# The High-Gain/Exotic Screen Review



## Tryg

After critically looking at these screens for over 5 days and taking over 200 pictures I must say this was one hard review. There are so many variables, they cannot all be covered here. In the end, it is important to try to achieve the greatest benefit for the environment or viewing you want to achieve. This review will focus on 5 high power screens surfaces and will include 3 lower power for reference only. The Lumenstar, which I was originally told was 5.8 gain was to be included in the high gain review, but did not turn out to be so. I would estimate it to be .58 gain, eliminating it from much comment. Also, I am not a professional reviewer. This review is for fun and therefore full of my observations and opinions. I did not use a Photometer to measure the gain, and I will try to present all information in understandable terms. My Camera is also not perfect or calibrated for color accuracy, however, all pictures are untouched and were taken from the same setting (not auto). Therefore you can use all pictures as references against themselves. I used 5 different lighting levels and pictures from 0 to 50 degrees off center. Three different ambient lighting sources were used(daylight, fluorescent and incandescent), and five different lighting levels. Virtually all pictures were taken in very tough(high) ambient lighting conditions to really put these products through the paces. I will try to be described when able. Now for the screens in order of brightness

*High Power Screens*


Vutec Silverstar - 9.5 Gain

Vutec Silverstar - 6.0 Gain

Da-Lite High Power - 2.8 Gain

Stewart Ultramatte - 2.75 Gain

Da-Lite Glass Beaded - 2.5 Gain

*Lower Power Screens*


Stewart Retro Grey - 1.6 Gain

Da-Lite Cinema Vision - 1.3 Gain see update

Stewart Firehawk - 1.3 Gain

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


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

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


How will the light reflect? This will determine what you should be seeing, and if certain viewing cones will allow for a consistent image. Before you jump to any conclusions you also have to consider "Net effect" based on the screen's viewing cone, projection angles and where you are sitting.


*Types of Screens* There are basically two types of screens.

*Retro-reflective* This is like a stop sign and other traffic related reflecting devices. The light is reflected back toward the source. The following screens in this review I found to have these properties were:


Da-Lite Hi Power, Da- Lite Glass Bead, and the Stewart Retro Grey (experimental)

*Angular reflective* This is like a ping pong table. The light is reflected along the trajectory of the reflection much like the ping pong ball. The following screens in this review I found to have these properties were:


Vutec Silverstar 9.5, Vutec Silverstar 6.0, Stewart Ultramatte (somewhat)


And I'm going to add a third property which is exhibited in standard uncoated white vinyl/pvc tensionable screen material which is *illumination.* Although it is still angular in nature, it diffuses the light so well that no clear direction or change in gain is noticeable from any angle. More later

*My Home Theater* and what screen might be best? Because I'm trying to achieve high gain WITH a wide viewing stage and I'm thinking ANGULAR might be best. The projector being used is a JVC G1000 (D-ila), producing approximately 700 true lumens right now. It is "ceiling mounted" and aligned with the top of the screen. Center couch seating is 18' from screen, projector is 26' from screen. Screen is 10' wide 16:9 aspect ratio.


Background screen is the Da-Lite Cinema Vision 1.3 (white stretchable vinyl/pvc) see update











Here's an example of my set up and the projection angles in degrees. They are only estimates! The numbers are slightly high because my projector is actually farther back than the seating distances measured. This is of course exacerbated as the estimated angles get higher.


It should become obvious that at some viewing angles the projection angle will exceed the limitations of what even some Angular Reflective screens can do. I haven't really considered retro-reflective screens yet, because only the center couch would benefit from the higher gains since the light comes back toward the source.


Can you still get consistency across the screen from these viewing angles with an angular or retro-reflective screen? Well, I haven't cut my samples up yet to determine this by placing them throughout the screen and testing. I wish I just had full screen versions for more accurate evaluation. Because of this, I will also not be able to comment on hot spotting.


I think you can probably tell from the middle couch the reflection angle really never exceeds ~15 degrees from the light source(except on the far side if on one side of the couch). From the side couches though, angles from the projected light source can exceed 50 degrees! Retro-reflective is definitely not an option if I want the gain from all seating positions.

