.9 gain? I'm not sure I understand why since it came out at .85? Seems a little favorable when a 5% margin could go either way. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your margin calculations.
One other thought just to wrap up my comments. I do wonder how much handling and unit to unit variance has or can play a role here in the results.


----------



## Lygren

PixelPusher15 said:


> Hey Jon,
> 
> I'm really happy to see your updated testing with a reflectance standard! I've got a couple of comments and questions. I think our measurements seem to be within the margin of error for unit to unit variance. I measured the v7 at 8% less and the XY 4K at about 1% less than you. These are fairly small. Here's my list of questions:
> 
> Was each material measured identically in the setup? (Full screen vs full screen, sample vs sample)
> Is this still the same XY 4K material you tested a while ago?
> Do you know your unit-to-unit or run-to-run variance with regard to gain?
> Did you use the black backing that XY provides or something else?
> Did you measure it with and without the black backing?
> 
> Did I read it correctly that you're rating the V7 now at a 0.9 gain? I'm not sure I understand why since it came out at .85? Seems a little favorable when a 5% margin could go either way. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your margin calculations.
> One other thought just to wrap up my comments. I do wonder how much handling and unit to unit variance has or can play a role here in the results.


Yes, some variance can probably be attributed the sample variance, and the XY sample we used is the same one we used in the past. We did measure the XY samples from both sides though, and we used the side with the highest reflection value for these measurements (it differs only 1% from one side to the other though). 

The variance of the v7 material seems very low. The previous measurement were made with a difference batch than those we used now, and the results very much corresponds. In general, we place a lot of emphasis on maintaining batch stability and always measure out each batch prior to mass production. 

As for the black backing of the XY, we simply used the back of a v7 fabric, which is pretty much full blockage. If you are using a semi-opaque black backing with something white behind that one again, for example, it might increase the reflection value. For sake of measurement stability, the backing should be just that; complete blocking so that only the reflection of the material is measured. 

As for the 0.9 "official" vs. 0.85 measured, well, we could just as well be stating the measured values, but instead we are including the actual measurement data in our product pages. If you think 5% "margin" is somewhat borderline, I might concur, I am all for full transparency, but XY states their fabric is 1.1, which is a whopping "margin" of some 38%, and the same is the case for many other manufacturers... Problem is that folks actually read those "specs" and purchase a "1.1" gain fabric instead of the 0.9 even though the 0.9 in reality is brighter. So, rounding it up to 0.9 instead of listing 0.85 does not strike me as highly controversial, but each their own of course.


----------



## Lygren

Sorry, forgot the sample size question, these are the two sample we used for the v7 and XY. The Studiotek 100 is a full screen, while the reflectance standard is 5" x 5". We make sure the measurement area of the probe is set to remain well within the 5" x 5" of the reflectance standard, and the meter remains at the exact same position while the various samples are measured.


----------



## PixelPusher15

I would be curious to see what a new sample of the XY 4K screen would measure like in your setup. You've got a better meter and a better reflectance standard than I do. I don't think we're far off here and probably well within the margin of error of meters and material variation. As I said I'm really pleased to see that you guys took these extra steps to reinforce your ratings. I personally would rate your material at .85 since it is the measurement but rounding up to .9 ain't the worst thing I've seen with gain ratings by a longshot. I agree with your sentiment about other company's ratings. They're not exactly the most honest. It's frustrating for the buyer since companies that rate their screens honestly are at a disadvantage when the average buyer is shopping. I've seen multiple comments from others that complain of a dim image and it's because they based their projector decision on the belief that their screen is 1.0 gain. When actually it's a 0.65-0.7 gain screen. 

Went a bit of course there, sorry. I'd like to reiterate how impressed I am that you guys went through the work to have these measurements redone in comparison to a reflectance standard. More All companies should be doing exactly this.


----------



## graticular

I have recently decided to change to a scope screen, so the V7 fabric I bought is now available at a big discount. It is the 2.3x3m V7 with TextileShield PRO, so if anyone in the UK is interested please pm me.


----------



## ARROW-AV

Here is my Quick Brown Fox test pattern projected onto DreamScreen UltraWeave V6 material by a Christie Eclipse (The World's Best Video Display):


----------



## graticular

ARROW-AV said:


> Here is my Quick Brown Fox test pattern projected onto DreamScreen UltraWeave V6 material by a Christie Eclipse (The World's Best Video Display):


Looks pretty good to my untrained eye. I remember reading that you had gone over to the V7. Apart from the difference in gain do you know how the V6 compares with the V7?


----------



## ARROW-AV

graticular said:


> Looks pretty good to my untrained eye. I remember reading that you had gone over to the V7. Apart from the difference in gain do you know how the V6 compares with the V7?


I upgraded my Home Theater within my house in the UK to the DreamScreen V7.... Then sold that house and moved to Florida USA. 

Our demo theater in which the Christie Eclipse is installed uses the DreamScreen V6. The V6 has a slightly better acoustical transparency and lower gain. It is thinner than the V7. That is pretty much the only difference in performance.


----------



## graticular

ARROW-AV said:


> I upgraded my Home Theater within my house in the UK to the DreamScreen V7.... Then sold that house and moved to Florida USA.
> 
> Our demo theater in which the Christie Eclipse is installed uses the DreamScreen V6. The V6 has a slightly better acoustical transparency and lower gain. It is thinner than the V7. That is pretty much the only difference in performance.


I guess with the Christie you weren't desperate for a high gain screen . . .


----------



## ARROW-AV

graticular said:


> I guess with the Christie you weren't desperate for a high gain screen . . .


Correct. The Christie Eclipse is 9,000 - 25,000+ Lumens. The Christie Griffyn AS is 15,000 Lumens. And the Sony GTZ380 is 10,000 Lumens

With my Home Theater in the UK the projector was a JVC RS3000/NX9 with circa 1,850 Lumens light output. Hence the choice of V7 over V6 DreamScreen material.


----------



## JohnnyWilkinson

ARROW-AV said:


> Correct. The Christie Eclipse is 9,000 - 25,000+ Lumens. The Christie Griffyn AS is 15,000 Lumens. And the Sony GTZ380 is 10,000 Lumens
> 
> With my Home Theater in the UK the projector was a JVC RS3000/NX9 with circa 1,850 Lumens light output. Hence the choice of V7 over V6 DreamScreen material.


Thanks Nigel! Did you ever post your review or measurement on the V7 material? Would you recommend it?

Cheers


----------



## JMAX2016

I had a little bit of an issue with my screen. Jon stepped right up and took care of it. Thank you.


----------



## graticular

Commiserations. I would email them: [email protected]


----------



## JMAX2016

I just emailed them. Thank you.


----------



## graticular

JMAX2016 said:


> I had a little bit of an issue with my screen. Jon stepped right up and took care of it. Thank you.


