# New alr screen options to rival the Screen Innovations Black Diamond



## LumensLover

Looking for those who own other ALR screens outside of Screen Innovations to post pictures or let us hear about their experiences with other alr materials.

The S.I. Black Diamond has been the most well known alr screen for some time now. However they are overpriced, and the screen industry has had ten years to catch up with them using cheaper, more cost effective designs.


----------



## LumensLover

Draper



Draper has released several new Tecvision alr materials. They are MS1000X 1 gain, the XH700X .7 gain and the XH900X .9 gain alr screens. The .7 and .9 gains offer a wide viewing axis. All of the aforementioned Tecvision screens are ISF certified.


----------



## LumensLover

Seymour AV

Seymour Matinee Black tested as well or better than the S.I. Black Diamond in various tests posted under Projector Central's alr screen shootout. This material truly seems like a unknown diamond in the rough in my opinion. 

It is priced very competitively at a mere fraction of a S.I Black Diamond screen. It actually best the Black Diamond in a side illumination test in the alr shootout. It's only flaw is it has a narrow horizontal viewing cone. However for narrow media rooms,I believe this screen would be perfect.


----------



## LumensLover

Falcon Vision

Falcon Vision Titanium 1 gain alr screen. This is a brand new alr material from Falcon. Not much else is known about it.


----------



## Hawkmarket

Projector Central did an entire article about this very topic. A good read.




http://www.projectorcentral.com/ambient-light-rejection-screens-2.htm


----------



## Ftoast

DarkEnergy Abyss 0.9 performs more like SI Slate 0.8 than any of their BlackDiamond screens, but the price is much less than Slate.

The SI Slate0.8 is on the left and DE Abyss on the right in all four pictures 









What's the rough price-range of the Seymour AV Matinee Black at 100" 16:9?


----------



## LumensLover

ftoast said:


> what's the rough price-range of the seymour av matinee black at 100" 16:9?


$700


----------



## Ftoast

I believe that beats the DE Abyss by a healthy margin. 

Looking back at the PJC comparison/review the MB looks like a great aggressive screen, considering that price..wow. 

Now I'm trying to find the comparison I re-read a few days ago between the Seymour AV MB and MS and a very similar material by someone else which I can't remember. 
If someone else's memory is fairing any better, please blurt that name and a rough idea of how its pricing compares to the Seymour AV ALR screens. 

Between Carl'sALR and the Elite CineGrey DCSeries, the somewhat lighter+brighter Slate1.2 territory is already covered by some VERY affordable competition, but finding screens/materials more in line with the overall darker Slate0.8 and BlackDiamond mixes well under $1000 seems quite a bit harder for now. 
That AV MB price-range is great news.


----------



## LumensLover

Since no one on AVS has ever posted an experience with a Seymour Matinee Black screen, I will be the guinnea pig. I sold my 106 S.I. Black Diamond screen today.

I am going to purchase a 114" or 120" Seymour AV Matinee Black screen on monday. Projector will be located fifteen feet away from the screen. Still deciding on going with another Sony HW45ES or pay more for a JVC RS400.


----------



## Ftoast

I look forward to hearing your thoughts about them. 

This thread http://www.avsforum.com/forum/23-screens/2001994-elite-cinegrey-vs-seymour-silver-vs-si-slate.html
has a great comparison between Matinee Black and Ambient Visionaire Black, but I didn't see anyone directly comparing either with the SI BD nor slate 0.8 (though I could've missed it).

Are the Matinee Black and AV black merged now?


----------



## LumensLover

Ftoast said:


> I look forward to hearing your thoughts about them.
> 
> This thread http://www.avsforum.com/forum/23-screens/2001994-elite-cinegrey-vs-seymour-silver-vs-si-slate.html
> has a great comparison between Matinee Black and Ambient Visionaire Black, but I didn't see anyone directly comparing either with the SI BD nor slate 0.8 (though I could've missed it).
> 
> Are the Matinee Black and AV black merged now?


Seymour Screen Excellence sells the Ambient Visionaire materials while Seymour AV sells the Matinee Black. Seymour Screen Excellence is their high end brand while Seymour AV is their budget brand.

The only major difference between the Ambient Visionaire and the Matinee Black seems to be the horizontal viewing axis. AlR properties between the two seem to be identical.


----------



## LumensLover

I received 123" Darkstar 1.4 gain screen from Elite Prime Vision this week. I would like to say the Darkstar 1.4 material SMOKES the Black Diamond in every way possible.

It is brighter, holds black levels better with ambient light in room, less screen artifacts, better image fidelity, and has much better color accuracy.

Image has more depth and the colors really pop with this screen. With that being said, I must also admit that the frame that comes with this screen is pure garbage.

And Elite Prime Vision's customer service is downright horrible. I owned a Elite Screens Aeon screen a few years ago and the frame it came with was pure garbage also.

The cheapy special edition screen Elite Prime Vision sent me has no way to tension the screen into a flat, non wavy position. EPV sent a number of cheap plastic clips to attach the screen material to the frame.

I am trying to see if I can get a custom frame made for the material where I can wrap it around the outside of the frame for the zero edge look. If I can't get that done, I will have to return the screen material and frame which would be a real shame.

I just don't understand Elite Screens. They have some of the best ambient light rejecting materials available, yet their frames are by far the worst I've ever owned.

This is why I much prefer one piece screens that come fully assembled.


----------



## LumensLover

Elite Screens and Elite Prime Vision's customer service is atrocious. I have decided to return the Darkstar 1.4 material and piece of ***** frame tomorrow. I have learned my lesson and I will never, ever do business with Elite Screens again.

So I am back in the alr screen market again. My last two options are the Seymour Matinee Black or another Black Diamond zero edge screen. I hate to buy another Screen Innovations zero edge screen however their build quality is light years ahead of most screen manufacturers.

I have come to HATE screens which must be assembled.


----------



## LumensLover

I had to go to my bank for a chargeback to get my refund from the crooks at Elite Screens. I have no idea how they remain in business. Their customer service is beyond horrible.

Their sales reps don't answer the phone or they will ignore your calls when you have an issue. They have no idea what inventory they have in their warehouses. Their frames are irregular and each come with some sort of flaw.

They have no quality control so no one checks to see if their screen materials fit the frames being sent out with them. I really, REALLY ****ING HATE THIS COMPANY.

Thank goodness I don't live near any of their offices because I am to the point of dropping blows on their incompetent, cowardly staff who avoid dealing with their own **** ups.


----------



## Ftoast

Here's to hoping that excellent Darkstar material makes its way to the DesignerCutSeries so folks can buy it around $100-$200 from a wider assortment of sellers and clip, bungee, staple or ScreenTite it onto a nicer frame of some sort.

Have you already compared the DarkStar 1.4 with the MatineeBlack? Is the DS retro-reflective while the MB is angular-reflective..or am I thinking of a different Elite material?


----------



## LumensLover

Ftoast said:


> Here's to hoping that excellent Darkstar material makes its way to the DesignerCutSeries so folks can buy it around $100-$200 from a wider assortment of sellers and clip, bungee, staple or ScreenTite it onto a nicer frame of some sort.
> 
> Have you already compared the DarkStar 1.4 with the MatineeBlack? Is the DS retro-reflective while the MB is angular-reflective..or am I thinking of a different Elite material?


Yeah Elite Crooks should transfer their business model to selling materials only. Their frames are the worst in the business. But, whomever is designing their alr materials has real talent. 

I am placing my order for the Seymour Matinee Black screen tomorrow. I am going to play with some screen sizes tonight to see if I prefer a 115" image vs. 110" image. I am no longer interested in large screens. A smaller screen should have a bright, sharp picture. Seymour screen frames look to be of high quality and easy to assemble.

I will report back with my thoughts on the Matinee Black's performance vs the Darkstar 1.4 and the Black Diamond 1.4. This time I am firmly going for image fidelity as my main priority so I might even go down to a 103" screen.


----------



## swargolet

Looks like FToast actually posted my thread when I was looking around for a screen. I have been very happy with my Serymour Seymour Ambient Visionnaire 1.3 screen. The material is of high quality and the frame is excellent. I ended up custom ordering a 4 piece Precision frame (usually comes in 6 pieces) which is/was their lower end frame with their Premier being their higher end frame. Even being their lower end frame, it went together extremely well and I've had zero issues with it. 

When doing the comparisons on the different Seymour materials, in every test I did, the Matinee Black performed identically to their higher end AV 1.2 material. So much so, that I have a feeling that they accidentally gave me two of the same material. Either way, both materials were fantastic at ambient light rejecting but suffered from hot spotting and poor viewing angles. This was made worse due to my lower throw ratio, so if you have a higher one >1.8x then those materials would be awesome.

I had a chance to see both the Slate and Black Diamond screens at a dealer near me and I was not impressed one bit. They looked extremely dull, had abysmal viewing angles, and hot spotted quite a bit. They reminded me of those old projection TVs.


----------



## LumensLover

I purchased a 109" Seymour Matinee Black screen with precision frame today, I should receive it in about a week. I will come back and post my thoughts on it after I have it assembled and on the wall.


----------



## LumensLover

Screen has shipped. Matinee Black screen is scheduled to be delivered on Wednesday.


----------



## LumensLover

Assembled the Seymour screen and placed it on the wall. I must admit I am underwhelmed. It has fairly solid alr capability.

Blacks are solid but not great. However the image fidelity is not quite as good as the Darkstar 1.4 in my opinion. Black levels are not quite as good as the Black Diamond with low levels of ambient light from side windows in room.

I will be returning this product. At this point I am tired of assembling screens. I will be going back to one piece assembled screen from Screen Innovations, DNP, or Stewart.


----------



## chriscmore

So the screen doesn't have "Vertical and horizontal banding on screen"?

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## LumensLover

chriscmore said:


> So the screen doesn't have "Vertical and horizontal banding on screen"?
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


It has vertical and horizontal banding along with six grommet bands which broke while the screen material was being attached. I could go on, but I am trying to be nice.

If you want me to go deeper based on what you have read on my return form in a public forum I can definitely do that.


----------



## LumensLover

Nightime impressions of screen with two wall mounted lamps with 40 watt bulbs are much more positive. No daylight in room now, only ambient light from lamps in room.

Matinee black material rejects light from sides much better than Black Diamond. I would put them at a near tie for rejecting light from overhead however it appears the Seymour has slightly deeper black levels with direct overhead light coming from ceiling fan.

Color saturation is excellent. Image quality with bluray movies is very, very good. There did seem to be slightly less color bias with the Darkstar 1.4 material.

I dont have black out curtains at this time. Only mini blinds. I was expecting better performance during daytime however I know even low levels of daylight is tough on a alr screen.

All in all, this is a really good screen. However I am not pleased with the nondurable rubber rings which easily break when attaching material to screen. I am also not happy about small ripples across the screen due to looseness in screen material.

The looseness in the screen material has continued after I attached all grommet rings and I had to go buy heavy duty bands to replace the o rings which broke.


----------



## MJ DOOM

Any comparison to Cinegrey 3D?


----------



## chriscmore

LumensLover said:


> Nightime impressions of screen with two wall mounted lamps with 40 watt bulbs are much more positive. No daylight in room now, only ambient light from lamps in room.
> 
> Matinee black material rejects light from sides much better than Black Diamond. I would put them at a near tie for light rejecting from overhead light however It appearsbthe Seymour has slightly deeper black levels with direct overhead light from ceiling fan.
> 
> Color saturation is excellent. Image quality with bluray movies is very, very good. Though there did seem to be slightly less color bias with the Darkstar 1.4 material.
> 
> I dont have black out curtains at this time. Only mini blinds. I was expecting better performance during daytime however I know even low levels of daylight is tough on alr screen.
> 
> All in all, this is a really good screen. However I am not pleased with nondurable rubber rings which easily break when attaching material to screen. I am also not happy about small ripples across the screen due to looseness in screen material.
> 
> Even after I attached all grommet rings and I had to go buy heavy duty bands to replace the o rings which broke.


Four extra bands are provided for just such occasions, although if you use the hex key to attach the rings it's much easier with less breakage. Secondly, under the ten year warranty we always replace any and all bands if needed, so no such "nondurable" worries need apply. Thirdly, we supply a handful of zip ties to tighten any spots that need more ooph.

Other than mechanical fastening within the installation I'm unsure of how banding can occur. The material can take 24hrs to relax, but the substrate on your screen starts off quite rigid and can withstand any cranking on the grommets you have the strength or willpower to do.

Go as deeply and unkind as you wish. I don't put my name on things to be coddled.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## LumensLover

MJ DOOM said:


> Any comparison to Cinegrey 3D?


Seymour Matinee Black is superior to Cinegrey 3d in terms of rejecting ambient light from sides and overhead. Cinegrey 3D is brighter. However Seymour Matinee black retains deeper black levels with better color saturation.

Cinegrey 3d does admirable job at rejecting overhead light. However it does not retain black levels well with ambient light coming from side.


----------



## LumensLover

chriscmore said:


> Four extra bands are provided for just such occasions, although if you use the hex key to attach the rings it's much easier with less breakage. Secondly, under the ten year warranty we always replace any and all bands if needed, so no such "nondurable" worries need apply. Thirdly, we supply a handful of zip ties to tighten any spots that need more ooph.
> 
> Other than mechanical fastening within the installation I'm unsure of how banding can occur. The material can take 24hrs to relax, but the substrate on your screen starts off quite rigid and can withstand any cranking on the grommets you have the strength or willpower to do.
> 
> Go as deeply and unkind as you wish. I don't put my name on things to be coddled.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


I did not receive any zip ties. I do not intend on being unkind. Your company is a good company with excellent customer service. Everyone I talked to on the phone was very kind and nice.

I try to be as honest as possible when I post my thoughts about a product online. The Seymour Matinee Black material is a very good product. With that being said I have no interest in going the extra mile to fix screen issues.

I followed all directions for assembly and I used all accesories provided to me. My task as a customer ends there.


----------



## LumensLover

I also want to state I had no issues with viewing angles on the Matinee Black material. I saw no visual drop in brightness when viewing the screen from extreme angles.

I also saw no drop in brightness from any of my seats. The concerns over a narrow horizontal viewing cone with this screen were overblown in my opinion.


----------



## LumensLover

A quick breakdown of the top screens I have owned:

Brightness
DNP 2.7
Silverstar
Matinee Silver(sample)
Darkstar 1.4
Slate 1.2
Cingrey 5D

Black level in low to zero ambient light
DNP .8
Black Diamond 1.4
Darkstar 1.4
Seymour Matinee Black

Ambient light rejecting side
DNP .8
Seymour Matinee Black
Black Diamond 1.4

Ambient light rejecting overhead
DNP .8
Seymour Matinee Black
Black Diamond 1.4

Image fidelity
DNP .8
Darkstar 1.4
Slate 1.2
Firehawk
Black Diamond/Matinee Black

Color Accuracy
DNP .8
Darkstar 1.4
Seymour Matinee Black


----------



## LumensLover

The fact is the Seymour Matinee Black equals or best the Black Diamond in just about every category I can think of is amazing. It shows the alr niche market has caught up with the Black Diamond. 

It also shows Screen Innovations should be ashamed of the inflated prices they continue to charge for their screens. The only thing I will concede to Screen Innovations is the excellent build quality of their one piece screens.

I can't explain why their .8 and 1.4 screens hold black levels in low levels of daylight coming from side windows better than any other alr screen Ive owned.


----------



## Ftoast

From what I've seen, the BlackDiamond has a "sharper knee" going from the brightness-boosting gain down to the light-rejecting dropoff. While many screens have a more gradual slope, the BD tries to extend its horizontal gain while keeping as much as it can rather than allowing a gentle drop, then it falls off sharply and drastically after a particular angle.