*What's Gain?* Gain is the amount of light that is reflected back from the screen surface. A standard of 1 gain is measured with a photometer as light is reflected off a piece of magnesium carbonate. As the gain goes up more light is reflected. As you reflect light you are not creating light, just reflecting it. So, as the gain goes up all you are really doing is reflecting more of the light directionally, like back toward the viewer. Since you cannot cheat the physics the more light you send back toward the viewer, the less gets reflected off to the side, thus a smaller viewing cone.


The only thing you can really change in this equation is how efficiently you can reflect it back. The Vutec Silverstar has managed to take this to the most efficient levels from what I can see. Without hot spotting? I can't tell with just this small sample.


What's hot spotting? The inability of the screen surface to diffuse the light consistently across the screen. For instance a regular mirror would be very efficient for reflection, but horrible for hot spotting. In fact, you would just see exactly where the light was coming from.


Finally, The Review.


Below are the samples I tested. This picture was taken with one third daylight conditions(estimate). The daylight coloration is very noticeable and none of the light was direct to the screen. The day was overcast. The ANSI checkerboard allows you to see and evaluate the whites, blacks, and real world contrast as they are both present at the same time.











My impressions and observations.

*Vutec Silverstar 9.5* Wow, over the top bright. Probably too much for home theater, plus I don't think they are currently manufacturing it. They told me they are only manufacturing the 6.0. Although it looks more like ~5.0 gain as it is really hard to tell without use of an instrument, and at these levels who knows!? I can assure you it is the brightest screen you will likely ever see!


Construction is on solid thick foam board. Screen surface is silver in color and somewhat smooth .


*Vutec Silverstar 6.0* Wow, very bright, could work for HT. At this brightness you WILL SEE compression artifacts in source material. Sorry, but when you get this bright, and you have a high end display device, you are going to see the flaws. Lower power screens do a good job of hiding these flaws. Until you see them you never even knew they were there! The Silverstars somehow have better viewing cones than the other high powers! I'd estimate this screen is more like 4 gain.


Construction is on solid thick foam board. Screen surface is silver in color and somewhat smooth.


*Da-Lite High Power 2.8* Nice screen, My favorite of the high powers(even though the Silverstar is very intriguing). Appeared brighter and more consistent than the Ultramatte. I would estimate if the Ultramatte is a true 2.75 the High Power should be 2.9 or maybe even 3 gain.


Construction is retro-reflective emulsion on a heavy vinyl backing. Screen surface is white in color and medium texture.


*Stewart Ultramatte 2.75* Good screen, The pearlescent emulsion is ok and has unique properties, but I think there is better emulsion available. The Ultramatte appeared to have much more angular reflective properties and the brightness consistency looked kind of spotty to me. This may be just an illusion or may not even be an issue with a full screen. I definitely waffled back an forth on whether liked it or not. In the end, it was pretty good for watching actual material.


Construction is angular reflective emulsion on a lighter vinyl backing. Screen surface is white/pearlescent in color and low texture. Material is stretchable.


*Da-Lite Glass Beaded 2.5* Lowest viewing cone. Better technology exists today in my opinion. Overall, it did what it was supposed to do but the others just did it better. Cleaning this screen would be difficult at best.


Construction is retro-reflective emulsion on a heavy vinyl backing. Screen surface is white/crushed glass in color and high texture. The glass emulsion likes to fall off when the screen is manipulated.


*Stewart Retro Grey 1.6* (super secret experimental pink screen) Yes, it's pink. I really liked this material. It's really a toss up between this and the Firehawk. I liked the colors on this material much better than the Firehawk plus it was brighter. Whites looked whiter, yet it managed to give the same blacks as the Firehawk.


Construction is mildly retro-reflective emulsion on a heavy vinyl backing. Screen surface is pink in color and medium texture. Build quality, durable.


*Da-Lite Cinema Vision 1.3* My screen. By far, the best viewing angle. 180 degrees. All others have an emulsion so they suffer at certain viewing angles and have a viewing cone with drop off. My screen is stretched white vinyl/pvc with no coating. This allows light to be transmitted through the material. The white vinyl actually diffuses the light in such a way that all viewing angles look the same. I also liked the coloration of this screen the best.