Glad to here that this was quickly sorted. DreamScreen do seem to be extremely helpful.


----------



## ralev

Just sprung for a V7 screen as I've been looking for an AT screen one could sit at 6 to 8 ft away from and not have to worry about screen issues. One thing I liked was that JMAX's problems were handled so quickly ... It also gave me pause as well ... I will be hanging the screen for immediate enjoyment and probably will want to transfer the screen to a different frame when I get around to building a masking system. After discussing this with AV science I felt warm and fuzzy enough to move forward ... Just wanted to thank you guys, as unbeknownst to you, you were a part of this decision.


----------



## Ash Sharma

Lygren said:


> We´re currently working on manual, magnetic masking panels that would fit our regular frames, so it´s in the pipeline for sure. Other than that, our first alpha 2-way motorised masking system will be tested in some weeks, albeit a higher price-range than manual masking.


Can I use V6 material on my Stewart Vistascope Screen 2:40 and 14 Feet Wide (Currently ST 100 AT Material) ? The hope is that it arrive with all the grommets in place to replace the material from ST 100 to V6?


----------



## Lygren

Ash Sharma said:


> Can I use V6 material on my Stewart Vistascope Screen 2:40 and 14 Feet Wide (Currently ST 100 AT Material) ? The hope is that it arrive with all the grommets in place to replace the material from ST 100 to V6?


Our universal rails will fit most frames, and is a very good method of attachment, as it provides a very even and tight stretch. However, you could outfit the v6 / v7-fabric with grommets too, but it is not something we do on site unfortunately, but if you bring your existing screen and the v6 to a local sewing workshop I´m pretty sure they would be able to match the grommets of your Stewart screen.


----------



## Ash Sharma

Lygren said:


> Our universal rails will fit most frames, and is a very good method of attachment, as it provides a very even and tight stretch. However, you could outfit the v6 / v7-fabric with grommets too, but it is not something we do on site unfortunately, but if you bring your existing screen and the v6 to a local sewing workshop I´m pretty sure they would be able to match the grommets of your Stewart screen.


I sent you a PM


----------



## Tuning

Ash Sharma said:


> Can I use V6 material on my Stewart Vistascope Screen 2:40 and 14 Feet Wide (Currently ST 100 AT Material) ? The hope is that it arrive with all the grommets in place to replace the material from ST 100 to V6?


Would be great to hear your thoughts on the reasons why you are looking at replacing ST100 AT? Also why v6 instead of v7?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## grobalt

Tuning said:


> Would be great to hear your thoughts on the reasons why you are looking at replacing ST100 AT? Also why v6 instead of v7?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Studiotek 100 and 130 create laser speckle with 3P laser


----------



## Ash Sharma

Tuning said:


> Would be great to hear your thoughts on the reasons why you are looking at replacing ST100 AT? Also why v6 instead of v7?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


 Grobalt answered for me.. thanks.


----------



## Ash Sharma

Tuning said:


> Would be great to hear your thoughts on the reasons why you are looking at replacing ST100 AT? Also why v6 instead of v7?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


And V6 because the projector I am getting is 22000 Lumens (Calibrated and modded for CR circa 16000 Lumens) and my Screen is a Puny 14 foot wide 2:40... so brightness is not a problem here and V6 is lower gain than the V7.
But V6 is more acoustically trasnparent than the V7 so V6 is the choice in my case.


----------



## DMILANI

What projector is that with 22,000 lumens?


----------



## hokeyplyr48

Maybe the barco?


----------



## Ash Sharma

DMILANI said:


> What projector is that with 22,000 lumens?


Christie 4KM25 - I think it is 25000 Lumens (without calibration and contrast Mod)


----------



## Ash Sharma

But... I will be losing by beloved DCR A lens - I hope Craig Peer who is my partner (I think) In arms/crime supporting the DCR will be disappointed as I will be.
The Christie 4KM25 is a 4K shift projector so I lose the benefit of resolving all the Pixels ...using the DCR.
And the brightness boost is not required which the DCR provides.
I do love the usability of the A Lens ... something I will have to mull over.


----------



## hokeyplyr48

Such tough decisions… I’d hate to have that much light to work with 😉


----------



## confinoj

I have a roll of V7 that is 86” x 118” and came with grip rails. I will be installing it in a Seymour premier frame with a 59” x 105” viewable area. I figured it would be easier to first trim down the material a bit before trying to install in the grip rails so it’s not so unwieldy. How much excess should I initially leave for the installation? Afterwards when taught I figured I can then trim further. Thanks.


----------



## DMILANI

I left about 4” extra all the way around. Seemed to work just fine.


----------



## confinoj

DMILANI said:


> I left about 4” extra all the way around. Seemed to work just fine.


Thanks. Was that 4” beyond the grip rail or the size of the viewing area? I would imagine it also depends on the frame and where the grip rails can be inserted. What frame did you use?


----------



## DMILANI

I used the frame from AV Science made specifically for the V7 material.


----------



## Ash Sharma

DMILANI said:


> I used the frame from AV Science made specifically for the V7 material.


Wonder if AV Science makes a frame to fit the V6 to a Stewart Vistacope 14 foot wide 2:40 - I would be needing this soon.


----------



## confinoj

More V7 install questions. As noted above this is not on a Dreamscreen or AV Science frame but a Seymour frame. I did watch the install video with grip rail. It's not so clear to me what the best method is for making sure screen is well tensioned. Do you do an initial tuck of material all around and then repeatedly un-tuck, pull, re-tuck to get it tighter? Is there a good method to do this so tensioning is even or it's not so important as long as its taught? How tight are we aiming for? Thanks.


----------



## Lygren

I normally tuck the long sides first, start in the middle and move towards each end. Then I tuck the short sides. If any area needs a bit more tension afterwards, you just pull the fabric out where needed and tuck again. One of the advantages with the randomised structure of this fabric in combination with being completely matte is that even some uneven tension will rarely be possible to see with the image projected.


----------



## confinoj

Lygren said:


> I normally tuck the long sides first, start in the middle and move towards each end. Then I tuck the short sides. If any area needs a bit more tension afterwards, you just pull the fabric out where needed and tuck again. One of the advantages with the randomised structure of this fabric in combination with being completely matte is that even some uneven tension will rarely be possible to see with the image projected.


Thanks. These are the grip rails that AV science sent. They look very different than what’s on your website and videos. Is this correct?


----------



## ddgdl

confinoj said:


> Thanks. These are the grip rails that AV science sent. They look very different than what’s on your website and videos. Is this correct?


Mine from avs looked the same. I too was worried that they didn't look like what I saw online. But they work great


----------



## confinoj

ddgdl said:


> Mine from avs looked the same. I too was worried that they didn't look like what I saw online. But they work great


Thanks. I have a fabric mate tucking tool as recommended by dreamscreen. I tried my v7 sample I had on one of the rails to see how it works and I’m having a lot of trouble getting screen fabric to stay. After multiple attempts the rail cracked. Not sure what I’m doing wrong.