This comes with the good and bad that lights hitting it from just inside that angle will seem to hit it surprisingly hard while lights hitting from just a little farther off-axis can be rejected impressively well..and it's why a projector using a slightly too short throw-ratio can show drastically darkened corners almost as if there's a slight fold in those areas compared to similarly dark screens' more gradual gradient into their darkening corners.


----------



## LumensLover

Ftoast said:


> From what I've seen, the BlackDiamond has a "sharper knee" going from the brightness-boosting gain down to the light-rejecting dropoff. While many screens have a more gradual slope, the BD tries to extend its horizontal gain while keeping as much as it can rather than allowing a gentle drop, then it falls off sharply and drastically after a particular angle.
> 
> This comes with the good and bad that lights hitting it from just inside that angle will seem to hit it surprisingly hard while lights hitting from just a little farther off-axis can be rejected impressively well..and it's why a projector using a slightly too short throw-ratio can show drastically darkened corners almost as if there's a slight fold in those areas compared to similarly dark screens' more gradual gradient into their darkening corners.


That makes sense. Thank you for the detailed explanantion Ftoast.


----------



## Dave in Green

LumensLover said:


> ... With that being said I have no interest in going the extra mile to fix screen issues. ...


Based on all the effort you've described on this forum about purchasing, setting up, testing and then taking down, packing up and either returning or selling innumerable projection screens and projectors it seems as if you've already gone enough extra miles over the past year to last a lifetime.


----------



## LumensLover

Dave in Green said:


> Based on all the effort you've described on this forum about purchasing, setting up, testing and then taking down, packing up and either returning or selling innumerable projection screens and projectors it seems as if you've already gone enough extra miles over the past year to last a lifetime.


Lol. I concur. And every assemble onsite screen I have purchased has had issues. Strangely enough the only screen I assembled with no issues was my first and cheapest screen, which was a Silver Ticket silver material alr screen.


----------



## RLBURNSIDE

There's some a nanotech material that can have wavelength-tuned specific absorption. I thought of ALR screens the second I saw it. Meaning, if you use narrow band primaries via RGB lasers, then you could reject 99% of ambient light while not losing any of the projector's light. That would definitely make projectors TV replacements and keep the image popping. It would probably even help contrast when the room is darker too, because of no bounced light back onto the screen (at least none at non-primary wavelengths which the screen would re-absorb). Likely to be expensive but paintable, at least. When it is available front projection might be dead anyway. Maybe for movie theaters unless they all move to LEDs (not likely considering their price).


----------



## LumensLover

I returned the Darkstar screen to Elite Crooks a week ago. They will not credit my account nor will they answer the phone when my bank calls them or when I call their customer service manager direct.

They are hands down the WORST company I have ever had the displeasure of doing business with. Buyer beware and stay far, far away from Elite Screens AND Elite Prime Vision. Disorganized crooks is all they are.


----------



## Snoogleheimer

LumensLover said:


> I returned the Darkstar screen to Elite Crooks a week ago. They will not credit my account nor will they answer the phone when my bank calls them or when I call their customer service manager direct.
> 
> They are hands down the WORST company I have ever had the displeasure of doing business with. Buyer beware and stay far, far away from Elite Screens AND Elite Prime Vision. Disorganized crooks is all they are.


Sorry about your luck man. I decided to just get a Silver Ticket screen for now (pretty happy with it actually). I'm getting a new home next Winter, so, don't want to spend big bucks on a screen only to damage it when I move.


----------



## blee0120

I am going to purchase the Matinee Silver 2.0 gain screen. I was interested in the Matinee Black 1.4 Screen but I wanted to get the extra brightness. With me having an all velvet room, I'm curious to see if there is any artifacts, like sheen, that stands out. I have had numerous screens, along with very high quality projectors, so I am sure I can give a good evaluation of Seymour screens. With my JVC rs520, I hope to see how 120K CR looks with 18-20ftL. I was one of the few who had the chance of reviewing Microlites 1.8 and 3.3 gain screen, so I been looking for a similar screens for the past two years. Hopefully the Matinee Silver is that screen.


----------



## Dominic Chan

RLBURNSIDE said:


> It would probably even help contrast when the room is darker too, because of no bounced light back onto the screen (at least none at non-primary wavelengths which the screen would re-absorb).


If the light source uses narrow band primary colours then those primary colours are what gets bounced around, even with conventional matte white screens.


----------



## Dominic Chan

LumensLover said:


> I also want to state I had no issues with viewing angles on the Matinee Black material. I saw no visual drop in brightness when viewing the screen from extreme angles.


When I tested a Matinee Black sample I saw noticeable drops in brightness at the screen edges. My JVC DLA-RS4910 projector is about 12' from the 120" screen. I only tried the sample in one orientation, as the specification does not indicate a difference between vertical and horizontal viewing angles.


----------



## LumensLover

Dominic Chan said:


> When I tested a Matinee Black sample I saw noticeable drops in brightness at the screen edges. My JVC DLA-RS4910 projector is about 12' from the 120" screen. I only tried the sample in one orientation, as the specification does not indicate a difference between vertical and horizontal viewing angles.


Which is exactly why I don't trust samples. They never tell the whole story.


----------



## blee0120

LumensLover said:


> Dominic Chan said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I tested a Matinee Black sample I saw noticeable drops in brightness at the screen edges. My JVC DLA-RS4910 projector is about 12' from the 120" screen. I only tried the sample in one orientation, as the specification does not indicate a difference between vertical and horizontal viewing angles.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is exactly why I don't trust samples. They never tell the whole story.
Click to expand...

I will never get another sample. It doesn't tell you anything. Just have to get a screen with a return policy.


----------



## Dominic Chan

LumensLover said:


> Which is exactly why I don't trust samples. They never tell the whole story.


Indeed samples never tell the _whole _story, but there are certain aspects they _do_ tell very well, such as visibility of sparkles, variation of gain with position, colour neutrality etc.


----------



## LumensLover

EluneVision Aurora alr screen

http://elunevision.com/screens/aurora-ambient-light-rejection/alr-nanoedge/


----------



## LumensLover

Stewart Phantom Halr screen

http://www.stewartfilmscreen.com/screen-materials/flexible-front-projection/phantom™-halr™


----------



## LumensLover

Draper just released CS1200X alr material

http://www.draperinc.com/projectionscreens/surfaces.aspx?fam=8&scdetail=122


----------



## Limp Fox

Lumens, what screen are you using now? I am in the market for an ALR screen. I ordered a DarkStar screen a month ago and still haven't gotten it. Mainly due to issues like 1, the company shipping it to the dealer (in a different state) then 2, UPS not holding it at the local location after the second delivery attempt. For some unknown reason they shipped it back to them in California. I've been waiting for them to respond to the dealer I placed the order with. They don't seem to be good a communication and what you experienced confirms that. I'm sad to hear the frames junk. IMO I'd almost rather have a so-so screen and a good frame. I remember years back I had a Jamestown screen which I liked aside from the frame. It was terrible. 


I originally was dead set on the Black Diamond Zero Edge, but didn't want to pay the premium. Aside from that it seems like they have better frames. The other day I was going to tell my dealer to have Elite refund me and try the Seymour ALR screen, but after reading your comment about the frame I will pass. So... have you received any new ALR screens? 


Thanks and I'm sorry for everything you've endured so far.


----------



## LumensLover

Limp Fox said:


> Lumens, what screen are you using now? I am in the market for an ALR screen. I ordered a DarkStar screen a month ago and still haven't gotten it. Mainly due to issues like 1, the company shipping it to the dealer (in a different state) then 2, UPS not holding it at the local location after the second delivery attempt. For some unknown reason they shipped it back to them in California. I've been waiting for them to respond to the dealer I placed the order with. They don't seem to be good a communication and what you experienced confirms that. I'm sad to hear the frames junk. IMO I'd almost rather have a so-so screen and a good frame. I remember years back I had a Jamestown screen which I liked aside from the frame. It was terrible.
> 
> 
> I originally was dead set on the Black Diamond Zero Edge, but didn't want to pay the premium. Aside from that it seems like they have better frames. The other day I was going to tell my dealer to have Elite refund me and try the Seymour ALR screen, but after reading your comment about the frame I will pass. So... have you received any new ALR screens?
> 
> 
> Thanks and I'm sorry for everything you've endured so far.


Thank you for your words of sympathy. As much as it pains me to admit, the Elite Crooks Darkstar material was the best ALR material I've ever owned. However as you're experiencing their customer service is totally the worst I've ever dealt with out of any home theater equipment company. I really don't know how they stay in business.

Right now I do not have a screen. I'm currently at a crossroads because I have a JVC x550r projector. Very good projector but not overly bright. The only other cost effective option I see right now is the Dark Energy Abyss .9 game screen. However I recently had a .8 gain ALR screen that I used with my JVC projector, and the combination was not good. Image was much to dim in eco mode. Even in high mode it struggled. So I'm not sure if I should go with another ALR screen such as the Elunevision Aurora 1.3 which seems very promising. Or if I should give it up altogether and go to a Sony 85 inch TV. However a 85 inch TV between two 7 ft tall pro cinema speakers might look a bit lame.


----------



## maglito

LumensLover said:


> Thank you for your words of sympathy. As much as it pains me to admit, the Elite Crooks Darkstar material was the best ALR material I've ever owned. However as you're experiencing their customer service is totally the worst I've ever dealt with out of any home theater equipment company. I really don't know how they stay in business.
> 
> Right now I do not have a screen. I'm currently at a crossroads because I have a JVC x550r projector. Very good projector but not overly bright. The only other cost effective option I see right now is the Dark Energy Abyss .9 game screen. However I recently had a .8 gain ALR screen that I used with my JVC projector, and the combination was not good. Image was much to dim in eco mode. Even in high mode it struggled. So I'm not sure if I should go with another ALR screen such as the Elunevision Aurora 1.3 which seems very promising. Or if I should give it up altogether and go to a Sony 85 inch TV. However a 85 inch TV between two 7 ft tall pro cinema speakers might look a bit lame.


That Elunevision Aurora does look really nice, maybe with the larger gain you can step up the size a notch so it's a bigger bump over a LCD/OLED so you have no regrets?
http://elunevision.com/materials/aurora-4k-ambient-light-rejection/
It's a shame it doesn't come any larger than 135" as it looks quite nice.


----------



## Limp Fox

Supposedly my screen should be re shipped from Elite (EPV). Hopefully if I get it, third times a charm right, I have better luck with the frame than you did OP. If I don't get it this time I'll be cancelling it and trying the Elune. I spoke with a very nice lady the other night about their screen. They're in Canada and can get it to me in PA in about 5-7 days. Not bad. They will price match similar screens to earn your business too.  In my case, they'll match and beat the EPV ALR


Judd


----------



## evilmonstertruk

blee0120 said:


> I am going to purchase the Matinee Silver 2.0 gain screen. I was interested in the Matinee Black 1.4 Screen but I wanted to get the extra brightness. With me having an all velvet room, I'm curious to see if there is any artifacts, like sheen, that stands out. I have had numerous screens, along with very high quality projectors, so I am sure I can give a good evaluation of Seymour screens. With my JVC rs520, I hope to see how 120K CR looks with 18-20ftL. I was one of the few who had the chance of reviewing Microlites 1.8 and 3.3 gain screen, so I been looking for a similar screens for the past two years. Hopefully the Matinee Silver is that screen.


Did you get your Matinee screen? I am looking at the same one for my living room. I have two days left to decide. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## evilmonstertruk

Anyone have a suggestion for the right material for a living room with medium ambient light?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## LumensLover

evilmonstertruk said:


> Anyone have a suggestion for the right material for a living room with medium ambient light?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Stewart Firehawk 
Seymour Matinee Silver
Screen Innovations Slate
Elite Screens Aeon Cinegray 3D
Silver Ticket silver material or high contrast material


----------



## evilmonstertruk

LumensLover said:


> Stewart Firehawk
> Seymour Matinee Silver
> Screen Innovations Slate
> Elite Screens Aeon Cinegray 3D
> Silver Ticket silver material or high contrast material


Thanks. But out of those which is best? The elite is the cheapest I believe. The matinee silver is the most intriguing. Any experience with them?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## blee0120

evilmonstertruk said:


> Did you get your Matinee screen? I am looking at the same one for my living room. I have two days left to decide.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


I got samples but waiting on the 3.5 gain screen.


----------



## dizzyscure

evilmonstertruk said:


> LumensLover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stewart Firehawk
> Seymour Matinee Silver
> Screen Innovations Slate
> Elite Screens Aeon Cinegray 3D
> Silver Ticket silver material or high contrast material
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks. But out of those which is best? The elite is the cheapest I believe. The matinee silver is the most intriguing. Any experience with them?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Hey, I?ve got a bit of info for ya! been a while but I got my system up and running LOVE IT! 

16:9 120? Matinee Silver, RS520, Oppo 203, all calibrated by Jeff Meier and it looks amazing! Very happy with it especially for 1080p Blu-rays, I think it?ll be a while before projectors are very very good with HDR though along with needing a dedicated black hole! 

Now my room is far from ideal though... 
94" Floor to Projector bottom,
160" Projector Lens to Screen wall,
White walls (100% control over outside ambient light (Sunlight) but not reflections of the white walls/screen) 

Jeff stated he was very happy and surprised at my results and how well the system/screen is working in this room. 

I am now putting up sound panels (blue boxes) in the rear which are about 7? tall and 12? wide and a dark dark navy blue material and in the front so I?m sure and hoping that will cut down some reflections coming from that wall hitting the screen. Some photos to help orinetate urself with my setup.


----------



## Shermstead

dizzyscure said:


> Hey, I?ve got a bit of info for ya! been a while but I got my system up and running LOVE IT!
> 
> 16:9 120? Matinee Silver, RS520, Oppo 203, all calibrated by Jeff Meier and it looks amazing! Very happy with it especially for 1080p Blu-rays, I think it?ll be a while before projectors are very very good with HDR though along with needing a dedicated black hole!
> 
> Now my room is far from ideal though...
> 94" Floor to Projector bottom,
> 160" Projector Lens to Screen wall,
> White walls (100% control over outside ambient light (Sunlight) but not reflections of the white walls/screen)
> 
> Jeff stated he was very happy and surprised at my results and how well the system/screen is working in this room.
> 
> I am now putting up sound panels (blue boxes) in the rear which are about 7? tall and 12? wide and a dark dark navy blue material and in the front so I?m sure and hoping that will cut down some reflections coming from that wall hitting the screen. Some photos to help orinetate urself with my setup.


There’s no mention of Da-Lites Parallax .08?! Particularly LumensLover with all your ALR experience and your high ranking of DNP.

Projector Central Review: Ambient Light Rejection Screens, Evan Powell, March 3, 2016 ranks Parallax 0.8 equal to or higher than DNP Supernova 08-85.

Da-Lite claims 96% Blocked Ambient Light compared to Stewart’s Phantom Ambient Light Rejection Value 82% (however they both measure).

I’d enjoy hearing any and all feedback regarding Parallax. Particularly because DaxLite offers a Tab Tensioned Motoruzed up to 119” diagonal.


----------



## LumensLover

Focused technology is selling their own budget friendly ALR line which they call Carbonite screens. I talked to one of the sales rep and they stated that it's based on the Draper react screen which is rebadged under their own product line's name. However I do not know if it's based on the new Draper react 3.0 or the older react 2.1?


----------



## LumensLover

Shermstead said:


> There’s no mention of Da-Lites Parallax .08?! Particularly LumensLover with all your ALR experience and your high ranking of DNP.
> 
> Projector Central Review: Ambient Light Rejection Screens, Evan Powell, March 3, 2016 ranks Parallax 0.8 equal to or higher than DNP Supernova 08-85.
> 
> Da-Lite claims 96% Blocked Ambient Light compared to Stewart’s Phantom Ambient Light Rejection Value 82% (however they both measure).
> 
> I’d enjoy hearing any and all feedback regarding Parallax. Particularly because DaxLite offers a Tab Tensioned Motoruzed up to 119” diagonal.