Construction is light extra white vinyl. Screen surface is white in color and stretchable. UPDATE. I have received a new sample Da-Lite Cinema Vision and it now differs from my screen purchased in 2000. My screen... is a very white vinyl/pvc with a very small/no visable coating on it. Just a sheen(could just be surface properties), and some small almost non visable sparklies. Essentially extra white stretchable vinyl/pvc. Virtually identical to Draper 1300 and the Vutec Brite-White products that are also 1.3. For camparison, my screens white is definately brighter than say the Da-Lite's Da Mat vinyl/pvc at 1.0 gain. This material is a similar strechable vinyl just not as white. This New Cinema Vision does have a gain curve. I'm not sure why they would go with this opticle coating as IMHO it may not help the product.


*Stewart Firehawk 1.3* Very similar to Cinema Vision for brightness but slightly better blacks. Much smaller viewing cone. Starts to drop very gradually after 20 degrees in brightness. I could not get used to the grey look beside the white screens. Colors to me just looked better on the white screens. This likely would not be an issue if others where not present.


Construction is mild reflective emulsion on a light, grey in color, vinyl backing. Screen surface is grey in color and light texture. Material is stretchable.


*Lumenstar* I originally was told this was a 5.8 gain screen. However, I think something was lost in the translation from Japan where it's manufactured. It appears to be a .58 gain screen. So I'm really not going to say much about it except that it is designed to shed ambient light. The lumens necessary to even bring it up to the 1.3 gain screen would be significant. To reach the foot lamberts of luminance of the higher gain screen levels well. I'm not sure this product will work for HT unless you have a 5000 lumen projector or more! The product itself is approximately 8-10 times what the others cost, and if you couple that with the cost of a very high lumen projector it is likely out of the range for price for anybody but the extremely wealthy. This product is likely not for Home Theater.


Construction is on solid backing board. Screen surface is black/dark grey with small grooves similar to an LP record. Appears to be a laminate with an outer grooved (fresnel type) surface, with a reflective backing, and a supporting backing board. Looks washable and only comes in panels that are 40 x 60? inches at the largest. Panels are pieced together to make larger displays.


*What do the samples look like?* Here is another picture in medium indirect florescent lighting levels. These lighting levels would allow you to read a newspaper with out problem, but are much lower than the higher lighting levels displayed later.











As you can see from the ANSI checkerboard pattern that the different gains are dramatic. Coloration from my camera is a little weird but not that far off really.


Although this isn't really very scientific (because not all angles are the same for each sample) I will show you a color sample at 0 through 50 degrees. Pictures are taken at 10-degree intervals. This is a really fun shot because you can see each material and how the look changes the intensity of the colors as it gets wider and wider angle. Just for fun.











*Lets talk about viewing cones* Now the viewing cones are for these products are dramatically different. The higher the gain, the more noticeable the drop off is. To do this experiment we will focus on the HIGH GAIN SCREENS which I will align in the middle of my screen as shown. This is so the degree measurements of the pictures at 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 are accurately represented. The Stewart Retro Grey and Firehawk will be included off to the right as shown. Of course, my screen the Da-Lite Cinema Vision is in the background.











This photo will give you an idea of where these samples are as we move on to the main experiment.


*Viewing Angles, Different Lighting Levels, and Sources*


The following pictures are screen shots taken on the above mentioned 10 degree increments. Four different lighting levels were used. Keep in mind my walls are painted sand/tan in color and the reflected lighting effects the pictures.

*High Light Direct Incandescent* This lighting is very bright. No where near Daylight conditions, but direct to the screen. Light is provided by 9 sixty watt incandescent flood lamps. Very bright, warm in color.












*High Light Indirect Florescent* This lighting is very bright. No where near Daylight conditions, but very bright even though not direct to screen. Light is provided by 9, four foot 40 watt fluorescent lamps. Very bright, cooler in color.












*Medium Light Indirect Florescent* This lighting is much dimmer. No where near higher lighting conditions, but bright enough to read and walk around the room comfortably. Mood lighting, dim yet navigable. Not direct to screen, light is bounced off ceiling from soffits. Light is provided by 4, four foot 40 watt fluorescent lamps. Mildly dim, cooler in color.












*Low Light indirect Incandescent* This lighting is very dim. Not direct to screen, only relected off walls. You could not read in this lighting. Excellent for watching movies in low lighting conditions as you can still see the walls. Light is provided by one 25 watt incandescent lamp in back of room. Very dim, warm in color.