I’m also not sure where to put the rail on my Seymour frame. There is one slot but it won’t lay completely flat. With tension it should stay in place though with the flat section of the rail under the rim of the slot. The only caveat is I won’t be able to go to the corners due to how the frame pieces are attached. I could just glue it on a flat portion of the frame. See attached pics. 1st one is how rail sits in available slot. Second is showing how I couldn't go to corners due to frame bracket. Third is where I potentially could glue rail.


----------



## confinoj

The Seymour frame uses grommets. If I cut the v7 material to the same size as the Seymour UF material it came with and bought a grommet kit off Amazon like this one below would that work?

KING PIECES Grommet Tool Kit Handheld Hole Punch Pliers Portable Grommet Hand Press Machine Manual Puncher w/ 500pcs Silver Grommets of 1/4 Inch (6mm) https://a.co/d/dvXPFxO


----------



## Lygren

I guess you would have to discuss this with AVScience @*confinoj*, I´m not familiar with the tracks they are using, and they do look a bit different than ours.


----------



## confinoj

ddgdl said:


> Mine from avs looked the same. I too was worried that they didn't look like what I saw online. But they work great


Did you use V7 or V6? What frame did you use it on?


----------



## confinoj

Lygren said:


> I guess you would have to discuss this with AVScience @*confinoj*, I´m not familiar with the tracks they are using, and they do look a bit different than ours.


Thanks. If I used the available slot I have as you can see in the attached pic I can not put rail in corners where frame attachment brackets are. Do you think this would still work?


----------



## Lygren

You would probably need to glue down small rail pieces in the corners as well to get the proper tensioning in this case. Just use a regular construction glue, let it heal for some 24 hours. It will not matter that this small section is attached a bit taller than the rest.


----------



## confinoj

Lygren said:


> You would probably need to glue down small rail pieces in the corners as well to get the proper tensioning in this case. Just use a regular construction glue, let it heal for some 24 hours. It will not matter that this small section is attached a bit taller than the rest.


Thanks again. I know this has been asked before but if I bought a grommet punch kit off Amazon and matched the grommets to the Seymour UF screen it came with you feel that is an inferior approach? I don't know how easy it would be on this material though.


----------



## Lygren

Grommets has been used for several v6/v7 installations, particularly screening rooms for larger canvases, and I have never heard back this did not work well, so I’m sure that might be a good option too. If, for some reason, you’re not pleased you could probably revert to rails.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## confinoj

Lygren said:


> Grommets has been used for several v6/v7 installations, particularly screening rooms for larger canvases, and I have never heard back this did not work well, so I’m sure that might be a good option too. If, for some reason, you’re not pleased you could probably revert to rails.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thanks. I really appreciate all your support. I may try the grommet approach assuming I can find a grommet kit that will work with this material. I’ve never installed grommets before.


----------



## Lygren

I am happy to announce that we have been gracefully included as part of AUAVs CEDIA 2022 demonstration booth. The UltraWeave will be used alongside the Holy Grail of projectors; the Christie Eclipse. I have to admit, never having seen the Christie, I am as eager as I would suspect being the case for most fella enthusiasts seeing this beast of a projector unfold it´s amazing imagery (on the UltraWeave that is, even better as far as I am concerned at least... ).

If you have ever considered visiting CEDIA, this is really the year to do it! Covid is a thing of the past, it´s time to get out there and experience some amazing stuff once again. Although the Eclipse is somewhat of a dream for most of us, having been in this industry since CRT projectors was the ultimate (note: I´m not THAT old, but I´ve been a HT enthusiast since I was a kid basically, 44 now to be precise), seeing projection basically going full circle is really something to behold. Ultimate blacks. Ultimate sharpness. Ultimate colours. Can´t wait! 

Hope to see ya there! Dallas, September 29th to October 1st; CEDIA Expo |. AUAV is located at booth 25106.


----------



## JakobsenDK

Any news about your tab-tensioned retractable screen @Lygren?


----------



## ddgdl

Lygren said:


> I am happy to announce that we have been gracefully included as part of AUAVs CEDIA 2022 demonstration booth. The UltraWeave will be used alongside the Holy Grail of projectors; the Christie Eclipse. I have to admit, never having seen the Christie, I am as eager as I would suspect being the case for most fella enthusiasts seeing this beast of a projector unfold it´s amazing imagery (on the UltraWeave that is, even better as far as I am concerned at least... ).
> 
> If you have ever considered visiting CEDIA, this is really the year to do it! Covid is a thing of the past, it´s time to get out there and experience some amazing stuff once again. Although the Eclipse is somewhat of a dream for most of us, having been in this industry since CRT projectors was the ultimate (note: I´m not THAT old, but I´ve been a HT enthusiast since I was a kid basically, 44 now to be precise), seeing projection basically going full circle is really something to behold. Ultimate blacks. Ultimate sharpness. Ultimate colours. Can´t wait!
> 
> Hope to see ya there! Dallas, September 29th to October 1st; CEDIA Expo |. AUAV is located at booth 25106.


Will you use the v6 or v7? I would think the v6 would be more than enough given the light output of the eclipse


----------



## confinoj

Lygren said:


> Grommets has been used for several v6/v7 installations, particularly screening rooms for larger canvases, and I have never heard back this did not work well, so I’m sure that might be a good option too. If, for some reason, you’re not pleased you could probably revert to rails.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Amazon delivered a grommet kit same day. I tried it on my V7 sample. Seems to work fine and is pretty easy. I'm leaning towards this route. I was thinking I'd cut the V7 to the same size as my Seymour UF material and match the grommet pattern. It gets tensioned by o-rings. The different materials may need different amount of tension so that's the only unknown if I just copy the size of the Seymour material.


----------



## Lygren

ddgdl said:


> Will you use the v6 or v7? I would think the v6 would be more than enough given the light output of the eclipse


We´ll be using the v6, both because the available size of the v7 is currently too small to fit this particular demo screen, but also because there is really no need for the extra gain.


----------



## Lygren

confinoj said:


> Amazon delivered a grommet kit same day. I tried it on my V7 sample. Seems to work fine and is pretty easy. I'm leaning towards this route. I was thinking I'd cut the V7 to the same size as my Seymour UF material and match the grommet pattern. It gets tensioned by o-rings. The different materials may need different amount of tension so that's the only unknown if I just copy the size of the Seymour material.


There´s not a massive amount of tension in the v7, but there is some. I would probably recommend adding a little tiny bit of added tension when installing the grommets. Very interesting regardless, if a DIY amazon grommet kit works out for you I´m sure a lot of others might consider doing the same.