The Dalite Parallax .8 and the DNP .8 screen easily show the best image out of any air screens I've owned or demoed. However both screens mainly reject light over head. Neither one does much as far as rejecting light from the side. That is why I had to sell my previous DNP screen and why I have not purchased a Parallax because most of my ambient light comes from the side.

The Parallax is an excellent screen with pristine image quality. If you have light coming from the top but no side windows the Parallax would be an excellent option. Assuming light is coming from the top only, I was able to get the best black levels with the Elite Crooks Darkstar. The DNP and Parallax screens did not have black levels as deep as the Darkstar, however their image quality was cleaner and sharper than the Elite Crooks Darkstar material. The black levels are still very good with the Parallax assuming lights coming from the top only.


----------



## LumensLover

dizzyscure said:


> Hey, I?ve got a bit of info for ya! been a while but I got my system up and running LOVE IT!
> 
> 16:9 120? Matinee Silver, RS520, Oppo 203, all calibrated by Jeff Meier and it looks amazing! Very happy with it especially for 1080p Blu-rays, I think it?ll be a while before projectors are very very good with HDR though along with needing a dedicated black hole!
> 
> Now my room is far from ideal though...
> 94" Floor to Projector bottom,
> 160" Projector Lens to Screen wall,
> White walls (100% control over outside ambient light (Sunlight) but not reflections of the white walls/screen)
> 
> Jeff stated he was very happy and surprised at my results and how well the system/screen is working in this room.
> 
> I am now putting up sound panels (blue boxes) in the rear which are about 7? tall and 12? wide and a dark dark navy blue material and in the front so I?m sure and hoping that will cut down some reflections coming from that wall hitting the screen. Some photos to help orinetate urself with my setup.


Very good to hear. The Matinee Silver seemed like a very good option. It's bright and the MS sample I had seemed to hold black levels fairly well similar to the Screen Innovations Slate. 

If there's one thing I cannot stand it is a dim screen. That alone will get me out of a screen more than any other factor. So it seems like you have the best of both worlds and that's great. Glad to hear everything worked out for you.


----------



## Shermstead

LumensLover said:


> The Dalite Parallax .8 and the DNP .8 screen easily show the best image out of any air screens I've owned or demoed. However both screens mainly reject light over head. Neither one does much as far as rejecting light from the side. That is why I had to sell my previous DNP screen and why I have not purchased a Parallax because most of my ambient light comes from the side.
> 
> The Parallax is an excellent screen with pristine image quality. If you have light coming from the top but no side windows the Parallax would be an excellent option. Assuming light is coming from the top only, I was able to get the best black levels with the Elite Crooks Darkstar. The DNP and Parallax screens did not have black levels as deep as the Darkstar, however their image quality was cleaner and sharper than the Elite Crooks Darkstar material. The black levels are still very good with the Parallax assuming lights coming from the top only.


Thanks for your feedback and very sad to hear because my challenge is similar to yours with major ambient light coming from side windows. My issue is complicated because I have to use a motorized drop down screen and would prefer 120” diagonal. 

Do you think Stewart’s Phantom suffers the same fate?

Is there no technology to combat this?!


----------



## ruggercb

LumensLover said:


> Very good to hear. The Matinee Silver seemed like a very good option. It's bright and the MS sample I had seemed to hold black levels fairly well similar to the Screen Innovations Slate.
> 
> 
> 
> If there's one thing I cannot stand it is a dim screen. That alone will get me out of a screen more than any other factor. So it seems like you have the best of both worlds and that's great. Glad to hear everything worked out for you.




I’m in that mode again; I’m looking to fix what might not be broken. Right now I’m running an Epson 5040ub, Prismasonic A lens and a silver ticket 2.35 curved screen matte white. 

The only alr experience I’ve had was the Elite cinegrey 5D paired with my trusty old benq w1070. It had terrible hotstpotting, depending on which side of the living room you sat on. I think the blacks were pretty good but the w1070 had medium grays at best. The 5040ub has excellent contrast and the brights are enough to make you squint now and again.

I’m trying to talk myself into or out of a new alr screen; I have lots of little kids and I don’t like sitting in a cave, although I have a light controlled room. I also love the bright bright whites. The 5040 is very bright, even on eco. I guess I’m looking for your honest to goodness opinion on the Seymour matinee black, or any other screen that might fit the bill...maybe none of these alr screens have enough gain for the brightness pop I’m looking for...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## evilmonstertruk

ruggercb said:


> I’m in that mode again; I’m looking to fix what might not be broken. Right now I’m running an Epson 5040ub, Prismasonic A lens and a silver ticket 2.35 curved screen matte white.
> 
> The only alr experience I’ve had was the Elite cinegrey 5D paired with my trusty old benq w1070. It had terrible hotstpotting, depending on which side of the living room you sat on. I think the blacks were pretty good but the w1070 had medium grays at best. The 5040ub has excellent contrast and the brights are enough to make you squint now and again.
> 
> I’m trying to talk myself into or out of a new alr screen; I have lots of little kids and I don’t like sitting in a cave, although I have a light controlled room. I also love the bright bright whites. The 5040 is very bright, even on eco. I guess I’m looking for your honest to goodness opinion on the Seymour matinee black, or any other screen that might fit the bill...maybe none of these alr screens have enough gain for the brightness pop I’m looking for...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I just received my Elunevison Reference 4ktab tension screen. If there ALR screen is anything like this one I'm sure it would be nice. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## LumensLover

ruggercb said:


> I’m in that mode again; I’m looking to fix what might not be broken. Right now I’m running an Epson 5040ub, Prismasonic A lens and a silver ticket 2.35 curved screen matte white.
> 
> The only alr experience I’ve had was the Elite cinegrey 5D paired with my trusty old benq w1070. It had terrible hotstpotting, depending on which side of the living room you sat on. I think the blacks were pretty good but the w1070 had medium grays at best. The 5040ub has excellent contrast and the brights are enough to make you squint now and again.
> 
> I’m trying to talk myself into or out of a new alr screen; I have lots of little kids and I don’t like sitting in a cave, although I have a light controlled room. I also love the bright bright whites. The 5040 is very bright, even on eco. I guess I’m looking for your honest to goodness opinion on the Seymour matinee black, or any other screen that might fit the bill...maybe none of these alr screens have enough gain for the brightness pop I’m looking for...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The brightest ALR screen that I've owned recently was the Elite Crooks Dark Star 1.4 material. It also was excellent at rejecting ambient light from overhead. If you call them you can request a price for any 1.4 game Dark Star material they might have on clearance in stock. They still have some stockpiled in various warehouses around the country. If you can get your hands on one in good condition then I promise you it will give you the pop and brightness you are looking for. Another bright alr screen is the Innovations Slate.

You can also look into the DNP 2.7 gain alr screen. It's very bright. And The Vutec SilverStar screen is very, very bright. 

The Seymour Matinee Black screen was in the middle of the pack when it comes to brightness. It was not as bright as the Black Diamond 1.4 or the Dark Star 1.4 material that I've owned.


----------



## Limp Fox

Lumens, 

(This posting is to affirm your comments on the Elite EPV Screen)

I finally got the Dark Star screen Friday after much delay. My wife and I spent over 3 hours carefully putting it together. The stitching around the screen really should be enforced better as it makes for many weak points when trying to stretch the screen in place with the springs. The frame, although a nice metal one, could've been built much stronger. The little clips that are supposed to hold the LEDs in place after using the 3m tape to secure it are useless and they just pop off as soon as you lift the screen to place it on the wall. The brackets should be rethought as there's barely enough clearance to even get them to seat into the back of the frame. If your drywall has any bowing I would expect a not so great time as the screen will only seat into one end; my experience. And the bowing is minimal, maybe a 1/16. 

After many minutes of cursing back and forth with the wife and readjustments, we just gave up. We never had such an issue trying to mount other screens. One of the corners (the bottom right) has a wave in it, but if we made it any tighter the threading would've ripped, which is why we used only 1 spring, trying to use the second during installation was causing the screen to stretch on the metal corner and the threading to open up. Furthermore, trying to mount the screen to the wall was just making it worse and more noticeable. We decided to just put the screen on the floor. 

We both were already exhausted and my Wife complained about it being a cheap Chinese build (haha) and that we should've just purchase an already built Black Diamond which uses a very simple bracket system to mount their Zero Edge screens. I completely agree with her. Even the cheap Jamestown screen we had years ago with a wooden frame had a better mounting system. 

We decided to at least check out the screen so we threw in a Christmas short with the lights on. The colors looked great and the screen definitely does its job reflecting light and really "pops." After that we watched a movie with the lights off and the picture was just great. Very bright with my new JVC X790. It's a shame the build quality, as you mentioned, is so poor because the picture is amazing with this screen. 

My guys going to see if we can return it. I hope so. Even with a restocking fee I'd hope to make out better than just taking a loss and selling it to someone local who doesn't care about these issues. He's then going to check on the Black Diamond screen for me. Their screens are so nice as the come pre assembled (the one I want anyway) and with a simple mounting system. The premium you pay for the name and already assembled screen will certainly be worth it in the long run; it will save you and the wife hours of complaining and eventually turning on one another. TRUST ME. And we always lose because were the ones spending soooo much money on the products.

Not a fun Saturday night  

Judd


----------



## ruggercb

I got some samples of Seymour Matinee Black and matinee silver and they both are pretty strong products, but the big turn off for me is the narrow viewing cone. I mean my finger was hovering over the order button on the silver screen the picture is so nice and dynamic, it’s just in our multi use room half the seats would see a really dull image. Also it looked like it suffered from the standard vignetting some ALRs have.

I’m looking in to the dnp supernova screens, esp the lower gain one; it has like an 85 degree half gain.

Edit- I also inquired about the darkstar material...can you buy it for a DIY project?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## LumensLover

Limp Fox said:


> Lumens,
> 
> (This posting is to affirm your comments on the Elite EPV Screen)
> 
> I finally got the Dark Star screen Friday after much delay. My wife and I spent over 3 hours carefully putting it together. The stitching around the screen really should be enforced better as it makes for many weak points when trying to stretch the screen in place with the springs. The frame, although a nice metal one, could've been built much stronger. The little clips that are supposed to hold the LEDs in place after using the 3m tape to secure it are useless and they just pop off as soon as you lift the screen to place it on the wall. The brackets should be rethought as there's barely enough clearance to even get them to seat into the back of the frame. If your drywall has any bowing I would expect a not so great time as the screen will only seat into one end; my experience. And the bowing is minimal, maybe a 1/16.
> 
> After many minutes of cursing back and forth with the wife and readjustments, we just gave up. We never had such an issue trying to mount other screens. One of the corners (the bottom right) has a wave in it, but if we made it any tighter the threading would've ripped, which is why we used only 1 spring, trying to use the second during installation was causing the screen to stretch on the metal corner and the threading to open up. Furthermore, trying to mount the screen to the wall was just making it worse and more noticeable. We decided to just put the screen on the floor.
> 
> We both were already exhausted and my Wife complained about it being a cheap Chinese build (haha) and that we should've just purchase an already built Black Diamond which uses a very simple bracket system to mount their Zero Edge screens. I completely agree with her. Even the cheap Jamestown screen we had years ago with a wooden frame had a better mounting system.
> 
> We decided to at least check out the screen so we threw in a Christmas short with the lights on. The colors looked great and the screen definitely does its job reflecting light and really "pops." After that we watched a movie with the lights off and the picture was just great. Very bright with my new JVC X790. It's a shame the build quality, as you mentioned, is so poor because the picture is amazing with this screen.
> 
> My guys going to see if we can return it. I hope so. Even with a restocking fee I'd hope to make out better than just taking a loss and selling it to someone local who doesn't care about these issues. He's then going to check on the Black Diamond screen for me. Their screens are so nice as the come pre assembled (the one I want anyway) and with a simple mounting system. The premium you pay for the name and already assembled screen will certainly be worth it in the long run; it will save you and the wife hours of complaining and eventually turning on one another. TRUST ME. And we always lose because were the ones spending soooo much money on the products.
> 
> Not a fun Saturday night
> 
> Judd


Very sorry to hear your experience Judd. Elite Crooks is just a disorganized, horrible operation all around. It's too bad because their materials are legitimately some of the best I've seen in the alr Market. But their lack of customer service and horrible screen frames are just unbearable to deal with. Good luck on your next ALR screen purchase.

If you're like me I will not consider purchasing any assemble onsite screens. Too much aggravation and cursing. So I hope you get a pre-assembled Black Diamond screen or a pre-assembled screen from another reputable alr screen company.


----------



## LumensLover

I was able to call and confirm the carbonite screen is definitely Draper React material. I also was looking at the visual Apex ALR screen they have for very affordable prices. The one thing that bothers me is how almost no screen manufacturer will offer fully assembled screens. I don't understand why they won't give consumers the option of just getting an upcharge of an additional $300 to have a screen ship to them fully assembled. I've had enough assembling screens and I do not want to do it again.


----------



## LumensLover

ruggercb said:


> I got some samples of Seymour Matinee Black and matinee silver and they both are pretty strong products, but the big turn off for me is the narrow viewing cone. I mean my finger was hovering over the order button on the silver screen the picture is so nice and dynamic, it’s just in our multi use room half the seats would see a really dull image. Also it looked like it suffered from the standard vignetting some ALRs have.
> 
> I’m looking in to the dnp supernova screens, esp the lower gain one; it has like an 85 degree half gain.
> 
> Edit- I also inquired about the darkstar material...can you buy it for a DIY project?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I was told that the Dark Star material comes pre-packaged with frames in the same box. So they will not sell them separately.


----------



## Dave in Green

LumensLover said:


> ... It's too bad because their materials are legitimately some of the best I've seen in the alr Market. ...


For those on a budget who are open to a little DIY work would you recommend Elite's Designer Cut Series where you can buy the raw ALR screen material at fairly low cost without a frame?


----------



## LumensLover

Dave in Green said:


> For those on a budget who are open to a little DIY work would you recommend Elite's Designer Cut Series where you can buy the raw ALR screen material at fairly low cost without a frame?


Yes sir. Elite Crooks materials are some of the best in the ALR business. So that would be the perfect business model for them actually. They should just stick to selling screen materials to consumers and let the consumers deal with having frames built for them.

Buying their material directly and bypassing their low quality frames would definitely be an excellent route for you to go.


----------



## LumensLover

I received my D.E.S. Pulsar material this week. I dropped the material off to my custom screen frame builder today. He stated he should be done within approximately two weeks. So I will report back in 2 weeks with my results and impressions on this material. I will admit I am a bit nervous about the outcome of this endeavor. I passed up two really good deals on 120" and 110" Black Diamond screens this month.


----------



## maglito

*Elunevision now has larger sizes*



maglito said:


> That Elunevision Aurora does look really nice, maybe with the larger gain you can step up the size a notch so it's a bigger bump over a LCD/OLED so you have no regrets?
> http://elunevision.com/materials/aurora-4k-ambient-light-rejection/
> It's a shame it doesn't come any larger than 135" as it looks quite nice.


I inquired months ago about why they don't offer larger sizes on the form on the website. I got a phone call from a product manager a few weeks ago stating they, in fact, could make them larger -- I replied there would be definite interest, and now: Bam!

On the website: 150" 165" and 180"

Can anyone find the throw distance/ratio recommendation and know if they go by image height or width?


----------



## Ftoast

maglito said:


> Can anyone find the throw distance/ratio recommendation and know if they go by image height or width?


The minimum throw-ratio is done by image-width...a common minimum recommendation around 1.5 throw-distance : 1 image-width (though some more extreme/aggressive screens may recommend an even longer throw-ratio at minimum).
I don't know what the specific minimum throw-ratio recommendation for the Aurora is.


----------



## noah katz

maglito said:


> On the website: 150" 165" and 180"



Link?