*Viewing Cones* What did I see? Even though the pictures may not represent it, I did individually evaluate each sample and this is what I found for viewing cones and drop off. Of course different colors act differently. My observations for viewing cone were done using only a white and grey projected image.


*Silverstar 9.5* Starts to noticeably drop off at 14-15 degrees then consistently declines until it is neutral (1 gain) at 30 degrees. Continues to decline consistently at the same rate out to the wider angles.

*Silverstar 6.0* Starts to noticeably drop off at 14-15 degrees then consistently declines until it is neutral (1 gain) at 30 degrees. Continues to decline consistently at the same rate out to the wider angles.

*High Power* Starts to noticeably drop off at 10 degrees then consistently declines until it is neutral (1 gain) at 20 degrees, where it stays at the same rate (1 gain) out to the wider angles.

*Ultramatte* Starts to noticeably drop off at 10 degrees then consistently declines until it is neutral (1 gain) at 20 degrees, where it stays at the same rate (1 gain) out to the wider angles.

*Glass Bead* Starts to noticeably drop off at 7 degrees then consistently declines until it is neutral (1 gain) at 12 degrees, where it stays at the same rate (1 gain) out to the wider angles.

*Retro Grey* Slowly drops off and at 10 degrees is then neutral (1 gain), then continues to decline consistently at same rate out to the wider angles.

*Firehawk* Slowly drops off and at 10 degrees is then neutral (1 gain), then continues to decline consistently at same rate out to the wider angles.

*Cinema Vision* No noticeable decline in gain at any angle. 1.3 gain.see update


CONCLUSIONS


Well, I haven't found the magical screen that I have been looking for (for my circumstances. Unlimited viewing angles and higher gain). I guess I will have to stick with my Cinema Vision for the wide angles and balance a brighter projector with ambient lighting. I may have to resort to Designing a rear projection set up.

Some of the screen materials were very interesting. Both the Vutec 6.0 and the Da-Lite High Power really got my curiosity up. I may try these surfaces in the future for fun to really see how the full screen looks. The colors at these higher levels are so vibrant. If the High Power had 10 degree wider viewing angle I would buy it today. Unfortunately you can't cheat the physics and no screen is perfect. What I really need is a screen that doesn't just reflect, but illuminates as it defuses the light. Is it possible? Only time will tell.


*Thank you Don Stewart for personally sending me the samples, and to JimmyR for overnighting me the Vutec 6.0 sample.*


I wish the Draper 2500 sample would have come but it was a no-show. I would have liked to do a longer review but time and other issues intervened. I'll monitor for questions.


----------



## joe12south

Very interesting! Thanks for the review, especially the snaps.

Just curious, why didn't you try the High Contrast Cinema Vision? It has the benefits of your Cinema Vision, but the grey screen helps black levels in ambient light.


----------



## Mark Hunter

Tryg-


You have posted the definitive screen thread that will be linked to countless times in the future. The effort you put into this review is obvious.


Thank you particularly for the increasingly off-axis shots of the screen materials to demonstrate what happens to off-axis viewers. I've never seen anything quite like that before and it is excellent.


Great post!


----------



## MrWigggles

Tryg,


You are officially off my ignore list!!!


Great job. I too wish you had an instrument to measure the differences but you photography and descriptions are very good.


-Mr. Wigggles


----------



## Tryg

Thanks.


I actually do have an instrument but it would add too much complexity to the review and really only is valuable in perfect conditions. I wanted this to be a laymans report.


Also, I wanted to show these products under VERY difficult viewing conditions. That's more what real life is about.


Maybe I can have a second review in the future and include other products like the Draper 2500, other Stewart or Da-Lite products, A white piece of lamininate, and maybe the awesome parkland plastics DIY screen. I'd even consider some Goo.


----------



## Phat Phreddy

Well in my current config I have a long narrow room... The SilverStar 6.0 with some backlighting would be impressively bright...


Anyone know a good contact to obtain a sample of that ???


----------



## Tryg

Call Vutec. I would love to see a full screen. Its about $68 a sq Ft.


----------



## Iceman

Tryg,


Thanks very much for your review, it must have been exhausting work.


As you are in possession of Vutec samples and also seem to have access to measurement equipment, it would be a shame not to post gain curves for these aggressively marketed materials. This way we would know for sure how much hot air Vutec's marketing department is serving us. Please, please, please post gain curves in 5 degree increments.