----------



## Lygren

JakobsenDK said:


> Any news about your tab-tensioned retractable screen @Lygren?


Unfortunately, both our attempts did not meet our quality standards. From what I gather, we need to increase the diameter of the inner roll, requiring us to make an entirely different model. Also, we require more tension than our current tensioned models are able to apply, so we need to figure out a better system for that as well. For now, we are focusing on developing new manual and motorised masking frames, meaning a tab-tensioned model is not planned for some time. Too bad really, we know a lot of setups where a tensioned solution would work better than a framed one, but it is that it is...


----------



## confinoj

Lygren said:


> There´s not a massive amount of tension in the v7, but there is some. I would probably recommend adding a little tiny bit of added tension when installing the grommets. Very interesting regardless, if a DIY amazon grommet kit works out for you I´m sure a lot of others might consider doing the same.


Success!! It was a little time consuming as I’ve never had to precisely cut such a large piece of fabric or install grommets but overall not very hard in retrospect. I unrolled the V7 and then laid the Seymour UF material on top and kept them together with small pieces of masking tape. I then trimmed the v7 to the same size as the UF. Keeping them together I made my way around punching grommets in the V7 to match the UF. Over 50 so it took a while trying to be precise. When done I had a panic attack as it seemed the V7 was going to have to stretch a bit for grommets to not be visible within frame. Even though the basement theater isn’t ready for the screen yet I quickly assembled the frame so I could test it. It actually seemed to fit perfectly and stretched enough with the o-rings. For me this was better than the grip rail as I didn’t have a good channel to install them and I’m now using the frame’s intended tensioning method. I did have to disassemble the frame as I have no where to put it until room is ready Wed night.


----------



## Ash Sharma

I am thinking of replacing my 14 foot wide Stewart 100 AT Screen 2:40 with the V6 Material ... and my current Vistascope Frame is Grommet Based.
Your post gives me hope I can accomplish this also (I am no hands on DIY guy at all).
Question - can you advise what tool exactly you used for making the Grommets on the V6?
Thanks


----------



## confinoj

Ash Sharma said:


> I am thinking of replacing my 14 foot wide Stewart 100 AT Screen 2:40 with the V6 Material ... and my current Vistascope Frame is Grommet Based.
> Your post gives me hope I can accomplish this also (I am no hands on DIY guy at all).
> Question - can you advise what tool exactly you used for making the Grommets on the V6?
> Thanks


I used this one. It was very easy to use.

BIZOEPRO Grommet Tool Kit Grommet Press Pliers Portable Hole Punch Manual Kits Handheld Eyelet Machine W/with 500pcs 3/8 Inch (10mm) Silver Grommets Amazon.com


----------



## confinoj

What's the best way to clean the V7? I had to roll it back up after testing it fit in my Seymour screen as room not ready yet and will assemble again tomorrow night. It did seem to easily pick up some debris from the carpet or fibers from the black backing after cutting. Can I vacuum with a brush attachment? Thanks.


----------



## Lygren

Just make sure the brush is clean first, it works good at taking off some dust and debris.


----------



## confinoj

Lygren said:


> Just make sure the brush is clean first, it works good at taking off some dust and debris.


Thanks will do. When I rolled it back up again (which is just until tomorrow night) I didn't re-use the white sheet as it was so much bigger than the size I cut and I rolled it with the black backing facing out. Was this ok to do? I'm now paranoid about messing up the surface of the screen given it's cost. Last night when I thought I cut it too small at first and wasted a $1200 screen I started getting chest pain and sweating!


----------



## Lygren

It might have been a good idea to reuse that white protective sheet under it when rolling it back on to avoid dirt from the back / ground getting to the front of the fabric if whatever it was laying on was not clean, but I´m sure you´ll be fine.


----------



## confinoj

I didn’t notice this the first time I assembled the screen but along the sides of the frame you can see where there is more tension from the o-rings/grommets. It’s hard to capture in a picture but here’s the best I can do. Any suggestions on how to improve that? Will it likely be visible during a movie?


----------



## Ash Sharma

confinoj said:


> I didn’t notice this the first time I assembled the screen but along the sides of the frame you can see where there is more tension from the o-rings/grommets. It’s hard to capture in a picture but here’s the best I can do. Any suggestions on how to improve that? Will it likely be visible during a movie?


Do the Installed Grommets on your V6 connect to the Seymour Screen Frame with a 'strings and hooks' system or how otherwise?


----------



## confinoj

Ash Sharma said:


> Do the Installed Grommets on your V6 connect to the Seymour Screen Frame with a 'strings and hooks' system or how otherwise?


Metal posts with o-rings. The posts are moveable.


----------



## confinoj

confinoj said:


> I didn’t notice this the first time I assembled the screen but along the sides of the frame you can see where there is more tension from the o-rings/grommets. It’s hard to capture in a picture but here’s the best I can do. Any suggestions on how to improve that? Will it likely be visible during a movie?


I think they are more visible with light shining from above. I’m guessing this material is just a little better suited for grip rails. While my av gear is not getting installed until tomorrow I have a portable Epson projector and tested. Turns out I could not see any of those waves with content and screen looked great. Can’t wait for theater to be operational which should be Friday.


----------



## Ash Sharma

confinoj said:


> Metal posts with o-rings. The posts are moveable.


Interesting...
The Stewart Vistacope has a Grommet with Strings and Hooks... this is a much flexible implementation. And the Vistascope Frame is very deep and much wider than the screen, there is room if you make errors in punching grommets etc.
Only Concern If the Dreamscreen has similar weight of the Stewart 100 I will be replacing... as tension may vary with Weight, then again Stewart uses various materials with the same frame and Grommet String and Hook System.
I will buy the Dreamscreen V6 from AVS soon and try this and will report on this thread.


----------



## Ash Sharma

confinoj said:


> Metal posts with o-rings. The posts are moveable.


Awesome picture... in the Vistascope Frame the Hooks Glide on the String horizontally as you can see in the picture.
I thank you very much for making this post - I had almost given up on using the Dreamscreen V6 although it has been recommended by my Projector Dealer..
But because your post I think this will be an easy replacement for me... and as always thanks for the awesome site AVS is where all of us can congregate and exchange ideas.


----------



## confinoj

Ash Sharma said:


> Awesome picture... in the Vistascope Frame the Hooks Glide on the String horizontally as you can see in the picture.
> I thank you very much for making this post - I had almost given up on using the Dreamscreen V6 although it has been recommended by my Projector Dealer..
> But because your post I think this will be an easy replacement for me... and as always thanks for the awesome site AVS is where all of us can congregate and exchange ideas.


Good luck. Of note I have V7 not V6 but that shouldn't have an impact on your plans. The V6 should be even easier to put grommets in.