I see max 120, at least for ALR motorized


----------



## maglito

noah katz said:


> Link?
> 
> I see max 120, at least for ALR motorized


The link to the material was in my quote.

Direct link to the fixed frame:
http://elunevision.com/screens/aurora-ambient-light-rejection/alr-nanoedge/

And I see the recommended throw is 1.2 image widths, not bad at all!


----------



## noah katz

Oh right, thanks; I guess the motorized don't come as big


----------



## Maestrosc

LumensLover said:


> I received my D.E.S. Pulsar material this week. I dropped the material off to my custom screen frame builder today. He stated he should be done within approximately two weeks. So I will report back in 2 weeks with my results and impressions on this material. I will admit I am a bit nervous about the outcome of this endeavor. I passed up two really good deals on 120" and 110" Black Diamond screens this month.


Is there any reason you didnt go with the Infinity Edge pre-built?

After reading all of your experiences with building frames and trying to get the tension right, I know I have read you were looking for screens that had no assembly required. The Infinity edge says it comes 100% assembled, only hang it on the wall and you are done.

I will say, I have absolutely adored my Dark Energy Abyss screen, but I did have issues with the original mounting system, and had a rippled first screen, but when I got the Flex screen with the tension rods... i came out absolutely perfect.

After a stupid cat decided to run jump and hang from my DEA screen, I am actually looking to replace my screen, and am considering the Infinity edge PURELY because I don want to assemble a frame again, and deal with trying to get proper tension on the screen again.


----------



## Limp Fox

That cat would've got kicked in the head. =)


-Judd


----------



## LumensLover

Maestrosc said:


> Is there any reason you didnt go with the Infinity Edge pre-built?
> 
> After reading all of your experiences with building frames and trying to get the tension right, I know I have read you were looking for screens that had no assembly required. The Infinity edge says it comes 100% assembled, only hang it on the wall and you are done.
> 
> I will say, I have absolutely adored my Dark Energy Abyss screen, but I did have issues with the original mounting system, and had a rippled first screen, but when I got the Flex screen with the tension rods... i came out absolutely perfect.
> 
> After a stupid cat decided to run jump and hang from my DEA screen, I am actually looking to replace my screen, and am considering the Infinity edge PURELY because I don want to assemble a frame again, and deal with trying to get proper tension on the screen again.


It was cheaper to go with a local custom screen builder that I know here. His screen frames are identical to the Screen Innovations zero edge frame.

And I'm sorry to hear about your screen getting damaged. Sounds like it was a great performer. If my Pulsar screen can outperform the Black Diamond I'll be ecstatic.


----------



## beastaudio

Following along as I have some samples (I know, I know) coming along for some different ALR A-T screens. Requiring A-T rules out what you have tested so far, but I am definitely getting more and more interested in ALR stuff the more I read about it. I was close to going for one of the draper cinema white mats but as I host sporting events where the lights stay on, this ALR stuff has me very intrigued.


----------



## Ftoast

beastaudio said:


> Following along as I have some samples (I know, I know) coming along for some different ALR A-T screens. Requiring A-T rules out what you have tested so far, but I am definitely getting more and more interested in ALR stuff the more I read about it. I was close to going for one of the draper cinema white mats but as I host sporting events where the lights stay on, this ALR stuff has me very intrigued.


Just in case you didn't already notice, DarkEnergy Screens (the Abyss 0.9 and higher-gain Polaris mentioned in this thread) has started offering their screens/material perforated for AcousticTransparent ALR options.
I have no idea how textured/smooth they look nor how much it affects gain or price, but it may be something to check on or ask them about samples.


----------



## beastaudio

Ftoast said:


> Just in case you didn't already notice, DarkEnergy Screens (the Abyss 0.9 and higher-gain Polaris mentioned in this thread) has started offering their screens/material perforated for AcousticTransparent ALR options.
> I have no idea how textured/smooth they look nor how much it affects gain or price, but it may be something to check on or ask them about samples.


Goodonya! Ill check that out too. I currently have elune's aurora, the draper, and some severtson coming so may add that to the list.


----------



## maglito

beastaudio said:


> Goodonya! Ill check that out too. I currently have elune's aurora, the draper, and some severtson coming so may add that to the list.


Post some photos on and off axis with lights on and off. Thanks!


----------



## RaceCarDriver

I find it interesting people complaining about the hand Made in U.S.A. pricing of Screen Innovations while at the same time complaining about the poor frames, poor assembly, poor customer relations of other Made in China screens.

Sure you may not like the BD pricing, but the made to order American company won’t have the issues mentioned in this thread.


----------



## LumensLover

RaceCarDriver said:


> I find it interesting people complaining about the hand Made in U.S.A. pricing of Screen Innovations while at the same time complaining about the poor frames, poor assembly, poor customer relations of other Made in China screens.
> 
> Sure you may not like the BD pricing, but the made to order American company won’t have the issues mentioned in this thread.


Elite Crooks and Screen Innovations represent two extremes in the home projector screen industry. One has extremely bad build quality for low prices and the other one has very good build quality for inflated prices. Point being made is that consumers need an alternative with solid build quality and good materials priced at affordable prices.

So in layman's terms, we need something that offers a moderate option in the middle. People should not have to pay 70% premium just to have decent quality. 

I hate to use the car analogy but this is why cars such as the Toyota Camry have been top sellers for so long. Not everyone wants to drive around in a cheap Pinto. However at the same time, consumers should not have to buy a Mercedes or an Infiniti just to have a reliable car. Cars like the Camry are the in between moderate option for people looking for reliability at an affordable price. This is the moderate option lacking right now in today's home theater alr screen niche market. Hopefully companies such as DEA can fulfill this moderate option.


----------



## RaceCarDriver

And what about Stewart?


----------



## LumensLover

RaceCarDriver said:


> And what about Stewart?


 Stewart's screen frames are excellent. However I don't consider their ambient light rejection materials overly impressive for the price.


----------



## coderguy

Draper's new stuff is good, but most of the pricing is completely ridiculous. Their pricing is all over the place depending on the material, but some of it is more expensive than the Stewart screens. The markup from these MFR's is crazy right now, the prices are through the roof. This material costs $'s per meter to manufacture, and then a few more $'s to coat it. You are paying for their marketing, secretaries, exec salaries, shipping costs, and general business overhead. The manufacturing costs at these pricing levels play almost no part in the actual cost (or very little).

The best way to approach the ALR issue is to first try to create a barrier for your screen (not always possible). Sometimes this can be done simply with blinds redirecting the light more downward, or by just moving the screen to a different part of the room, or even simply changing the orientation of the ambient light.

I have a dedicated room, but I also have a PJ in a game room.
Well, in the game room, the gray screen material would just stick out, so I have the HP screen in there. However, I never use the projector in the game room, I always go to a dedicated room, but I have no kids, so...

I would be interested in seeing some Gray Screens embedded with Glass Beads, but I'll probably never buy one.


----------



## Nick Laslett

Ftoast said:


> The minimum throw-ratio is done by image-width...a common minimum recommendation around 1.5 throw-distance : 1 image-width (though some more extreme/aggressive screens may recommend an even longer throw-ratio at minimum).
> I don't know what the specific minimum throw-ratio recommendation for the Aurora is.


How does this work with a CIH 2.35:1 ratio screen when watching 16:9 content?

My throw ratio is 1.6 for 2.35:1 and 2.0 for 16:9.

I don't understand how the screen can hotspot, when the projector hasn't moved? With the Oppo 203 set to 21:9 crop mode, you don't even need to change the zoom settings. I assume the lumens are changing between these two sizes.

I'm struggling to understand two specification questions, the minimum throw ratio described above and the actual position of the projector relative to the screen. On the Screen Innovations installation PDF for the Slate 2.1 it recommends that the Projector should be level with the top of the screen. On the Dark Energy Abyss site it says the projector should be slightly higher than the top of the screen.
https://www.darkenergyscreens.com/uploads/8/5/6/8/85689126/edited/screenshot-20170816-112154.jpeg

My projector is bookcase mounted 12" inches higher than the bottom of the screen. My eye height is level with the bottom of the screen at 39" from the floor. This does not seem like an ideal placement for some ALR screens.

This set-up implies a retro-reflective screen would be ideal like the Darkstar 1.4. But reading LumensLove's comments here on Elite does not inspire confidence.


----------



## Ftoast

Nick Laslett said:


> How does this work with a CIH 2.35:1 ratio screen when watching 16:9 content?
> 
> My throw ratio is 1.6 for 2.35:1 and 2.0 for 16:9.
> 
> I don't understand how the screen can hotspot, when the projector hasn't moved? With the Oppo 203 set to 21:9 crop mode, you don't even need to change the zoom settings. I assume the lumens are changing between these two sizes.
> 
> I'm struggling to understand two specification questions, the minimum throw ratio described above and the actual position of the projector relative to the screen. On the Screen Innovations installation PDF for the Slate 2.1 it recommends that the Projector should be level with the top of the screen. On the Dark Energy Abyss site it says the projector should be slightly higher than the top of the screen.
> https://www.darkenergyscreens.com/uploads/8/5/6/8/85689126/edited/screenshot-20170816-112154.jpeg
> 
> My projector is bookcase mounted 12" inches higher than the bottom of the screen. My eye height is level with the bottom of the screen at 39" from the floor. This does not seem like an ideal placement for some ALR screens.
> 
> This set-up implies a retro-reflective screen would be ideal like the Darkstar 1.4. But reading LumensLove's comments here on Elite does not inspire confidence.


Think of your angular-reflective (non-retro-reflective) screen like a big mirror.
If your projector is mounted at a height near the screen's middle, then it's image would also bounce back at the middle height.
With your projector near or above the top of the screen, that means the projector's light his the screen at a downward angle and bounces off the screen downward...right toward your eye-level which is lower, near the bottom of the screen.
It may have been an accident, but you positioned your screen, projector and seating quite well for this!

Continuing to think of your screen like a mirror, think of your projector's beam hitting the screen all at once with a full white image.
There's basically a cone or sideways pyramid of light coming out of the projector and widening out into a large rectangle to fill the screen. With an awesomely aimed projector and screen and seats (like yours) you can kind of image a narrow beam of light coming from the projector and hitting a small spot in the center of the screen and then reflecting downward at the same angle toward your eyes, right?
But what about the light going from the projector out toward each corner of the screen and then continuing at those angles?
Those beams end up aiming more toward their four opposite directions.
If your projector is in the same spot but making a smaller image, then those corners are closer to the center and the angles of the projected light aren't as far outward to hit them. This means more light is directed more toward your eye-level instead of bouncing toward the far corners of the room.

A retro-reflective screen bounces light back toward the projector instead of bouncing it like a mirror.
Your projector is high while your eye-level is lower, so a retro-reflective screen wouldn't be a good fit for your situation.


----------



## Nick Laslett

Ftoast said:


> Think of your angular-reflective (non-retro-reflective) screen like a big mirror.


Thank you, that was very clearly explained. 

I have a lot of reflective light in my room, no ambient light. I’m painting the walls neutral grey, but the white ceiling is off limits, but it is 43” inches above the screen. I was reading all the ALR threads here to see if one of the options might be better than a white screen. 

The 1.6 throw ratio in 2.35:1, only leaves a few options, SI Slate 2.1, Ambient-Visionaire Silver 1.3, Dark Energy Abyss. 

The other extreme was to go with Draper XT1600X White for 3D content. 

My projector is a Sony VPL-HW45ES, I’m currently projecting on a white wall a 128” 2.35:1 image. Besides the reflected light I am very happy.


----------



## Dave in Green

@Nick Laslett, I also have an HW45ES with a plain old 1.0 gain matte white screen. It's in a mixed use family room that opens up into the kitchen so I was limited on what I could do. The floor and walls were initially light colored and the ceiling white. I painted the walls a medium color that my wife really likes and changed the carpeting to a darker color that she also approves. But like you the white ceiling is off limits because it extends into the kitchen where my wife wants it to be bright when she's working in there and there's no point between the two openly connected rooms where a dark ceiling in the family room would look right transitioning to a white ceiling in the kitchen.

What I found is that the darker carpet and walls made a big difference. The ceiling still lights up in bright scenes but it doesn't bother me too much that the smaller black areas on the screen aren't as dark as they could be without reflected light from the ceiling. On dark scenes there's so little image light reflecting off the screen and onto the white ceiling that I also find that acceptable. Of course we all dream of having the proverbial bat cave where nothing reflected off the screen is reflected back onto the screen. But in the real world we often have to make compromises in just about everything we do and using a matte white screen with a white ceiling is certainly not a doomsday scenario for front projection.


----------



## beastaudio

For Dave and Nick. Could you get away with applying some velvet just a couple feet out on the ceiling? It would be super easy to remove and patch, and likely wouldn't come out far enough that it would look too awkward. You could stretch some over a custom cut piece for trim and get a nice tight layer.


----------



## Nick Laslett

Dave in Green said:


> @Nick Laslett, I also have an HW45ES with a plain old 1.0 gain matte white screen.


Dave, thank you for the encouragement. I have spent the last week reading threads in the Screens section and you have been the source of many wise words. In fact I started out with your post about the portable pull-up screen, because that was the first solution I considered. 



beastaudio said:


> For Dave and Nick. Could you get away with applying some velvet just a couple feet out on the ceiling?.


I was just reading the post in Ftoast’s signature about using black cloth to darken the room. "A store that sells blinds can help your picture more than a store that sells projectors many times." -bud16415

It is a good idea and more wife friendly than paint. My ceiling is too high @ 11ft, to reach with my indoor step ladder.

It might be once I have the darker walls, the ceiling won’t be such an issue. Next week I see some demo rooms with ALR screens, that should help answer some questions.


----------



## LumensLover

As a quick follow-up to this thread, I must say I finally found a true alternative to The Screen Innovations Black Diamond. The DEA Pulsar 1.4 gain screen beats down the Black Diamond in every way. It is much cheaper with superior ambient light rejecting performance. Ambient light rejection off axis and overhead is superior to the Black Diamond. It's color accuracy is better and it does not have the sparkles that people complain about with the Black Diamond material. And it holds black levels better than the Black Diamond under moderate amounts of ambient light. 

So after starting this thread and years and years of flipping through high-end ambient light rejecting screens. I have finally found the all around performing champ that I've been looking for. And it's the DEA Pulsar screen. With that being said I have not seen the Elunevision Aurora screen. However I've seen the newest alr projection materials from Draper, Stewart, Seymour,Elite Prime Vision, DNP, and Screen Innovations. And none of them compare to what I'm seeing now with the DEA Pulsar screen with moderate amounts of Ambient light present.


----------



## LumensLover

Best Off Axis light rejection - DEA Pulsar

Best Overhead light rejection - EPV Darkstar, however the DEA Pulsar is a close second in this category.

Best Color accuracy without calibration - This was a tie between DNP Blade and Dalite Parallax. Close second was EPV Darkstar. The Pulsar has a slight bias towards blue however it can be easily adjusted via calibration.

Best ability to hold deep black levels- DEA Pulsar. Though the EPV Darkstar is close in this category.

Best Brightness- EPV Darkstar. Though the DEA Pulsar and the S.I. Slate are very close second in this category.

Best ability to retain black levels under moderate to heavy amounts of ambient light- DEA Pulsar. Second the EPV Darkstar. 3rd the S.I. Black Diamond.


----------



## Limp Fox

But how well build is the DEA frame?  

Judd


----------



## LumensLover

Limp Fox said:


> But how well build is the DEA frame?
> 
> Judd


I went with a custom built screen so I can't comment on that aspect of the purchase.


----------



## Limp Fox

Then I'm sure you'll have it made to your liking. I'm glad you found a screen you're happy with (currently). I've been fortunate, and haven't seen any sparkle from the BD, but I miss the picture of the Elite "Crooks" (HAHA) ALR screen.