----------



## Dan2112

Tryg,


Did you put the light source in the same location as the projector?


Some of these materials are retroreflective and reflect directly back at the source, which would affect the perceived gain at the seating location.


----------



## Tryg




> Quote:
> _Originally posted by Dan2112_
> *
> 
> Some of these materials are retroreflective and reflect directly back at the source, which would affect the perceived gain at the seating location.*



Exactly!


No, the ambiant light came from other directions. That's part of the reason why Stewart has created these "hybrid" screens. The retro-reflectivity sheds the ambient light but the angular reflectivity gives wider viewing. The Firehawk is a perfect example of this. Retroreflective emulsion on grey vinyl. This product tries to kill 3 birds with one stone







Dark blacks of a grey screen, shedding of ambient light, and higher gain for more punch.


I have found that every screen material has properties of both types. It's just what it exibits the most of. The perlescent emulsion on the Ultramatte had me scratching my head a little.


Iceman,


I really don't want to get into the details of using an instrument. You can get probably a better understanding of the viewing cone just by looking at the pictures. I also do not want to dispute any manufacturer publicly about what they claim about a product especially the technical details. Plus I'd rather not know. What you see is what you get.


I might take a few more photos if necessary at smaller increments.


----------



## Rob4x20

sorry if I missed it but, what pj did you use? what are it's specs? it was ceiling mounted as in the picture right? what is the distance from pj to screen?


also, again I'm sure I missed it, what was the background screen? Was it the HCCV?


thanks for the effort, it is an awesome aid.


the high power looks great in the pics, are the blacks much lighter? Hard to tell on my monitor...was it mainly the viewing cone that you disliked on this material or the light blacks?


Sorry for all the questions when you gave so much already!


~rob


----------



## Tryg

Sorry, Will update the above review


I'm not a black freak. Most blacks look fine to me with a decent projector(500:1 or greater contrast). I do think having any viewing cone is a major drawback for my set up. I'd rather just buy a brighter projector. Look at the background screen at all angles and you'll see why. In other words, I woudn't switch with any of the products I reviewed. I may buy a full size high power to play around with.


----------



## Mr.Poindexter

Tryg,


Thank you for your work on this. Even those of use with lowly DLP and LCD projectors will appreciate your efforts. Now, maybe I can get one of those 9.5 gain screens for my $15 ebay instructions for making a 10' projected image from a 15" computer monitor...


----------



## Tryg

There's been a few people PM and emailing me about the Stewart Retro Grey screen. BTW I really liked the product! but...


I dont know if, or when, they will be producing it for sale.

I don't know what it might cost.


Since the sample was sent to me with "experimental" written on the back I'm only joking when I say it's "super secret". Also, I am including a color sample of appoximately what it looks like. I don't want to turn people off by saying "pink". Although it is pink in color up close, it's actually pretty hard to tell that it's pink from a distance. It looks kinda grey...


----------



## REW

Tryg,

Thanks for this big effort on your part.The Hi power is the 800 lb gorilla nightmare for most competitors.Most people dont want to talk about it.It ruins sales for other types.I have a full 8ft wide-you better try it.

As you said "I buy it now if it had 20degrees instead of 10!"

Just get it in a room where you view 5-6ft further back(game over!)









I will say this,most everyone has compared next to nothing in screens.They had to buy blindfolded.They will be surprised if they ever do!

Exclude Iceman,Bjoern Roy.Tryg and others who have.


----------



## steve5097

Tryg,

Great work! One of the most interesting posts I've seen all year.







- Actually, one of the best in many months. I especially liked the angle shots.

Thanks,


----------



## lovingdvd

Wow - what a post Tryg. I think the powers to be at AVS should issue a yearly award for Best Post that we can all vote for.


Anyway, in comparing the Firehawk to the "Pinkhawk" - in looking at the screen shots it appears that blacks on the Pinkhawk have a tad of a purple tint to them, compared to the blacks on the Firehawk. I realize your camera could be changing colors, but given I was making this judgement from the same photo I was wondering if you noticed this at all in your testing. Thanks.