----------



## Ash Sharma

confinoj said:


> Good luck. Of note I have V7 not V6 but that shouldn't have an impact on your plans. The V6 should be even easier to put grommets in.


I received the V6 Dreamscreen V6 sample from Mike Garret at AV Science - I bought the Grommet device as posted earlier.
Tried a few sample Grommets on the material...
Question: I noticed that the Dreamscreen gets a bit stretched near the Grommet and has wrinkles...
I think once the screen has all the grommets and is installed on my Vistascope Screen all will be OK .
I look forward to receiving your comments on what your experience is with wrinkles or stretches due to Grommets.


----------



## confinoj

Ash Sharma said:


> I received the V6 Dreamscreen V6 sample from Mike Garret at AV Science - I bought the Grommet device as posted earlier.
> Tried a few sample Grommets on the material...
> Question: I noticed that the Dreamscreen gets a bit stretched near the Grommet and has wrinkles...
> I think once the screen has all the grommets and is installed on my Vistascope Screen all will be OK .
> I look forward to receiving your comments on what your experience is with wrinkles or stretches due to Grommets.


Similarly my V7 material got a little wrinkle between the grommet and edge of the material. I don’t think that mattered. The edges of my screen still have the mild buckling from the tension at each grommet but it has not been noticeable at all watching content. The screen has been great mated with the JVC NZ7. I’m very happy I went through the trouble of this little diy project as the Seymour magnet masking panels are really cool.


----------



## Ash Sharma

Lygren said:


> It might have been a good idea to reuse that white protective sheet under it when rolling it back on to avoid dirt from the back / ground getting to the front of the fabric if whatever it was laying on was not clean, but I´m sure you´ll be fine.


 I sent you a PM


----------



## Ash Sharma




----------



## DMILANI

Looks great!


----------



## Ash Sharma

Succes....
Installed V7 on a Stewart Vistascope Frame .... a perfect Install.
Thanks Mike Garret at AV Science for the excellent service in getting this to me - answering my questions over the long holiday and what not.
And thanks Jon for answering many questions to help with the install and what to do and what not to.
The audio is much improved - the video is close to the Calibrated Stewart ST100 it replaces - but this is without calibration of the V7.
Next waiting on Christie 4KM25 ARLED Edition.... will put a detailed post on my theater thread over the next couple of months.


----------



## Richard Berg

Ash Sharma said:


> Succes....
> Installed V7 on a Stewart Vistascope Frame .... a perfect Install.
> Thanks Mike Garret at AV Science for the excellent service in getting this to me - answering my questions over the long holiday and what not.
> And thanks Jon for answering many questions to help with the install and what to do and what not to.
> The audio is much improved - the video is close to the Calibrated Stewart ST100 it replaces - but this is without calibration of the V7.
> Next waiting on Christie 4KM25 ARLED Edition.... will put a detailed post on my theater thread over the next couple of months.


Nice looking stage! Did you demo the ARLED in Germany?


----------



## Ash Sharma

Richard Berg said:


> Nice looking stage! Did you demo the ARLED in Germany?


Thanks for the compliment..
Did not demo... just rolled the Dice ...
One very respected German AVS member who I respect a lot bought it after demoing and comparing with other similar projectors at ARLED - he gave me a bunch of feedback. Helped me roll the dice...


----------



## Ash Sharma

Jokes apart - I had to choose between the 380 GTZ and the 4KM25 modded as the Griffin does not fit my space .... 
So it was the decision I made and hope I don't regret..


----------



## Richard Berg

Be sure to link your build thread when it arrives -- good luck!


----------



## confinoj

As previously noted I installed V7 in a Seymour Premier frame by installing grommets in the V7 as the Seymour frame uses an o-ring/grommet system. The o-rings are attached to metal posts that are in their own track and can be moved if needed. I had reported that along the left and right sides of the screen there is some buckling from the tension points at the grommets. This is not visible with projected material, just the room lights, but over time it has bugged me. It's cool to present the room with recessed lights on just above the screen and this accentuates the buckling the most. I also posted in the Seymour thread but asking here for any suggestions to improve it as well. When I first installed the material as a trial run (and then disassembled) I didn't notice. At that time I know I didn't fasten some of the top and bottom o-rings towards the middle of the screen. It could have been just the lighting and I didn't notice (it was 2am) but also wonder if leaving some of the middle horizontal o-rings off allowed for some more stretch towards the middle and less tension at the left/right sides. There does have to be enough tension to stretch the V7 a little bit so the grommets clear the visible area but there is probably some play. Here are a couple pics if it helps.


----------



## dlinsley

confinoj said:


> I had reported that along the left and right sides of the screen there is some buckling from the tension points at the grommets.


In your from the back photo, it looks like in the bottom left corner you don't have a grommet/ring pulling into the bottom track (to provide vertical tension) - only to the side. I've seen similar photos in the Seymour thread where someone didn't install a post there and had similar results.

Edit: See this post, then the reply from Chris and follow up to that just a few posts further down: The official SeymourAV center stage screen thread!


----------



## Balbolito

Got my V7 160” material today, their frame in a week or so. Just got the whole thing from them. I do not want to do any guessing work or face any issues.


----------



## confinoj

dlinsley said:


> In your from the back photo, it looks like in the bottom left corner you don't have a grommet/ring pulling into the bottom track (to provide vertical tension) - only to the side. I've seen similar photos in the Seymour thread where someone didn't install a post there and had similar results.
> 
> Edit: See this post, then the reply from Chris and follow up to that just a few posts further down: The official SeymourAV center stage screen thread!


Thanks. You just can’t see it in the pic but the corner grommet has 2 o-rings as Chris recommends. But you raise a good point. Perhaps it’s not just a little too much tension horizontally but not enough tension vertically. I can see about adding extra o-rings. Or zip ties like Chris suggested in that post. Not sure if it will eliminate the buckling but it may help. I just reached behind the bottom of the screen and tugged on the material and it does improve the bottom few buckles.


----------



## confinoj

dlinsley said:


> In your from the back photo, it looks like in the bottom left corner you don't have a grommet/ring pulling into the bottom track (to provide vertical tension) - only to the side. I've seen similar photos in the Seymour thread where someone didn't install a post there and had similar results.
> 
> Edit: See this post, then the reply from Chris and follow up to that just a few posts further down: The official SeymourAV center stage screen thread!


I also had posted in the Seymour thread and Chris Seymour even chimed in and made a similar suggestion as the post you linked to - using zip ties at the corners to add vertical tension. Additionally he recommended loosing the tension of the sides by "poking the o-ring through the grommet, then itself, so that it's only one half hooking over the post instead of two." I finally had some time to work on it and followed both those suggestions. It's now perfect so very happy. I’m no longer irked when I walk in the theater. Thanks everyone for all the suggestions.