Judd


----------



## LumensLover

Limp Fox said:


> Then I'm sure you'll have it made to your liking. I'm glad you found a screen you're happy with (currently). I've been fortunate, and haven't seen any sparkle from the BD, but I miss the picture of the Elite "Crooks" (HAHA) ALR screen.
> 
> Judd


I never saw any sparkle on my Black Diamond screen either. I still consider the Black Diamond the benchmark for ambient light rejecting screens. My only beef with it is the exorbitant price Screen Innovations charges for the material.


----------



## beastaudio

LumensLover said:


> As a quick follow-up to this thread, I must say I finally found a true alternative to The Screen Innovations Black Diamond. The DEA Pulsar 1.4 gain screen beats down the Black Diamond in every way. It is much cheaper with superior ambient light rejecting performance. Ambient light rejection off access and overhead is superior to the Black Diamond. It's color accuracy is better and it does not have the sparkles that people complain about with the Black Diamond material. And it holds black levels better than the Black Diamond under moderate amounts of ambient light.
> 
> So after starting this thread and years and years of flipping through high-end ambient light rejecting screens. I have finally found the all around performing champ that I've been looking for. And it's the DEA Pulsar screen. With that being said I have not seen the Elunevision Aurora screen. However I've seen the newest alr projection materials from Draper, Stewart, Seymour,Elite Prime Vision, DNP, and Screen Innovations. And none of them compare to what I'm seeing now with the DEA Pulsar screen.


I have the elune aurora ALR material and it is decent, but I don't think it would rival any of your other samples. The perforated holes are too big and spread out, it's the only material that I have where I can see them from my seat, all other Stewart, draper, SI, and severtson materials I can't see. The aurora also has a slight color push towards blue-ish that several of the others don't exhibit. While their really neat looking screen frame with the fancy LED lights all seem pretty enticing for the price, I am just not sure if the material itself would make it worth it at all. SO much for that $30 sample...

Man, I really wish they could make a larger 16:9 at DE..I'd be extremely interested if they could get up to a 138" diag. 16:9.


----------



## Riyaz Ajmeri

LumensLover said:


> I never saw any sparkle on my Black Diamond screen either. I still consider the Black Diamond the benchmark for ambient light rejecting screens. My only beef with it is the exorbitant price Screen Innovations charges for the material.


can you post some picture or video buddy
thanks


----------



## LumensLover

Riyaz Ajmeri said:


> can you post some picture or video buddy
> thanks


I posted pics in my Pulsar review thread.


----------



## beastaudio

LumensLover said:


> I have posted pics in my Pulsar review thread.


I've got some samples of all the DES materials headed my way. I'm torn though on the max height for their material being 60" and limiting their largest 16:9 image to being 120" diagonal. I currently require a 138" or thereabouts diagonal. Stephen is trying to talk me into a scope screen in that case.


----------



## Ftoast

beastaudio said:


> I've got some samples of all the DES materials headed my way. I'm torn though on the max height for their material being 60" and limiting their largest 16:9 image to being 120" diagonal. I currently require a 138" or thereabouts diagonal. Stephen is trying to talk me into a scope screen in that case.


I'm glad to hear they've decided to output samples again.


----------



## nissand

beastaudio said:


> I've got some samples of all the DES materials headed my way. I'm torn though on the max height for their material being 60" and limiting their largest 16:9 image to being 120" diagonal. I currently require a 138" or thereabouts diagonal. Stephen is trying to talk me into a scope screen in that case.


[sigh] Same here! I really want at least a 135" diagonal on a 16:9 bc my PJ won't have lens memory to make it easy to switch in/out of scope. I thought I read another forum member had their existing material treated w their product, but I'm not sure if that is subject to the 60" height limits as well. I've reached out to them, so I'll see. I never had an ALR screen before and don't necessarily need one (dedicated room), but really like the idea of watching sports w friends and not have all the lights out. Having some light over seated areas and still retaining PQ is an ideal that's pushing me into the ALR space, even though it means more than I originally budgeted.

Are there other screens that are under $2K for 150" except Silver Ticket? I'm getting a great bundled PJ and Elunevision quote that gets me under $2K on the screen, but there are no reviews really. Apologies for the threadjack...feel free to PM if we want to keep this on track.


----------



## beastaudio

Ftoast said:


> I'm glad to hear they've decided to output samples again.


Nope, they aren't actually. Being in Johnson City, they are less than an hour away from me so Stephen is just letting borrow some shop scrap samples. I am also very convincing... 



nissand said:


> [sigh] Same here! I really want at least a 135" diagonal on a 16:9 bc my PJ won't have lens memory to make it easy to switch in/out of scope. I thought I read another forum member had their existing material treated w their product, but I'm not sure if that is subject to the 60" height limits as well. I've reached out to them, so I'll see. I never had an ALR screen before and don't necessarily need one (dedicated room), but really like the idea of watching sports w friends and not have all the lights out. Having some light over seated areas and still retaining PQ is an ideal that's pushing me into the ALR space, even though it means more than I originally budgeted.
> 
> Are there other screens that are under $2K for 150" except Silver Ticket? I'm getting a great bundled PJ and Elunevision quote that gets me under $2K on the screen, but there are no reviews really. Apologies for the threadjack...feel free to PM if we want to keep this on track.


You and I are certainly in the same boat then as I have a dedicated space as well, and dont necessarily need ALR, but it just has me too intrigued to set aside. I have people over all the time for sports. During football season, basically every Sunday, UFC fights, NCAA tourney, golf majors, you name it. I always have the lights on at a moderate level, but being able to crank them up a little more would just be awesome. My biggest caveat is color uniformity and not losing anything when it comes to movie reproduction though, as that is still the #1 and highest priority objective.

I have the elunevision aurora material in hand right now and it's not stacking up well against some others so far. The ALR characteristics is great, but the perforations are too visible, and there is some color shift that I don't see in any of the other materials.

EDIT: to answer your last question, Severtson makes screens in 16:9 up to that size.


----------



## nissand

beastaudio said:


> The ALR characteristics is great, but the perforations are too visible, and there is some color shift that I don't see in any of the other materials..


Is it their AT material you're testing? Thanks for posting your first impressions!


----------



## beastaudio

nissand said:


> Is it their AT material you're testing? Thanks for posting your first impressions!


Yep.


----------



## karlsch

LumensLover said:


> Looking for those who own other ALR screens outside of Screen Innovations to post pictures or let us hear about their experiences with other alr materials.
> …...............


 Here is my experience with ALR screens. 

My viewing room has light coming from a side window with blinds that can cause the picture to wash out.

In 2009 I installed a Screen Innovations Black Diamond 1.4. It didn't turn out to be the miracle screen that I had hoped for. It didn't handle ambient light anything like that shown in the SI promotional pictures and videos. I should have known that they were set up – direction of ambient light, position of projectors and cameras, etc. to show the screen at its absolute best. I managed to better control the light from the side window so all was not lost.

My main problem with this screen was the artifacts, sparkles, texture appearance and especially the hot spot. I found the hot spot to be extremely distracting. 

SI learned of my unhappiness from my postings on this forum and they gave me, at no cost, not even shipping, replacement .8 gain screen material. This improved things and made my viewing experience, while far from perfect, much better.

By 2013 I had improved my ambient light control so I decided to replace my SI screen with a Stewart FireHawk G4, a screen with slightly less ambient light control but also fewer artifacts. While far from perfect, I found it to be much better, especially the hot spotting.

In 2017 I bought a 4K projector and decided to buy a screen with no artifacts at all – a screen that I wouldn't _see _when watching 4K, so after reading the Projector Central ALR screen review I bought a Da-lite Parallax. I had already improved my ambient light problem back in the SI Days, so I didn't think the lessened ALR properties would be a problem. It wasn't. 

The picture quality improvement with the Parallax absolutely amazed me – a far bigger improvement than any of my projector upgrades. I hadn't fully realized how much my previous ALR screens were affecting picture quality. For instance, Blu-rays that I thought had a grainy quality were not grainy at all, the graininess was caused by my previous screens.

I have found my perfect ALR screen. Of course, that doesn't mean it would be everybody's perfect screen. Everybody has different needs and sensitivities. 

It was expensive. I live in a rural area with no opportunity to sell my previous screens, so they all ended up in the dumpster.


----------



## LumensLover

karlsch said:


> Here is my experience with ALR screens.
> 
> My viewing room has light coming from a side window with blinds that can cause the picture to wash out.
> 
> In 2009 I installed a Screen Innovations Black Diamond 1.4. It didn't turn out to be the miracle screen that I had hoped for. It didn't handle ambient light anything like that shown in the SI promotional pictures and videos. I should have known that they were set up – direction of ambient light, position of projectors and cameras, etc. to show the screen at its absolute best. I managed to better control the light from the side window so all was not lost.
> 
> My main problem with this screen was the artifacts, sparkles, texture appearance and especially the hot spot. I found the hot spot to be extremely distracting.
> 
> SI learned of my unhappiness from my postings on this forum and they gave me, at no cost, not even shipping, replacement .8 gain screen material. This improved things and made my viewing experience, while far from perfect, much better.
> 
> By 2013 I had improved my ambient light control so I decided to replace my SI screen with a Stewart FireHawk G4, a screen with slightly less ambient light control but also fewer artifacts. While far from perfect, I found it to be much better, especially the hot spotting.
> 
> In 2017 I bought a 4K projector and decided to buy a screen with no artifacts at all – a screen that I wouldn't _see _when watching 4K, so after reading the Projector Central ALR screen review I bought a Da-lite Parallax. I had already improved my ambient light problem back in the SI Days, so I didn't think the lessened ALR properties would be a problem. It wasn't.
> 
> The picture quality improvement with the Parallax absolutely amazed me – a far bigger improvement than any of my projector upgrades. I hadn't fully realized how much my previous ALR screens were affecting picture quality. For instance, Blu-rays that I thought had a grainy quality were not grainy at all, the graininess was caused by my previous screens.
> 
> I have found my perfect ALR screen. Of course, that doesn't mean it would be everybody's perfect screen. Everybody has different needs and sensitivities.
> 
> It was expensive. I live in a rural area with no opportunity to sell my previous screens, so they all ended up in the dumpster.


In many ways my previous ALR screen experience mirrors yours. When I got the first generation Black Diamond screen I was impressed with it initially. But like you stated I found out it was not the miracle product they made it out to be under moderate to heavy amounts of ambient light. SI misrepresents the screen's capabilities in their used car salesman like videos. 

Also the screen had certain defects such as vignetting and horrible colorshift when viewing the screen off axis that I could not live with long-term. The Stewart Firehawk was a good screen but it just did not retain black levels enough to my liking. The DNP 08 screen had the best image quality of any alr screen I've ever owned. I have also seen the Da-Lite Parallax which is every bit as good as the DNP 08 when it comes to ISF certified color accuracy out the box. 

No added graininess, shimmering, texture or sparkles. Your projector's image remains unchanged in any discernible way. Out of all the screens I've seen and owned, I put the DNP 08 Blade and The Parallax tied for number one when it comes to pristine image quality. Elite Crooks Darkstar material is a close number two when it comes to overall image quality in my opinion.


----------



## LumensLover

Went to a demo to see the Stewart Phantom halr screen material today. I must say I was quite underwhelmed. Especially for the price. It's off-axis rejection ability is not as good as the Black Diamond. I will give it a slight edge when it comes to image quality due to it not having the color bias and white crush that the Black Diamond has. That is all I will concede to it. Definitely not worth the price tag in my opinion.


----------



## LumensLover

At this point the only high end alr materials I have not seen are the EluneVision Aurora and Crystal Screens vaperware.


----------



## kjack99

I am getting my JVC X990R tomorrow and debating on the ALR screen to get as I am replacing the TV. Is Da Lite Parallax 0.8 a better option than a BD 1.4 ? I can fit a 140" 2.35:1. In terms of quality how is Da Lite compared to the SI BD?


----------



## LumensLover

kjack99 said:


> I am getting my JVC X990R tomorrow and debating on the ALR screen to get as I am replacing the TV. Is Da Lite Parallax 0.8 a better option than a BD 1.4 ? I can fit a 140" 2.35:1. In terms of quality how is Da Lite compared to the SI BD?


The Parallax screen gives discernibly better image quality than the SI black Diamond screen. However, it comes at the cost of reduced ALR capability. What type of room will you be placing your projector setup in? Where will the lighting be coming from?


----------



## kjack99

LumensLover said:


> The Parallax screen gives discernibly better image quality than the SI black Diamond screen. However, it comes at the cost of reduced ALR capability. What type of room will you be placing your projector setup in? Where will the lighting be coming from?


Its a dedicated room 20X14.9X9 room with windows on the side but fully controllable as i have blinds and curtains. I want the ability to have the ceiling lights on when kids are watching or i am WFH. Plan to get a 130 - 140" 2.35:1 screen.


----------



## LumensLover

kjack99 said:


> Its a dedicated room 20X14.9X9 room with windows on the side but fully controllable as i have blinds and curtains. I want the ability to have the ceiling lights on when kids are watching or i am WFH. Plan to get a 130 - 140" 2.35:1 screen.


For use under overhead light I would suggest the Elite Prime Vision Darkstar material. It rejects overhead light better than any other alr screen I've seen or owned. And it's also cheaper than the Parallax with close to equal image quality.


----------



## karlsch

kjack99 said:


> I am getting my JVC X990R tomorrow and debating on the ALR screen to get as I am replacing the TV. Is Da Lite Parallax 0.8 a better option than a BD 1.4 ? I can fit a 140" 2.35:1. In terms of quality how is Da Lite compared to the SI BD?





kjack99 said:


> Its a dedicated room 20X14.9X9 room with windows on the side but fully controllable as i have blinds and curtains. I want the ability to have the ceiling lights on when kids are watching or i am WFH. Plan to get a 130 - 140" 2.35:1 screen.


I owned a BD 1.4 and I now own a DaLite Parallax 0.8. You might want to read my post #111 in this thread where I explain my experience with four different ALR screens, all of which I owned and lived with – I didn't just view them in demo rooms.

The quality of the Parallax and the BD seem to be about the same.

The picture quality of the Parallax is far superior. IMO it isn't even close.

My room is similar to yours - windows with blinds and shades on the side. I don't have ceiling lights but I can have lights on in the room which reflect off my white ceiling and the picture is still great. 

The Parallax has a wide viewing angle and the BD has a narrow. Among other things, this means the Parallax has much better light uniformity across the screen. 

My previous screen was a Stewart Firehawk 1.1 gain which has a narrow viewing angle almost the same as the BD's. I first got a sample of the Parallax 0.8 and taped it to various locations on the Stewart 1.1 screen. In the center, in the sweet spot, it was slightly dimmer. But as soon as I moved it left or right off-center, it didn't take a whole lot, it started to appear brighter than the the Stewart screen underneath. At either edge of the screen it appeared to be much, much brighter. I would estimate over the whole screen the 0.8 gain Parallax is actually brighter than the 1.1 Stewart.

I learned that there is more to overall screen brightness than just gain. Viewing/half-gain angle makes a difference, too.

I have a 110” 16:9 screen. This effect would probably be even more noticeable on your larger 2.35:1.


----------



## kjack99

karlsch said:


> I owned a BD 1.4 and I now own a DaLite Parallax 0.8. You might want to read my post #111 in this thread where I explain my experience with four different ALR screens, all of which I owned and lived with – I didn't just view them in demo rooms.


Thanks for the info, Da Lite is sending me a sample of parallax 0.8 to test.


----------



## jdtsmith

beastaudio said:


> I have the elunevision aurora material in hand right now and it's not stacking up well against some others so far. The ALR characteristics is great, but the perforations are too visible, and there is some color shift that I don't see in any of the other materials.


Can you share how you managed to get samples of the Aurora material, beastaudio? It's got intriguing specs for my shortish (1.4x) throw ratio setup, and the price is pretty good.