----------



## TzungILin




> Quote:
> _Originally posted by Tryg_
> *There's been a few people PM and emailing me about the Stewart Retro Grey screen. BTW I really liked the product! but...
> 
> 
> I dont know if, or when, they will be producing it for sale.
> 
> I don't know what it might cost.
> 
> 
> Since the sample was sent to me with "experimental" written on the back I'm only joking when I say it's "super secret". Also, I am including a color sample of appoximately what it looks like. I don't want to turn people off by saying "pink". Although it is pink in color up close, it's actually pretty hard to tell that it's pink from a distance. It looks kinda grey...*



Well, one can actually buy a similar screen, from Japan!


Kikuchi is already selling a Theater Grey Advance screen with 1.6 gain, it looks pink-ish grey. It is very good.


There seems to be some cooperation between Stewart and Kikuchi, as Firehawk screen ads in Japanese HiVi Magazine, the promoter seems to be Kikuchi.


We used it in a trade show at Taipei, matching to Optoma H56 DLP projector reversed mounted on ceiling, the resulting image is very saturated color yet with a lot of punch. If one puts the projector on the floor, one loses the punch and less saturated color. So the trick is to reverse mount your projector when you use this screen.


----------



## lovingdvd




> Quote:
> _Originally posted by TzungILin_
> *Well, one can actually buy a similar screen, from Japan!
> 
> 
> Kikuchi is already selling a Theater Grey Advance screen with 1.6 gain, it looks pink-ish grey. It is very good.
> 
> 
> There seems to be some cooperation between Stewart and Kikuchi, as Firehawk screen ads in Japanese HiVi Magazine, the promoter seems to be Kikuchi.
> 
> 
> We used it in a trade show at Taipei, matching to Optoma H56 DLP projector reversed mounted on ceiling, the resulting image is very saturated color yet with a lot of punch. If one puts the projector on the floor, one loses the punch and less saturated color. So the trick is to reverse mount your projector when you use this screen.*



TzungILin - Can you provide a link to where a screen like this may be bought from overseas?


Also what do you mean exactly by "reverse mount"? Is that saying the same thing as ceiling mounting the pj, where you turn the unit upside down? How about in an installation where the pj is mounted on a shelf near the ceiling height but not turned upside down? Thanks.


----------



## JimmyR

Just got back on-line and what a great thread and infomative review Tryg !


I do hope you do get a full size HiPower to "play with". If you do I think you'll see a very usable image that may surprise you and make you wonder about the 10 deg roll off in the specs and what you see with a small sample.


I disagree about the "smooth" surface of the SilverStar 6.0 I sent you, I't OK to take off the gloves when surface testing







If that surface is "smooth" I have a full head of hair.


----------



## TzungILin

O.K., I dig out their link from AVAC as follows:

http://www.kikuchi-screen.co.jp/ 


It's all Japanese web site, their English catalog is old, and does not have the Theater Grey Advance.


However, I found out the catalog and price of TGA screen as follows

http://www.kikuchi-screen.co.jp/Gamen-sw/ag-panf.pdf 


Looks like the 90", 16x9 hand pull type is 160K yen


Enjoy reading, I don't know whether you can order direct or not. If you succeed, let us know.


----------



## indygreg

first, this is a great post and like others i want to thank you for taking the time to share all this work.


after looking at your post i got interested again in the silverstar. i have a sample from them that i got a while back. i just went and looked at it again. i opened a small picture up and started dragging it around the screen so that parts of it were on the silverstar sample. it is like a looking glass and as i move the picture around i can see details in the picture that i cannot see on my screen. this is not a subtle thing i have to look for - i have to say this thing is stunning. and as you said, it does not fall off as much as other screens yet it is dramatically brighter. maybe it is just the contrast that it gives but the blacks definitely look blacker to me.


i am sure it is not for everyone but if you like that razer sharp, high contrast, crt tube (not projection) type of image, you have to see this thing. it is expensive and might reveal flaws in the video source but for me it is like buying a 6000 lumen projector.


greg


----------



## Tryg




> Quote:
> _Originally posted by JimmyR_
> *
> 
> I disagree about the "smooth" surface of the SilverStar 6.0 I sent you, I't OK to take off the gloves when surface testing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that surface is "smooth" I have a full head of hair.*



Ok I updated the review. It's not smooth like glass. More smooth like laminant or very fine sandpaper. I guess its all relative... Compared to the others it's pretty smooth.