----------



## Lygren

Finally back from an eye opening CEDIA trade show! Thanks to all visitors, Absolute Ultimate AV @ Nigel, Ross, Michelle and the guys at Christie, Steinway-Lyngdorf and Spatial, it was some fun and challenging days for sure.

The Christie Eclipse took home ProjectorCentrals award for Best New Product, Spatial won CEDIAs Best New Product, while the DreamScreen UltraWeave won Best of Show from Residential Systems.

So, I have already given some of my impressions on the Christie thread, but I will repeat some of them here, being somewhat relevant in terms of assessing the future of projection (and screens) as such. Although being out of reach for most of us, the Eclipse shows us the promise of projection as a source of ultimate image quality moving forward. OLED TVs will grow larger, crystal LED walls will reduce in price at some point, but so will the tech shown to us through this magnificent projector. A selected few can actually be able to install the image of the future right now, and by all means - the Eclipse is just that.

Ultimate blacks has always been the holy grail of any image tech, including projection. It was perhaps kind of sour for us projection folks that OLED TVs and to some extent crystal LED walls took that prize at first, but now it has finally been shown that this is also possible with projection. Why a projector one might say; a huge OLED or a crystal LED are available today with image quality that would please most. However, there are caveats. Acoustical transparency is probably the first and foremost argument for projection; the larger the screen, the harder it will be to find a spot for those speakers and not to mention the acoustical challenges that arise from a large, fixed surface right in front of the seating positions. There´s that. Then there are several other important factors too. LED-tile solutions have other issues, be it visible tiles, heat emission within the room, too reflective a screen surface and highly challenging maintenance when and if those tiles age or one or more of them needs replacement. I just saw the Sony cledis at their London HQ, and several tiles were already out of sync. Both in terms of colour stability and image brightness. Sure, it might be possible to remedy, but it is certainly a challenge, and a huge one at that. OLED TVs, I have one in my living room. It´s a great image, don´t get me wrong. However, the glare of the screen is simply not compatible with a proper cinematic experience. I guess they might be able to improve glare, but you have the acoustical issues, not to mention the challenge of getting a 150" OLED through your front door.

So, my belief in projection is now renewed with the Christie Eclipse at the tip of the innovative sword. Not that todays projectors are not able to produce excellent pictures, I have a Sony GTZ380 at my showroom, and it looks great too. Still, ultimate blacks is something I have sought after since my CRT days, where my Barco 1209, albeit some 1250 peak 10% lumens (and far lower with full white field), was kind of my pinnacle of blacks up until the Christie. Ultimate blacks is simply such an immensely important part of enjoying content, it´s like the noise floor and hence dynamics of a proper hi-fi system, it´s that important. Sure, it will take some time for me personally to have an equivalent of the Eclipse in my own theater, but now I know it´s possible, and that´s reassuring. Being a true home cinema nerd, and have been for most of my life, that´s a really cool thing, now I have something to look forward to, hopefully before my hairs grow completely grey. Still, the same can be said with larger OLEDs (the probably have to be rollable before one would be able to get them in at 150" and larger) as well as crystal LED walls, it will take time. Projection is now also a technology of the future, not only the past.

So, that´s my more AV nerd philosophical take on the Christie, the image it produced was emotional for me, it was that good. Colours, sharpness, dynamics, wow man, what a treat! I was lucky enough to be able to see some other content than the demo reels as well, and what impressed me most of what I saw was the Fifth Element. Old movie, grainy as hell, but that cinematic look was just out of this world - for me that is - I always loved that movie.

In terms of the screen, I was happy to see the combination with RGB lasers working out this great. I have always been very focused on obtaining the mattest possible surface, and to some extent costing us some gain. However, we maintained this focus on all our productions, and with the RGB lasers in particular, I see this as a clear advantage in terms of getting rid of those tiny parts of sheen. Speckle was not an issue at all. The sharpness was also stellar, I mean each and every one of those 8 million pixels were crystal clear, and although I am not necessarily that into pixel peeping (have you looked at a "pixel" from a OLED TV up close, by the way?), proper sharpness is certainly a factor. 

Also, I have finally met my overlord in terms of blacks, Nigel was covering every single spit of light emitting fixture, taping over each and every LED-diode on all gear within the room. When journalists were at the booth trying to film, he had them dim down their monitor to a minimum, it´s just that extreme focus on details and perfection that amazes and impresses me. Good job Nigel, you´re a true trooper, I would never had been able to repeat what you just achieved at that trade show myself (I got tired by just looking at you running around), but ya got it done! Same to Ross and Michelle, wonderful, hardworking, fun and loving folks, wish you the best of luck all of you. And Alan of course, he could not attend this time, but he is certainly also an important part of this demo coming to fruition.

Attaching some screen shots, although iphone shots certainly does not do this experience justice at all, (seeing is believing, the new AV-Mekka is now located in Bradenton, Florida, plus at Art´s...), I just wanted to include a couple still.


----------



## Lygren

Presenting the AUAV-setup at CEDIA; Christie Eclipse, Steinway-Lyngdorf, madVR Envy, Spatial and DreamScreen:


----------



## Balbolito

@Lygren well deserved!! after having the V7 for a month, everything else looks blurry and has no depth to my eyes!


----------



## flyers10

Are there masking panels available yet?


----------



## Lygren

flyers10 said:


> Are there masking panels available yet?


We have made some attempts, and although it should be a pretty simple task to make out, we were not pleased with the results. We will return to manual masking panels after we have finished our new 2-way motorised masking system which is now under development and taking up all our engineering resources. The new solution will be far slimmer than todays, about 10cm wide frame vs. 20cm on our existing motorised masking solution, and we will also be utilising "smart" motors that are app-controllable. Fabric is now also front mounted, meaning you can install the frame to the wall and then attach the screen fabric. For tighter spaces, the frame can also be mounted directly to the wall instead of first having to assemble it on the floor. Easy access to motors and masking system via detachable velvet masking panels. I´ll post more info once this project is a bit more refined, we are currently at the 3D printing model stage, so still some time ahead.


----------



## Lygren

New video from the AUAV-booth @ CEDIA 2022


----------



## Lygren

So, we are currently drawing out our new 2-way motorised masking screen, that will replace our now discontinued (we do have some left still, but only smaller sizes) MotoMask 1-way frame. The new frame is far more compact, about 10cm in width (appr. 4 inches), uses two "smart" motors that are app-controllable, have front loaded fabrics and easy access to motors and masking system through detachable masking panels. 

Here are some pics from our current 3D-printed mockup model. Please disregard the masking bars, they are just for testing and will be rounded on the production model. 

ETA is still some time ahead, but since framing has kind of been an achilles heel of ours compared to other brands, putting most of our resources into developing the actual screen material, we hope this new model will improve on just that.