----------



## beastaudio

jdtsmith said:


> Can you share how you managed to get samples of the Aurora material, beastaudio? It's got intriguing specs for my shortish (1.4x) throw ratio setup, and the price is pretty good.


I'm not sure where the hangup is. I simply called and spoke to Selma and purchased the sample. It was $30, of which you get that price off if you later purchase the screen, which at that time I had really high hopes for the material, only to be let down a little by their very odd perforation pattern. If you are planning a solid screen without the microperf, and are in serious need of ALR, it should be a good option.


----------



## jdtsmith

beastaudio said:


> I'm not sure where the hangup is. I simply called and spoke to Selma and purchased the sample. It was $30, of which you get that price off if you later purchase the screen, which at that time I had really high hopes for the material, only to be let down a little by their very odd perforation pattern. If you are planning a solid screen without the microperf, and are in serious need of ALR, it should be a good option.


Thanks. I just called to speak with Salma again and they have recently established a policy of not sending samples. It seems from what she said that they may have been a victim of some corporate espionage of some sort — people ordering samples on false pretenses. This would also explain some of the hesitancy I got speaking with them, perhaps thinking I had too many technical questions to be a legitimate customer. That’s an unfortunate part of the business I guess. She’s going to try asking again when Gary returns from travel next week. If that doesn’t pan out, maybe you’d sell me yours? I don’t need AT, but could ignore the holes and evaluate the ALR performance. Right now the SI materials I’m evaluating have exceptional (almost beyond belief) performance at screen center, but the narrow anglular spread out mean they degrade badly at screen edge, even from the main viewing position. Granted I’m pushing them past their limit with my 1.4x throw ratio.


----------



## jdtsmith

karlsch said:


> I owned a BD 1.4 and I now own a DaLite Parallax 0.8. You might want to read my post #111 in this thread where I explain my experience with four different ALR screens, all of which I owned and lived with – I didn't just view them in demo rooms.
> 
> The quality of the Parallax and the BD seem to be about the same.
> 
> The picture quality of the Parallax is far superior. IMO it isn't even close.
> 
> My room is similar to yours - windows with blinds and shades on the side. I don't have ceiling lights but I can have lights on in the room which reflect off my white ceiling and the picture is still great.
> 
> The Parallax has a wide viewing angle and the BD has a narrow. Among other things, this means the Parallax has much better light uniformity across the screen.


Very useful summary. When I spoke with DaLite they steered me away from the Parallax because most of my ambient lighting is from a S-facing window bank on the side of the room (including a higher half circle window). How does your Parallax do with those windows admitting some light?


----------



## MississippiMan

jdtsmith said:


> Right now the SI materials I’m evaluating have exceptional (almost beyond belief) performance at screen center, but the narrow anglular spread out mean they degrade badly at screen edge, even from the main viewing position. Granted I’m pushing them past their limit with my 1.4x throw ratio.


In truth, the SI offerings and the way they seem to "Spotlight" the middle of a screen seems to show they are almost more akin to being Retro Reflective than Angular...primarily because if you did place the PJ within the Screen's area the "vignetting-like" effect would be even more pronounced.

The suggested Throw / Height Placement of the PJ is more a accommodation to the issues inherent in the screen material itself.


----------



## beastaudio

jdtsmith said:


> Thanks. I just called to speak with Salma again and they have recently established a policy of not sending samples. It seems from what she said that they may have been a victim of some corporate espionage of some sort — people ordering samples on false pretenses. This would also explain some of the hesitancy I got speaking with them, perhaps thinking I had too many technical questions to be a legitimate customer. That’s an unfortunate part of the business I guess. She’s going to try asking again when Gary returns from travel next week. If that doesn’t pan out, maybe you’d sell me yours? I don’t need AT, but could ignore the holes and evaluate the ALR performance. Right now the SI materials I’m evaluating have exceptional (almost beyond belief) performance at screen center, but the narrow anglular spread out mean they degrade badly at screen edge, even from the main viewing position. Granted I’m pushing them past their limit with my 1.4x throw ratio.


I'd like to hang on to it but I would certainly mail it to you so you could test it out. No problems there.


----------



## karlsch

jdtsmith said:


> Very useful summary. When I spoke with DaLite they steered me away from the Parallax because most of my ambient lighting is from a S-facing window bank on the side of the room (including a higher half circle window). How does your Parallax do with those windows admitting some light?


I will take some pictures of my Parallax with lighting coming from a side window and post them here.

In my opinion, all ambient light rejection screens require some light control to get a satisfactory picture.

To show what I mean, here is a post of mine from 2010 that compares the SI Black Diamond I was using back then to a ordinary gray screen, a Da-Lite High Contrast Cinemavision with light coming from my side window. The Black Diamond is better, but not by a whole lot. (Photobucket with their new policy has blocked only one of the pictures for me, it's one with the blinds open. If they are all blocked for you let me know and will repost them.):
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/23-sc...mond-vs-da-lite-ambient-light-comparison.html


----------



## karlsch

jdtsmith said:


> Very useful summary. When I spoke with DaLite they steered me away from the Parallax because most of my ambient lighting is from a S-facing window bank on the side of the room (including a higher half circle window). How does your Parallax do with those windows admitting some light?


Here are some pictures of my 110” Da-Lite Parallax with light coming from a large side window. As you can see, with no light control at all, the picture is washed out. It's not much different from my previous S.I. Black Diamond (both screen materials) and Stewart Firehawk screens.

The room has a white ceiling and light colored walls. With the light control I have I am very happy with the screen.

Here is the window. You can see the blinds but you can't see the light blocking shade that I can pull down. The top is 10 feet from the floor. The left side is 40 inches from the wall the screen in mounted on. The camera makes it look like the room is dark, but it is actually quite bright.










It's a bright sunny day.









In each group of three pictures the first picture is with full light. The blinds are open and the shade is up. The second is with the blinds closed. The third is with the blinds closed and the shade pulled down.

When the blinds only are closed there is enough light to read something like a TV schedule but probably not enough to comfortably read a book.

This is a bright scene.


























A dark scene.


























This is a sporting event with the blinds about 2/3 closed. Enough light in the room to easily read a book.


----------



## jdtsmith

karlsch said:


> Here are some pictures of my 110” Da-Lite Parallax with light coming from a large side window. As you can see, with no light control at all, the picture is washed out. It's not much different from my previous S.I. Black Diamond (both screen materials) and Stewart Firehawk screens.
> 
> The room has a white ceiling and light colored walls. With the light control I have I am very happy with the screen.
> 
> Here is the window. You can see the blinds but you can't see the light blocking shade that I can pull down. The top is 10 feet from the floor. The left side is 40 inches from the wall the screen in mounted on. The camera makes it look like the room is dark, but it is actually quite bright.


These pictures are fantastic (and if I had your view, I'm not sure I'd spend any time looking at a screen!). They nicely illustrate the performance. If you had a moment at some point, the only additional type of shot I'd suggest would be to repeat a dark scene at various lighting levels, attaching a piece of paper to the edge of your screen. That method, I've found, gives a very nice relative ALR comparison as lighting levels drop (either from the sun going down, or blinds/etc.). 

Thanks very much for sharing.


----------



## karlsch

jdtsmith said:


> ............ If you had a moment at some point, the only additional type of shot I'd suggest would be to repeat a dark scene at various lighting levels, attaching a piece of paper to the edge of your screen. That method, I've found, gives a very nice relative ALR comparison as lighting levels drop (either from the sun going down, or blinds/etc.).
> 
> Thanks very much for sharing.


I will try to do that later today.


----------



## karlsch

jdtsmith said:


> ............. If you had a moment at some point, the only additional type of shot I'd suggest would be to repeat a dark scene at various lighting levels, attaching a piece of paper to the edge of your screen. ...............


Here are pictures of a dark scene with white paper taped to the screen. Starting with full light, then blinds only closed and then blinds closed with shade pulled down.

For each group a picture of the entire screen and a closeup of the middle piece of paper.


----------



## jdtsmith

karlsch said:


> Here are pictures of a dark scene with white paper taped to the screen. Starting with full light, then blinds only closed and then blinds closed with shade pulled down.
> 
> For each group a picture of the entire screen and a closeup of the middle piece of paper.


These are great, thanks. The middle is particularly impressive. I've received the HDPro 0.6 and 1.1 from DaLite, and they have excellent uniformity, but rather weak ALR performance (as advertised). The 1.1 does look a bit brighter and higher contrast than a reference white sample, especially in the center of the image. I think I need something a bit more forgiving laterally and vertically than e.g. SI's Slate, but more ALR performant than the HDPro (quoted at 20% ALR). I'm concerned about the tight vertical angle tolerances of the Parallax (which is what gives you good overhead ambient rejection!), but worth trying a sample given your side-lit results. Trying out Draper MS1000X (and 700) tomorrow, will report.

Thanks again.


----------



## jdtsmith

karlsch said:


> Here are pictures of a dark scene with white paper taped to the screen. Starting with full light, then blinds only closed and then blinds closed with shade pulled down.


Can I ask what your throw ratio is? And what height your projector is mounted relative to the center of the screen (as a fraction of screen height)? When you stand up, does the picture get substantially darker at bottom?

Thanks


----------



## karlsch

jdtsmith said:


> Can I ask what your throw ratio is? And what height your projector is mounted relative to the center of the screen (as a fraction of screen height)? When you stand up, does the picture get substantially darker at bottom?
> 
> Thanks


My screen is 54x96 inches (110” diagonal)

The projector lens is 174” from the screen, so the throw ratio is ~1.8:1.

When I sit in my home theater recliner my head is 12' from the screen.

The projector lens center is 90” from the floor, 6” above the top of the screen.

The projector is on a rear shelf that is height adjustable. I adjusted the height by taping three sheets of paper to the screen, one at the bottom, one in the center and one at the top. I moved the projector up and down until all of the sheets of paper were equally bright when I projected a white test screen. 

When viewing an all white test screen, if I stand up, the bottom of the screen appears to be darker, but not by much. When viewing ordinary programming I can't see the difference.


----------



## Domcorleone

Wow those pictures of the Parallax are super helpful! Thank you karlsch!

Would you say that the Firehawk G4 gave you similar performance under those conditions albeit with artifacts?

I am honestly considering going with this Da-Lite Parallax instead of a Stewarts screen... My 3 windows are behind my couch, does that make the ALR performance better or worse since the light will be hitting the screen directly?


----------



## jdtsmith

beastaudio said:


> I'd like to hang on to it but I would certainly mail it to you so you could test it out. No problems there.


I'd like to take you up on this, beastaudio. I'll PM. I have tried hard to get Elunevision to change their no-sample policy but so far not budging. You might wonder why I'm spending so much energy trying to track down samples from a company that doesn't seem too eager to sell their units to buyers like me. Here's why. So far I've reviewed:


 *DaLite HD Pro (0.9, 1.1, 1.3, 1.1 contrast)*: Low ALR materials with exceptional surface smoothness, and wide open viewing cones. The 1.1 and 1.3 look particularly nice at night. But only a bit better than a reference white surface (or paper) with combating ambient light. Really beautiful material though with a solid black backing. I'd go with this if I had a darker room.
 *DaLite Parallax 0.8*: Interesting performer, but too dark, and not as much ALR performance as others, with my side-illuminating windows situation. Vertical viewing cone not as bad as expected (about like Slates, better than Black Diamond), but still would require me to mount the projector lower than I'm willing to. 
 *Draper XH900X, MSX1000*: good viewing cone, pretty good ALR performance, but both very grainy materials. And notably dark compared to SI's offerings.
 *SI Slate 0.9, 1.2*: Amazing performers on axis, especially 1.2: bright, incredible contrast, smooth surface. Nothing even close. If you could just have this performance over the full viewing area... But the narrow viewing cone, especially horizontally, means at the side of the viewing area they go dark and lose contrast, even from the main viewing position. Add in our wide couch and they're non-starters. Even with lots of ambient light, the HD Pro beats out Slate at the image's edge. At night it's not even close. Definitely also the most prone to hot-spotting, which I define as "ability to discern the position of the projector by moving your head around". To be very fair, I'm really pushing these materials at a low throw ratio of 1.4, below the recommended 1.5. Throw ratio and viewing cone angle are physical inverses. I bet at 1.8 or 2.0 (and with narrow seating), they'd hold up _much_ better at the edge. 
 *SI BD 1.4*: Not available in retractable so a no-go for me, but thought I'd mention for completeness. Very close performance wise, but I actually prefer the Slates (at the center of the screen). BD holds up a bit better horizontally, but a bit worse vertically than Slate. 

So in terms of ALR performance and viewing cone (horizontal & vertical if I understand correctly) the Aurora material, at least on paper, fills a real apparent gap between the low-ALR, wide cone, smooth materials like HDPro, and the exceptional ALR but problematic Slates, etc. I.e. a good possible compromise: pretty good ALR but also pretty forgiving angularly. If anyone knows of any other materials with this happy medium, I'd love to hear about them.

Anyway, the proof is in the pudding (or rather the checkerboard pattern I created for testing 10-12 samples at once). I'm also trying to get a sample of the Slate 1.4XL which has a modestly wider viewing cone spec than 1.2. I note that the published Slate 1.2 half light angle of 70° full doesn't match the PC review finding of 46°. So we'll see. 

At least for now my wife sewed me a nice piece of white nylon that I hung on a curtain rod, and we were actually able to watch a movie for the first time last weekend.


----------



## Ftoast

Domcorleone said:


> Wow those pictures of the Parallax are super helpful! Thank you karlsch!
> 
> Would you say that the Firehawk G4 gave you similar performance under those conditions albeit with artifacts?
> 
> I am honestly considering going with this Da-Lite Parallax instead of a Stewarts screen... My 3 windows are behind my couch, does that make the ALR performance better or worse since the light will be hitting the screen directly?


Windows behind your seats/projector can't be fought effectively by a light-fighting screen without the screen also fighting/dimming the projected image.
These screens fight light better and better when it's coming from directions farther and farther from the projector's ideal direction/location...lights/windows washing out the image from a position near the projector can't really be helped significantly by a screen.

If you're able to curtain/block those windows so you'll mostly be dealing with the light that leaks in/around the curtains and bounces off the walls, then a light-fighting screen can improve things noticeably.


----------



## Domcorleone

Ftoast said:


> Windows behind your seats/projector can't be fought effectively by a light-fighting screen without the screen also fighting/dimming the projected image.
> These screens fight light better and better when it's coming from directions farther and farther from the projector's ideal direction/location...lights/windows washing out the image from a position near the projector can't really be helped significantly by a screen.
> 
> If you're able to curtain/block those windows so you'll mostly be dealing with the light that leaks in/around the curtains and bounces off the walls, then a light-fighting screen can improve things noticeably.


Below is what my space looks like. I would like to be able to have the shades partially up occasionally or be able to turn on the ceiling light up to 50% (its on a dimmer) and still be able to get a decent picture.




























What a movie looks like in the dark using a JVC 570R:


----------



## jdtsmith

Domcorleone said:


> Below is what my space looks like. I would like to be able to have the shades partially up occasionally or be able to turn on the ceiling light up to 50% (its on a dimmer) and still be able to get a decent picture.


The higher the fraction of light that is hitting your screen with an angle away from your eyes less than the material's "half light viewing cone", the less ambient rejection you get. The ideal screen would redirect all light falling on it from the projector back to your eyes directly (i.e. ultra high "gain", enabling ultra low power projectors to deliver very, very bright images!). Think about a whole bunch of tiny mirrors all angled perfectly to let you see the projector lens and only the projector lens. _Only_ light originating from the projector would enter your eye. Light originating from anywhere else in the room would bounce harmlessly elsewhere. But if you shifted a foot over on your couch, then you'd see no image (also, your friends and family see nothing). So in the real world, screens either wastefully diffuse light in all directions, only a tiny portion of which hits your eyes, or redirect it over a narrower "viewing cone". Anything outside that cone (ambient light _OR_ projector light) simply doesn't make it to your eye. 