----------



## confinoj

I've been using my Dreamscreen V7 for a couple months now in our new basement HT. It was one of the few options that allowed my to go AT and sit at 8.5ft from screen (120" 16x9) and not see weave/perf plus get the gain I wanted. I have noticed that it does not appear as sharp as most other sample materials I still have. It resolves 4K patterns still and actual video content can look very sharp depending on source quality which is obviously the most important so good there. It's noticeable primarily with text and graphics so until I start playing something it's fairly evident on the UI of whatever source I'm using. Is this just expected for this type of material? Could there be sample variation? Does the amount of tension on the screen have any impact on this? Also while this is very non-scientific when I hold up a sample of Seymour UF material brightness doesn't seem much different but V7 should have significantly more gain. I admit not a very good way to compare though.

The other thing noticed is likely premature to assess but it does sometimes seem like my speakers are truly "behind a screen". It's more noticeable for music than movies and more so for vocals/dialogue. I say it may be premature as I haven't finished treating the room yet. The screen is in front of an alcove that measures about 10ft feet wide by 3ft deep. Right now the wall behind the screen has 6 panels of OC 703, 4" thick at 48"x24" each but the room itself does not have panels up yet and I will also be filling a good amount of the space behind the screen with pink insulation. Nonetheless it does look like on audyssey measurements there is a good amount of high end roll off due to the screen (attached pic). These are Revel F36s which should measure fairly flat although I don't have a measurement without the screen in place. My expectation was that with room correction this should not be noticeable so I'm hoping it's just due to an untreated room. And the high end roll off shouldn't be affecting vocals right? Should I be able to get a flat response through the V7 once room correction is applied? Can degree of tension on the screen or sample variation also affect AT qualities? Is there an optimal distance to screen for speakers and can toe in be an issue? I know I have more work to do and eventually when I get room panels up (arriving in 1-2 weeks) and dust off my umik-1 I can get some more data and subjective observations.


----------



## Lygren

Congrats on getting your screen retrofitted! As for the acoustic loss through the v7, you can expect about 4,2dB peak loss @ 20kHz, and less as you move down the frequency scale, averaging at about 3,3dB. The toe in should have little to no conceivable difference as is the case with perforated materials. After an automatic calibration correction, the loss should not be significantly audible, but for audio, some hear things others don´t, but at least the v7 is one of the best screens in terms of AT if you include the gain in the equation. The v6 trades gain for transparency, but I have rarely if ever heard of anyone reporting the v7 to be regarded an obstacle in the audio department after calibration. 

As for the back of your wall, the insulation you´re using is a good idea would reduce the impact of waves bouncing back from the fabric. In terms of distance, although we´re using as little as 5cm / 2 inches in most of our installation, we do see a slight improvement of the acoustical performance if you move the speakers a little further back. So, if you have the space available, moving them a bit closer to the back wall might be a good idea. 

In terms of sharpness, compared to a solid white screen, you would have a slight loss, but at least in my opinion, the loss is of such slight magnitude that it applies mostly to things like spreadsheets and the like. For video content, the qualities of the invisible randomised weave (meaning you will never see the screen fabric when images pan) and complete matte surface far outweight any slight reduction in sharpness. While some more coarse woven materials might seemingly enhance sharpness, a lot of information is still lost in the reflection as the area reflecting light is more coarse. The "solid" appearance of the UltraWeaves is one of the factors that makes it more "organic" to view in comparison to many other AT materials. I guess what one would place most emphasis on is subjective, but we just had the UltraWeave showcased alongside a Christie Eclipse as CEDIA, and believe you me, sharpness was certainly not an issue. I guess some projectors that are somewhat soft to begin with might look slightly sharper on a "sharpness enhancing" type of fabric at first glance, but give it some time and I´m pretty sure you´ll be very happy with the image reflected by the v7.


----------



## confinoj

Lygren said:


> Congrats on getting your screen retrofitted! As for the acoustic loss through the v7, you can expect about 4,2dB peak loss @ 20kHz, and less as you move down the frequency scale, averaging at about 3,3dB. The toe in should have little to no conceivable difference as is the case with perforated materials. After an automatic calibration correction, the loss should not be significantly audible, but for audio, some hear things others don´t, but at least the v7 is one of the best screens in terms of AT if you include the gain in the equation. The v6 trades gain for transparency, but I have rarely if ever heard of anyone reporting the v7 to be regarded an obstacle in the audio department after calibration.
> 
> As for the back of your wall, the insulation you´re using is a good idea would reduce the impact of waves bouncing back from the fabric. In terms of distance, although we´re using as little as 5cm / 2 inches in most of our installation, we do see a slight improvement of the acoustical performance if you move the speakers a little further back. So, if you have the space available, moving them a bit closer to the back wall might be a good idea.
> 
> In terms of sharpness, compared to a solid white screen, you would have a slight loss, but at least in my opinion, the loss is of such slight magnitude that it applies mostly to things like spreadsheets and the like. For video content, the qualities of the invisible randomised weave (meaning you will never see the screen fabric when images pan) and complete matte surface far outweight any slight reduction in sharpness. While some more coarse woven materials might seemingly enhance sharpness, a lot of information is still lost in the reflection as the area reflecting light is more coarse. The "solid" appearance of the UltraWeaves is one of the factors that makes it more "organic" to view in comparison to many other AT materials. I guess what one would place most emphasis on is subjective, but we just had the UltraWeave showcased alongside a Christie Eclipse as CEDIA, and believe you me, sharpness was certainly not an issue. I guess some projectors that are somewhat soft to begin with might look slightly sharper on a "sharpness enhancing" type of fabric at first glance, but give it some time and I´m pretty sure you´ll be very happy with the image reflected by the v7.


Thanks for the feedback, really appreciate it. I agree that outside of graphics/text actual video content picture has been great. I suspect my audio issues are just room related which I will hopefully get sorted out soon. I think my LCR drivers are about 4-5 inches from the screen. What would say is optimal?


----------



## Lygren

confinoj said:


> Thanks for the feedback, really appreciate it. I agree that outside of graphics/text actual video content picture has been great. I suspect my audio issues are just room related which I will hopefully get sorted out soon. I think my LCR drivers are about 4-5 inches from the screen. What would say is optimal?


4-5 inches should be more than sufficient, and although you might see a very slight improvement from adding a few inches more, it would be very subtle for sure.


----------



## kiddbios

I have a Dreamscreen V7. It got a very small smudge on it. I used water and a soft cloth to wipe off the smudge, but now I have about a 4" in diameter circle stain/discoloration. Is there any guidance on how to clean these screens, or how I might go about repairing this issue?


----------



## Lygren

kiddbios said:


> I have a Dreamscreen V7. It got a very small smudge on it. I used water and a soft cloth to wipe off the smudge, but now I have about a 4" in diameter circle stain/discoloration. Is there any guidance on how to clean these screens, or how I might go about repairing this issue?


Here is a video showing how to remove a tougher stain;


----------



## kiddbios

Thank you for the reply. This was a very small smudge, maybe 1/8 of an inch. I used nothing but distilled water and a microfiber cloth. The issue I am having is that the screen seems to have absorbed the moisture and it expanded into a discolored ring with a dark edge, like what you would see after leaving a glass on a table. Had I known that the fabric would react in such a manner, I would have just lived with the smudge.

Looking at the shared video, it would seem that I should be able to use water or even a light dishwasher detergent with no issues, so I am unsure why water would cause this issue. Is it possible it just takes a really, really long time to fully dry?


----------



## Lygren

It´s always a good idea to try brushing off those kinds of stains at first, as, depending on the type of stain, might be diluted when being applied water. If the stain has diluted, you normally would have to apply more water and rinse the water / diluted stain out to get rid of it as per the video.


----------



## kiddbios

Lygren said:


> It´s always a good idea to try brushing off those kinds of stains at first, as, depending on the type of stain, might be diluted when being applied water. If the stain has diluted, you normally would have to apply more water and rinse the water / diluted stain out to get rid of it as per the video.


Are all Dreamscreens treated with TextileShield? I have a v7, but I don't see anywhere on the invoice that mentions TextileShield. 

It appears that anywhere on the screen that it gets wet it causes a slight yellowish discoloration with a darker edge. It's like the screen is having a reaction to moisture, very similar to what happens to a piece of paper that gets wet, but without the wrinkling.


----------



## Lygren

They are supplied both with and without. With the TextileShield it is certainly easier to clean off, as the fibers are treated with a dirt repellent formula, but unless the stain is very hard, like blood or fat, it is normally possible to get it out of the regular non-textileshields as well. I suggest you try the suggested method, and if it does not work out I would suggest contacting your dealer for options. Moving forward, all our fabrics are supplied with the textileshield protection btw, although it increases the cost a little, it is in these kinds or cases it comes out as very handy. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## kiddbios

Lygren said:


> They are supplied both with and without. With the TextileShield it is certainly easier to clean off, as the fibers are treated with a dirt repellent formula, but unless the stain is very hard, like blood or fat, it is normally possible to get it out of the regular non-textileshields as well. I suggest you try the suggested method, and if it does not work out I would suggest contacting your dealer for options. Moving forward, all our fabrics are supplied with the textileshield protection btw, although it increases the cost a little, it is in these kinds or cases it comes out as very handy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thank you. I've reached out to my dealer. They said my specific screen material does not have TextileShield. 

I wouldn't describe this as a "stain". There isn't a foreign substance that has soiled a large portion of the screen. There was a very, very small mark/smudge that was about 1/8 of an inch by 1/32 of an inch. The issue seems to be with where the screen has come into contact with water, and I've confirmed on a piece of the same material that was trimmed away that it exhibits the same response when in contact with tap water or distilled water. 

I am reluctant to use any type of cleaner or a toothbrush on the screen.


----------



## Lygren

kiddbios said:


> Thank you. I've reached out to my dealer. They said my specific screen material does not have TextileShield.
> 
> I wouldn't describe this as a "stain". There isn't a foreign substance that has soiled a large portion of the screen. There was a very, very small mark/smudge that was about 1/8 of an inch by 1/32 of an inch. The issue seems to be with where the screen has come into contact with water, and I've confirmed on a piece of the same material that was trimmed away that it exhibits the same response when in contact with tap water or distilled water.
> 
> I am reluctant to use any type of cleaner or a toothbrush on the screen.


I am discussing your matter with your dealer now. What might potentially cause what you are seeing is excessive dye from the black backing releasing in contact with water. This is not something that normally would or should happen, so replacement is probably the best option in such case, please continue the dialogue with your dealer for further arrangements.


----------



## kiddbios

How far back from the screen is it recommended to have the speakers with the V7? I currently have a CC and 2 large subs behind the screen, about 6" back from the material.


----------



## DMILANI

I was told a few inches. I have about 3” in front of my Triad in-walls and it sounds great. You should be fine at 6”.


----------



## kiddbios

For anybody considering a Dreamscreen, I just wanted to say how impressed I am with the quality and performance of the product, but more-so with the exceptional after-the-sale support. I had an issue with my screen and both @Craig Peer from AV Science and @Lygren from Dreamscreen acted decisively and with lightning speed to remedy the situation. I am beyond pleased with my Dreamscreen v7 and cannot recommend it highly enough. You all have made a customer for life.


----------



## magnetic

Any thoughts on whether the V7 can be tensioned vertically only? I have a curved screen and the radius is tight enough that with my current ST130 vinyl, tensioned on all 4 sides, the curve sort of gets pulled flat in the middle of the screen. Just ordered the V7 and ideally would only attach it along the top and bottom of the frame to avoid this, but will that cause any issues?


----------



## Lygren

magnetic said:


> Any thoughts on whether the V7 can be tensioned vertically only? I have a curved screen and the radius is tight enough that with my current ST130 vinyl, tensioned on all 4 sides, the curve sort of gets pulled flat in the middle of the screen. Just ordered the V7 and ideally would only attach it along the top and bottom of the frame to avoid this, but will that cause any issues?


The UltraWeave does "like" a good amount of tensioning, but there has been several folks using these fabrics for curved screens, I actually have a curved screen myself at the moment using a UltraWeave. However, I do tension it all the way through using the original rails. This ensures a nice, stabile curve. If you have a sufficient amount of attachment points in your current screen it should probably work almost as well as those rails, but without the vertical tension I would assume you might see some waves in the material, particularly between each of the top / bottom attachment points, so that might not be a good idea. Still, the UltraWeaves does have more flexibility than a PVC based fabric, and has worked fine for a number of curved screens in the past, so you might not see the same issue with it being pulled flat in the middle, or at least less, than your current PVC material.


----------



## Ash Sharma

kiddbios said:


> Dreamscreen acted decisively and with lightning speed to remedy the situation. I am beyond pleased with my Dreamscreen v7 and cannot recommend it highly enough.


I second the great customer service from Dreamscreen - I am a Stewart Filmscreen user for 20 years (bought different materials and different sizes over the years) and bought a Dreamscreen V7 first time in September as I understand it is best for speckle free image in RGB Laser projectors which I am about to acquire.
Was able to Grommet the material to fit it PERFECTLY to my Stewart Vistacope frame but I found there was a slight blemish on the extreme left side (this could only be seen if you walked up close to the screen and looked).
Stewart is known for its no questions asked service even if a product was bought 10 years ago... so when I contacted AVS (who sold me the screen) Jon at Dreamscreen jumped in immediately and replaced my screen with a brand new screen as soon as I submitted a picture of the issue - and they even let me keep the firsts screen they sent.
I wish Jon and Dreamscreen the very best of success..


----------