That's the basic trade-off of ALRs. You reject some ambient light (yay!), and at certain angles you get more projector light coming to your eyes (aka "gain"... yay!), but you also reject a lot of projector light if any part of the screen is outside the "viewing cone" (boo!), and you get _more_ reflected ambient light from inside the viewing cone than you would have (boo!). So in your case (with lots of ambient light coming from behind the projector) a high-gain ALR screen would look _worse_ than a simple white screen. With blinds, light will bounce around at all angles and this isn't as true anymore. 

Half light viewing angles range from very small (15° or so) for the most highly light-rejecting materials, to 180° (perfect lambertian reflectors, like a white piece of paper) for non-ALR materials. My guess is that most materials do a mix of both of these: some components of the ALR surface act like tiny pieces of white paper (that do nothing for ambient light) and some act like tiny reflecting mirrors (at a variety of angles). Tiny mirrors and tiny pieces of paper. That's how I think of it. 

But you might say: paper and mirrors can't be right: some screens have low gain _and_ small half light angles. How do they do that? Simple: make your "tiny pieces of paper" in the screen surface a dark color, to absorb both ambient and projector light. So _all_ the light gets much fainter, but then the tiny mirrors send a bunch more light to your eyes (if they're angled correctly) than paper would to make up for that (this by the way this is how a dark-looking screen like Black Diamond can have a gain of 1.4!). 

And this model lets you think about "poor man's ALR". If you have a _very_ bright projector, you can just make your entire screen out of tiny pieces of _dark_ paper, no mirrors (aka "gray screen" or "black screen"). Then both ambient and projector light arriving from any angle get highly absorbed, and then diffused equally in all directions. Very wasteful of the light. How could that help? Since the projector hopefully outshines the ambient light in the room by a very large margin, you get a nice high contrast image that isn't too bright (just be careful no-one wearing a white shirt walks in front of the screen, you might go blind). Metric of note: direct sunlight on a white screen produces 10,000 foot lamberts. So to illuminate a 120" 16:9 screen with the same flux as uniform direct sunlight, you'd need a projector with a half million lumens (and a screen with a gain of 5 thousandths). Direct sunlight is _insanely_ bright, no projector can ever compete. During the day with blinds closed, my screen vicinity measures about 3 ftL. Much lower at night obviously. 

PS: Okay you can tell I'm a scientist here, but I worked out the maximum theoretical gain of a screen composed only of "tiny mirrors" all ideally aligned towards your eye: 8 x (distance to screen/diameter of pupil)^2. I.e. for a 12' distance with a dilated 8mm pupil, gain of ~670,000. If you'd like light in both of your eyes (wasteful you), then you have to accept of gain of "only" about 30,000.


----------



## Ftoast

Domcorleone said:


> Below is what my space looks like. I would like to be able to have the shades partially up occasionally or be able to turn on the ceiling light up to 50% (its on a dimmer) and still be able to get a decent picture.


 That ceiling-light's position (and its design which doesn't make shielding between the bulbs and screen friendly) and light directly from those windows is going to give you a hard time.
A light-fighting screen should still help against your white ceiling and help to slightly darken the screen's edges against the ceiling-light, but anything beyond that is going to be minimal.

There's a few images posted from another member using a very aggressive DarkEnergy Abyss0.9 screen in a room with some windows near the room's seats, and with those windows allowing light in, that washes the screen REALLY hard...and I think your window locations are even worse that theirs.



















Your windows and lights look more centered and level with the projector, so your situation could easily be even tougher.


----------



## karlsch

Domcorleone said:


> Wow those pictures of the Parallax are super helpful! Thank you karlsch!
> 
> Would you say that the Firehawk G4 gave you similar performance under those conditions albeit with artifacts?
> 
> I am honestly considering going with this Da-Lite Parallax instead of a Stewarts screen... My 3 windows are behind my couch, does that make the ALR performance better or worse since the light will be hitting the screen directly?



The G4 and the Parallax seem to perform similarly in my room. The Parallax might be a little better at dealing with the light bouncing off the ceiling. It appears that my ceiling (~11ft.) is much higher than yours.

In the following I'll be repeating some of the things Ftoast already said.

There is no screen, ALR or otherwise, that performs well when window or lamp light is coming from the same direction as the light from the projector.

If you could but something that diffuses the light from the windows so it bounces off the ceiling, such as some sort of blind, then the Parallax would probably do a good job. You would also have to do something with the ceiling light fixture so the light is more directional. 

The best way, as you already know, would be to get a screen sample and try it out.


----------



## Ftoast

Spoiler






jdtsmith said:


> The higher the fraction of light that is hitting your screen with an angle away from your eyes less than the material's "half light viewing cone", the less ambient rejection you get. The ideal screen would redirect all light falling on it from the projector back to your eyes directly (i.e. ultra high "gain", enabling ultra low power projectors to deliver very, very bright images!). Think about a whole bunch of tiny mirrors all angled perfectly to let you see the projector lens and only the projector lens. _Only_ light originating from the projector would enter your eye. Light originating from anywhere else in the room would bounce harmlessly elsewhere. But if you shifted a foot over on your couch, then you'd see no image (also, your friends and family see nothing). So in the real world, screens either wastefully diffuse light in all directions, only a tiny portion of which hits your eyes, or redirect it over a narrower "viewing cone". Anything outside that cone (ambient light _OR_ projector light) simply doesn't make it to your eye.
> 
> That's the basic trade-off of ALRs. You reject some ambient light (yay!), and at certain angles you get more projector light coming to your eyes (aka "gain"... yay!), but you also reject a lot of projector light if any part of the screen is outside the "viewing cone" (boo!), and you get _more_ reflected ambient light from inside the viewing cone than you would have (boo!). So in your case (with lots of ambient light coming from behind the projector) a high-gain ALR screen would look _worse_ than a simple white screen. With blinds, light will bounce around at all angles and this isn't as true anymore.
> 
> Half light viewing angles range from very small (15° or so) for the most highly light-rejecting materials, to 180° (perfect lambertian reflectors, like a white piece of paper) for non-ALR materials. My guess is that most materials do a mix of both of these: some components of the ALR surface act like tiny pieces of white paper (that do nothing for ambient light) and some act like tiny reflecting mirrors (at a variety of angles). Tiny mirrors and tiny pieces of paper. That's how I think of it.
> 
> But you might say: paper and mirrors can't be right: some screens have low gain _and_ small half light angles. How do they do that? Simple: make your "tiny pieces of paper" in the screen surface a dark color, to absorb both ambient and projector light. So _all_ the light gets much fainter, but then the tiny mirrors send a bunch more light to your eyes (if they're angled correctly) than paper would to make up for that (this by the way this is how a dark-looking screen like Black Diamond can have a gain of 1.4!).
> 
> And this model lets you think about "poor man's ALR". If you have a _very_ bright projector, you can just make your entire screen out of tiny pieces of _dark_ paper, no mirrors (aka "gray screen" or "black screen"). Then both ambient and projector light arriving from any angle get highly absorbed, and then diffused equally in all directions. Very wasteful of the light. How could that help? Since the projector hopefully outshines the ambient light in the room by a very large margin, you get a nice high contrast image that isn't too bright (just be careful no-one wearing a white shirt walks in front of the screen, you might go blind). Metric of note: direct sunlight on a white screen produces 10,000 foot lamberts. So to illuminate a 120" 16:9 screen with the same flux as uniform direct sunlight, you'd need a projector with a half million lumens (and a screen with a gain of 5 thousandths). Direct sunlight is _insanely_ bright, no projector can ever compete. During the day with blinds closed, my screen vicinity measures about 3 ftL. Much lower at night obviously.








jdtsmith said:


> PS: Okay you can tell I'm a scientist here, but I worked out the maximum theoretical gain of a screen composed only of "tiny mirrors" all ideally aligned towards your eye: 8 x (distance to screen/diameter of pupil)^2. I.e. for a 12' distance with a dilated 8mm pupil, gain of ~670,000. If you'd like light in both of your eyes (wasteful you), then you have to accept of gain of "only" about 30,000.


I loved this entire post. Great explanations and fun ending.


----------



## johnnyknoxsvill

This is what I'm dealing with in my living room (pic attached). I'm having blinds installed on the top 3 windows soon, my question would be what ALR screen would work best with around a $1k budget? Painting the wall is out of the question due to WAF. I was looking at the Elite screens Aeon ALR screen but have noticed bad reviews in here about issues with the frame materials not being good.


----------



## Danonano

johnnyknoxsvill said:


> This is what I'm dealing with in my living room (pic attached). I'm having blinds installed on the top 3 windows soon, my question would be what ALR screen would work best with around a $1k budget? Painting the wall is out of the question due to WAF. I was looking at the Elite screens Aeon ALR screen but have noticed bad reviews in here about issues with the frame materials not being good.


I could be wrong, but I think those complaints about frame materials are older and that the quality has improved. I'm hoping anyways, and may try one off Amazon. At least with Amazon it's easy to return.


----------



## jdtsmith

beastaudio said:


> I'd like to hang on to it but I would certainly mail it to you so you could test it out. No problems there.


Just a ping on your kind offer. Thanks.


----------



## jdtsmith

jdtsmith said:


> *DaLite HD Pro (0.9, 1.1, 1.3, 1.1 contrast)*: Low ALR materials with exceptional surface smoothness, and wide open viewing cones. The 1.1 and 1.3 look particularly nice at night. But only a bit better than a reference white surface (or paper) with combating ambient light. Really beautiful material though with a solid black backing. I'd go with this if I had a darker room.
> *DaLite Parallax 0.8*: Interesting performer, but too dark, and not as much ALR performance as others, with my side-illuminating windows situation. Vertical viewing cone not as bad as expected (about like Slates, better than Black Diamond), but still would require me to mount the projector lower than I'm willing to.
> *Draper XH900X, MSX1000*: good viewing cone, pretty good ALR performance, but both very grainy materials. And notably dark compared to SI's offerings.
> *SI Slate 0.9, 1.2*: Amazing performers on axis, especially 1.2: bright, incredible contrast, smooth surface. Nothing even close. If you could just have this performance over the full viewing area... But the narrow viewing cone, especially horizontally, means at the side of the viewing area they go dark and lose contrast, even from the main viewing position. Add in our wide couch and they're non-starters. Even with lots of ambient light, the HD Pro beats out Slate at the image's edge. At night it's not even close. Definitely also the most prone to hot-spotting, which I define as "ability to discern the position of the projector by moving your head around". To be very fair, I'm really pushing these materials at a low throw ratio of 1.4, below the recommended 1.5. Throw ratio and viewing cone angle are physical inverses. I bet at 1.8 or 2.0 (and with narrow seating), they'd hold up _much_ better at the edge.
> *SI BD 1.4*: Not available in retractable so a no-go for me, but thought I'd mention for completeness. Very close performance wise, but I actually prefer the Slates (at the center of the screen). BD holds up a bit better horizontally, but a bit worse vertically than Slate.


An update to this list. Thanks to beastaudio, who was kind enough to mail me samples of his Elunevision Aurora 4K and also a DES Abyss 0.9. My impressions of those are as follows:



*Elunevision Aurora*: The 1.25 gain marked on this sample is questionable. On a black/white checkerboard pattern, it most closely resembled the brightess at screen center of Da-Lite's HDPro 0.9. In fact I taped it over a larger HDP0.9 sample and had trouble when ambient light levels were modest to see it against the flat 0.9. At higher ambient levels, it did perform a decent job rejecting side lighting from windows, and clearly bested the Slate material at screen's edge, though even from the main seating position, the light fall-off was still appreciable compared to more flat materials like the Da-Lite's. There is also no black backing of any kind, so this also makes it less ideal for a window-covering retractable. Although I wouldn't need them, the perforations on beastaudio's AT sample are indeed large and rather visible.
*Da-lite Parallax*: I wanted to add to my impressions above that this screen material is simply _phenomenal_ with over head lights. When I turn on the ceiling light zone on the screen side of the room, all the samples suffered, but the Parallax had very little loss in contrast. It also has a remarkably wide viewing cone. If my only lighting sources were from above (or from a low white ceiling), it would be a clear contender. With almost entirely side lighting from windows, though, it wasn't better than flat moderate gain materials.
*DES Abyss 0.9* Not available in a retractable unit, so already disqualified, but I thought I'd give it a look. If you are into inky blacks like the bottom of a deep dark well, this is the material for you. Notably deeper and darker than Black Diamond 1.4. But, and it's a big one, the whites produced are also by far the least bright of any of the samples I've tested.

I've all but decided my setup just won't allow an ALR material to work well enough. My short throw ratio is exacerbated by a wide couch, with kids sprawled across the whole room. Next step is Seymour. I've had some news that they are soon to expand their retractable material selection.


----------



## epheatt

jdtsmith said:


> An update to this list. Thanks to beastaudio, who was kind enough to mail me samples of his Elunevision Aurora 4K and also a DES Abyss 0.9. My impressions of those are as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> *Elunevision Aurora*: The 1.25 gain marked on this sample is questionable. On a black/white checkerboard pattern, it most closely resembled the brightess at screen center of Da-Lite's HDPro 0.9. In fact I taped it over a larger HDP0.9 sample and had trouble when ambient light levels were modest to see it against the flat 0.9. At higher ambient levels, it did perform a decent job rejecting side lighting from windows, and clearly bested the Slate material at screen's edge, though even from the main seating position, the light fall-off was still appreciable compared to more flat materials like the Da-Lite's. There is also no black backing of any kind, so this also makes it less ideal for a window-covering retractable. Although I wouldn't need them, the perforations on beastaudio's AT sample are indeed large and rather visible.
> *Da-lite Parallax*: I wanted to add to my impressions above that this screen material is simply _phenomenal_ with over head lights. When I turn on the ceiling light zone on the screen side of the room, all the samples suffered, but the Parallax had very little loss in contrast. It also has a remarkably wide viewing cone. If my only lighting sources were from above (or from a low white ceiling), it would be a clear contender. With almost entirely side lighting from windows, though, it wasn't better than flat moderate gain materials.
> *DES Abyss 0.9* Not available in a retractable unit, so already disqualified, but I thought I'd give it a look. If you are into inky blacks like the bottom of a deep dark well, this is the material for you. Notably deeper and darker than Black Diamond 1.4. But, and it's a big one, the whites produced are also by far the least bright of any of the samples I've tested.
> 
> I've all but decided my setup just won't allow an ALR material to work well enough. My short throw ratio is exacerbated by a wide couch, with kids sprawled across the whole room. Next step is Seymour. I've had some news that they are soon to expand their retractable material selection.


For the Elunevision Aurora material how realistic is their 61 degree half gain angle (https://elunevision.com/materials/aurora-4k-ambient-light-rejection/) in your sample set up? I have a 2:0 throw ratio based on my "weak" room with light ceiling/walls mixed-use living room layout. I am getting quotes from two different dealers between the EluneVision Aurora and an Elite Screen CineGrey 5D but I have not purchased the projector yet becuase I am trying to get a discount on a package deal.. so I can't check myself yet. The price difference on the two quotes is reasonably close but the half gain angle difference seems significant (60 vs 40) and would push me to the EluneVision over the Elite Screen for my living room despite there being relatively few other reviews out there.


----------



## jdtsmith

epheatt said:


> For the Elunevision Aurora material how realistic is their 61 degree half gain angle (https://elunevision.com/materials/aurora-4k-ambient-light-rejection/) in your sample set up? I have a 2:0 throw ratio based on my "weak" room with light ceiling/walls mixed-use living room layout. I am getting quotes from two different dealers between the EluneVision Aurora and an Elite Screen CineGrey 5D but I have not purchased the projector yet becuase I am trying to get a discount on a package deal.. so I can't check myself yet. The price difference on the two quotes is reasonably close but the half gain angle difference seems significant (60 vs 40) and would push me to the EluneVision over the Elite Screen for my living room despite there being relatively few other reviews out there.


I take all half-gain angles with a grain of salt. Slate advertises 35°, but the PC review measured it at 23°. At the 24° off axis position to the edge of my viewing area, Slate was just too far gone to be acceptable. Aurora had darkened but still looked acceptable. If I slid to the left by 4' on our wide couch, no longer. 

It's important to note that screen edges are a worst case for ALR materials. In addition to the off-axis angle of view, the light arrives from the projector at an angle. And those angles must be _added_. E.g. for my case the main position is 24° from screen edge, but the light hits the screen at 23° away from perpendicular. So 46° total. At 4' over on my couch, the _effective_ angle to the opposite screen edge is 60°! Ouch.

BTW, I believe the main reason to increase your projector throw ratio is to get that 23° number down. It would drop to 14° for me at a throw ratio of 2.0. And I could get it as low as 11° by pushing my projector to the back wall. But we have a custom mid-room shelving unit for the projector so no dice. Another effective approach is to limit your seating area to a very narrow range of angles. 

I went the route of buying the projector, mounting it, and hanging a temporary cloth screen. Slows the build down but really recommended to find preferred angles, screen size, seating configurations, etc.


----------



## epheatt

jdtsmith said:


> I take all half-gain angles with a grain of salt. Slate advertises 35°, but the PC review measured it at 23°. At the 24° off axis position to the edge of my viewing area, Slate was just too far gone to be acceptable. Aurora had darkened but still looked acceptable. If I slid to the left by 4' on our wide couch, no longer.
> 
> It's important to note that screen edges are a worst case for ALR materials. In addition to the off-axis angle of view, the light arrives from the projector at an angle. And those angles must be _added_. E.g. for my case the main position is 24° from screen edge, but the light hits the screen at 23° away from perpendicular. So 46° total. At 4' over on my couch, the _effective_ angle to the opposite screen edge is 60°! Ouch.
> 
> BTW, I believe the main reason to increase your projector throw ratio is to get that 23° number down. It would drop to 14° for me at a throw ratio of 2.0. And I could get it as low as 11° by pushing my projector to the back wall. But we have a custom mid-room shelving unit for the projector so no dice. Another effective approach is to limit your seating area to a very narrow range of angles.
> 
> I went the route of buying the projector, mounting it, and hanging a temporary cloth screen. Slows the build down but really recommended to find preferred angles, screen size, seating configurations, etc.


How does your ambient light/room color compare to either of the attached pictures of my room with http://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2414932&d=1528752470/without http://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2414934&d=1528752470 the blackout shades drawn during midday light. I had originally looked at the Monoprice 120-inch 16:9 HD White Fabric Ceiling-Recessed Tab-Tensioned Motorized (https://www.monoprice.com/product?c_id=108&cp_id=10829&cs_id=1082908&p_id=27078&seq=1&format=2) just to get something in, but I wanted 24 inches of drop instead of the max 14 inch to try and center screen horizontally and vertically between the windows in front of the fireplace. The custom screen from Elite Screens that matched the other specs started at 3x that cost which made me start to look at the incremental cost of ALR to combat room reflections off of the walls and ceiling. My regular viewing would be at night after dark with occasional daytime/late afternoon with the blackout shades to stop the majority of the western exposure on the left side of the room perspective but if your experience with a couch sprawl has you continuing on for other options would you say your config is good enough for now? 

I'm not an audio/video-file but I have tinkered enough with my MythTV system that I notice artifacts (that my wife does not). So would your advice be that I just used the blackout I have already have and take the Monoprice for now till I can convince my wife to make this mixed-use room more friendly to light control and make a more expensive screen worth the investment instead of going the ALR route?


----------



## jdtsmith

epheatt said:


> How does your ambient light/room color compare to either of the attached pictures of my room with https://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2414932&d=1528752470/without https://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2414934&d=1528752470 the blackout shades drawn during midday light. I had originally looked at the Monoprice 120-inch 16:9 HD White Fabric Ceiling-Recessed Tab-Tensioned Motorized (https://www.monoprice.com/product?c_id=108&cp_id=10829&cs_id=1082908&p_id=27078&seq=1&format=2) just to get something in, but I wanted 24 inches of drop instead of the max 14 inch to try and center screen horizontally and vertically between the windows in front of the fireplace. The custom screen from Elite Screens that matched the other specs started at 3x that cost which made me start to look at the incremental cost of ALR to combat room reflections off of the walls and ceiling. My regular viewing would be at night after dark with occasional daytime/late afternoon with the blackout shades to stop the majority of the western exposure on the left side of the room perspective but if your experience with a couch sprawl has you continuing on for other options would you say your config is good enough for now?
> 
> I'm not an audio/video-file but I have tinkered enough with my MythTV system that I notice artifacts (that my wife does not). So would your advice be that I just used the blackout I have already have and take the Monoprice for now till I can convince my wife to make this mixed-use room more friendly to light control and make a more expensive screen worth the investment instead of going the ALR route?


Hard to say from pictures alone. With all my blinds closed during the day, the flux intensity of light at my screen position ranges from 0.3 to 6 foot-candels (which would result in 0.3-6 ftL on reflection by a unit gain Lambertian white screen). You can get cheap light meters that let you measure lux (= about 0.1 ftC) in your room. It's a guess, but your blinds closed room looks to be about 3ftC. At this level of light, you can read, but wouldn't want to. My blinds open ambient can go all the way up to pure sunlight, but that's a rare time of day. I get quite a good picture at 0.5 ftC, but that's hard to achieve with blinds alone. I need to get blinds for my semi-circular high window. From what I can tell given all my sample evals, if you can control light to say 0.5 ftC or less, a normal or moderate gain white screen will give the best, most uniform, most artifact free picture. I do have 12' cathedral ceiling with dark paint, which cuts down the rebound light. 

But independent of how well you _could_ control the light, kids' games and social events don't mix well with complete darkness. Something like 5 ftC would be a fairly low party feel. Since my projector delivers a maximum of about 30ftC at the screen, without some kind of ambient rejection, my best contrast would be only 6:1. Kind of makes the 1,000,000:1 contrast Epson quotes for my projector seem like a joke. You'd need a room dipped in Vanta black to ever achieve that. 

I read someone on here solved this problem by getting two retractable screens: one white, one ALR. Use the nice white 2.35:1 screen when you're willing to close all blinds and at night for movies, use a 16:9 smaller ALR screen for games and social events with lights up. It seemed like a crazy idea when I first saw it, but is seeming less so now after confronting the realities vs. hype of ALR materials.


----------



## JT37

karlsch said:


> My screen is 54x96 inches (110” diagonal)
> 
> The projector lens is 174” from the screen, so the throw ratio is ~1.8:1.
> 
> When I sit in my home theater recliner my head is 12' from the screen.
> 
> The projector lens center is 90” from the floor, 6” above the top of the screen.
> 
> The projector is on a rear shelf that is height adjustable. I adjusted the height by taping three sheets of paper to the screen, one at the bottom, one in the center and one at the top. I moved the projector up and down until all of the sheets of paper were equally bright when I projected a white test screen.
> 
> When viewing an all white test screen, if I stand up, the bottom of the screen appears to be darker, but not by much. When viewing ordinary programming I can't see the difference.



Karsch,

Which projector are you using?


----------



## karlsch

JT37 said:


> Karsch,
> 
> Which projector are you using?


For movies and other critical viewing when the room is almost completely dark, an Epson 5040.

For sports when the room has more light and other viewing when brightness and "pop" is more important than black levels, an Epson 6450: http://www.projectorcentral.com/Epson-PowerLite_Pro_G6450WU.htm

I use the 6450 much more than I originally thought I would. Most of the time, actually.


----------



## JT37

jdtsmith said:


> I'd like to take you up on this, beastaudio. I'll PM. I have tried hard to get Elunevision to change their no-sample policy but so far not budging. You might wonder why I'm spending so much energy trying to track down samples from a company that doesn't seem too eager to sell their units to buyers like me. Here's why. So far I've reviewed:
> 
> 
> *DaLite HD Pro (0.9, 1.1, 1.3, 1.1 contrast)*: Low ALR materials with exceptional surface smoothness, and wide open viewing cones. The 1.1 and 1.3 look particularly nice at night. But only a bit better than a reference white surface (or paper) with combating ambient light. Really beautiful material though with a solid black backing. I'd go with this if I had a darker room.
> *DaLite Parallax 0.8*: Interesting performer, but too dark, and not as much ALR performance as others, with my side-illuminating windows situation. Vertical viewing cone not as bad as expected (about like Slates, better than Black Diamond), but still would require me to mount the projector lower than I'm willing to.
> *Draper XH900X, MSX1000*: good viewing cone, pretty good ALR performance, but both very grainy materials. And notably dark compared to SI's offerings.
> *SI Slate 0.9, 1.2*: Amazing performers on axis, especially 1.2: bright, incredible contrast, smooth surface. Nothing even close. If you could just have this performance over the full viewing area... But the narrow viewing cone, especially horizontally, means at the side of the viewing area they go dark and lose contrast, even from the main viewing position. Add in our wide couch and they're non-starters. Even with lots of ambient light, the HD Pro beats out Slate at the image's edge. At night it's not even close. Definitely also the most prone to hot-spotting, which I define as "ability to discern the position of the projector by moving your head around". To be very fair, I'm really pushing these materials at a low throw ratio of 1.4, below the recommended 1.5. Throw ratio and viewing cone angle are physical inverses. I bet at 1.8 or 2.0 (and with narrow seating), they'd hold up _much_ better at the edge.
> *SI BD 1.4*: Not available in retractable so a no-go for me, but thought I'd mention for completeness. Very close performance wise, but I actually prefer the Slates (at the center of the screen). BD holds up a bit better horizontally, but a bit worse vertically than Slate.
> 
> So in terms of ALR performance and viewing cone (horizontal & vertical if I understand correctly) the Aurora material, at least on paper, fills a real apparent gap between the low-ALR, wide cone, smooth materials like HDPro, and the exceptional ALR but problematic Slates, etc. I.e. a good possible compromise: pretty good ALR but also pretty forgiving angularly. If anyone knows of any other materials with this happy medium, I'd love to hear about them.
> 
> Anyway, the proof is in the pudding (or rather the checkerboard pattern I created for testing 10-12 samples at once). I'm also trying to get a sample of the Slate 1.4XL which has a modestly wider viewing cone spec than 1.2. I note that the published Slate 1.2 half light angle of 70° full doesn't match the PC review finding of 46°. So we'll see.
> 
> At least for now my wife sewed me a nice piece of white nylon that I hung on a curtain rod, and we were actually able to watch a movie for the first time last weekend.



Any thoughts on how Slate 1.2 performs compared to Firehawk G4 ALR performance, viewing cone, and color shift?


----------



## jdtsmith

JT37 said:


> Any thoughts on how Slate 1.2 performs compared to Firehawk G4 ALR performance, viewing cone, and color shift?


I haven't gotten a G4 sample (or HALR) due to large throw ratio requirements. 

Today I evaluated a large number of samples from Seymour AV, and was _very impressed_. Their AT material *Center Stage XD* is pretty comparable with moderate gain white diffusers (with a little loss of light).

One standout was the "*Matinee Silver*". It is very comparable to, and to my eye, slightly superior to SI's Slate 1.2: brighter at screen center, similar excellent contrast (with blacks just a touch less dark), and a bit less light fall-off when placed at the screen edges, great ALR performance in moderate light, and not as hotspot prone as the Slate. Sadly still not really acceptable edge performance with my 1.4x throw ratio, not to mention they don't (yet?) make retractable ALR or even non-AT materials, but Seymour AV is a fantastic company to work with. If I had space for a fixed (or curved) screen and could arrange a large throw ratio (like 2x), MS is simply a fantastic material. Matinee Black is similar but shifts the great contrast to darker levels. At the same contrast, my eye is usually attracted to brighter screens, but it seems like a great challenger to Black Diamond.

Their prices are also excellent. 

Seymour told me they are planning some new retractable materials to show at CEDIA this September.


----------



## JT37

jdtsmith said:


> I haven't gotten a G4 sample (or HALR) due to large throw ratio requirements.
> 
> Today I evaluated a large number of samples from Seymour AV, and was _very impressed_. Their AT material *Center Stage XD* is pretty comparable with moderate gain white diffusers (with a little loss of light).
> 
> One standout was the "*Matinee Silver*". It is very comparable to, and to my eye, slightly superior to SI's Slate 1.2: brighter at screen center, similar excellent contrast (with blacks just a touch less dark), and a bit less light fall-off when placed at the screen edges, great ALR performance in moderate light, and not as hotspot prone as the Slate. Sadly still not really acceptable edge performance with my 1.4x throw ratio, not to mention they don't (yet?) make retractable ALR or even non-AT materials, but Seymour AV is a fantastic company to work with. If I had space for a fixed (or curved) screen and could arrange a large throw ratio (like 2x), MS is simply a fantastic material. Matinee Black is similar but shifts the great contrast to darker levels. At the same contrast, my eye is usually attracted to brighter screens, but it seems like a great challenger to Black Diamond.
> 
> Their prices are also excellent.
> 
> Seymour told me they are planning some new retractable materials to show at CEDIA this September.


Thanks, the MS material sounds good, but my throw ratio is closer to 1.7


----------



## jdtsmith

JT37 said:


> Thanks, the MS material sounds good, but my throw ratio is closer to 1.7


I think that's close to their minimum, so would probably work. But I find wild variations in these "recommendations". So testing is probably your best option. My recommendation is to order some samples from Seymour. Here's how I test:



Glue samples to a piece of cardboard, ideally including both an ALR and moderate gain Lambertian material (like Glacier White), one atop the other. Keep in mind most ALR materials are directional (they have a specific up-down direction). 
Use 3M velcro picture hanging material to attach samples to your wall. 
Place the sample pair on the upper left or upper right corner of your screen area to start. 
Plug in laptop to HDMI and display one of the attached "chessboard" images in 4k, full screen (depending on whether you intend a 16:9 or 2.35:1 screen).
Compare the white vs. the ALR material in various typical ambient lighting conditions for your room. Evaluate brightness, contrast, how "washed-out" the blacks look, and any screen texture or sparkles visible. Do this both day and night.
Also evaluate samples again at screen center. You will be amazed how the ALR's perform there. But that's the easy case.
You will also find as the light level drops, the white material starts looking better and better compared to the ALR material. For me this is already true at the left/right screen edges with moderate ambient light of a few foot-candles.
Move around to all possible seating positions in your room. E.g. sitting far left with material placed on the right screen edge is the worst torture test. 
Bonus/optional: get a cheap light meter that measures in Foot-Candels. With projector off, measure your screen area at different times of day with different light levels. I find about 0.4 FC and below leads to a great image on any screen (my 5040 in ECO mode is producing about 35FC). Unfortunately, that's quite hard to achieve in my room during the day (1FC is pretty easy though). 
If you can move your projector further back, try it. Even the resulting few degrees of additional "turn" which is saved at the screen extremities will help a lot, in particular for materials that fall off hard past their half gain angles. 
Decide if the ALR performance is worth the sacrifice. Try again at night and/or close all possible blinds, then reevaluate. Physics requires that there will be sacrifices. There is no free lunch.

PS: If you have a fixed screen, going curved will really help with the bounce-axis angle. Then you can have a much smaller throw ratio without much fall-off. Sadly there are no retractable curved screens...

PPS: I calculated that going from a 1.4x throw ratio to 2x would "save" me about 9-11° of additional off-bounce-axis angle at the extreme screen edge. This doesn't sound like much, but when the half gain angle of the material is only 30°-50°, this small gain in angle actually matters quite a lot.


----------



## Sam Ash

Any further developments in the ALR screen world?


----------