----------



## MD_HT1

Rew,


Could you give me some more details of how you are using your

high-power screen and what your impressions of it's

plusses and minuses are? I am wondering how you like it

in a dark vs lighted area. I want to have both options.


Also any hot-spot problems or screen wear problems that

affect the performance. I was planning on getting a

roll-up version for my home theater.


Thanks!


----------



## SaulP

Tryg:

Thank you for a terrific review.


I'm in the process of picking a 100" electric drop-down screen for a DLP ceiling mount set-up (DWIN TV3 or InFocus probably). My installer insists that the quality of the Stewart products is much better than Da-Lite. He mentioned that Stewart has a proprietary application process for their screens that makes them better. Until I heard that, I had been strongly leaning toward the Da-Lite HCCV (great reviews + good price). Any insights on the quality issue would be very much appreciated.


Thanks.


----------



## lovingdvd

I've seen the 7200 on the Firehawk twice now and it is IMHO the best screen for it. The FH will give you a bit more gain than the HCCV as well as likely keeping the colors more true, as many gray screens have a tendency to shift the colors towards blue. The best thing to do is to get your pj and some samples, and test prior to purchasing your screen.


----------



## REW

MDHT1,

Marquee 8501LC on HP in black room is excellent.Works to a degree with some lights on.

long TD-throw distance helps to thwart any faint hotspot or colorshift.I dont have either.

Search Iceman posts in screens.He uses it,that would be enough to clinch the deal,even if I hadnt compared to lots of others.


----------



## jacksonian

Tryg,

Thanks a million, very very helpful. Just wondered if you happened to put up a DVD picture of some fairly uniform image just to see how the screen materials compared? I know it's not really fair, but still interesting.


REW,

Do you feel like your blacks are gray? Or once you're used to the black level you have, it doesn't matter? What kind of projector are you using? Did you go with high power so you could have more ambient light?


I'm torn all the way between the Cinema Vision to the High Contrast Cinema Vision to the High Power. All very different and I'm sure I'd be happy with any one of them, so I'm trying not to obsess, but it's hard. We have one BIG window on one side of the room and we're ordering the blackout matinee shades today. But I sure would like to be able to have some ambient light while still watching football on Saturdays. Would the High Power be the best for that? (I am NOT a videophile and will be using a Pansonic PT-L300u LCD projector). Thanks for any help you can offer.


----------



## Tryg

Jacksonian,


All the screens in my review, except the Cinema Vision, are directional. If your viewing room allows you to sit directly in front of the screen(like my center coach) then they all should work.

Then you must choose gain. As gain goes up the viewing cone goes down. Again, likely they all will work for you....


For me however, I have a sort of a "Theater in the Round" concept with very wide viewing angles from many of the seating positions. Then when I have parties, I can have viewing angle that go beyond 75 degrees! These other surfaces just wont work for me.











this photo has been manipulated...


----------



## jacksonian

Tryg,

That picture looks great, even with the ambient light! I'm very impressed. I think the Cinema Vision is what I need.


----------



## Tryg

Sorry for misleading, but that photo has been manipulated. NO front projector can deliver a picture like that in that kind of ambient lighting. Or screen for that matter.


----------



## jacksonian

Tryg, I guess I'm a little naive. I was ready to run out and get whatever magic projector and screen you had with that kind of picture and lighting! Please don't tell anyone that I'm that gullible


----------



## Tryg

In fantasyland this is how I want my picture to look! Unfortunatly it's really hard to judge reality with the limitations and products that we have. Best advice? ALWAYS SEE FOR YOURSELF!


this screen review should just serve as a guideline to compare some products.


----------



## LexMan

Tryg,


Could you explain how you determine the viewing angles? I would think it would be the height difference between the lens of the projector and the eye level of the viewer, plus the distance from the screen for both.


Example: If a person sat exactly above the lens and the height difference was say 3.5', while the distance the lens was from the screen was 14'. That would make the angle, if my geometry is correct, angle=invTan (3.5/14) or 14.03 degrees. I know this is only for the vertical plane, but is this how you came up with your numbers? I was thinking of seeing what the screen gain would drop to in relation to eye level and then consider the horizontal plane where the gain dropoff from center seat would occur.


Thanks,


Lexman


----------



## lovingdvd




> Quote:
> _Originally posted by LexMan_
> *Tryg,
> 
> 
> Could you explain how you determine the viewing angles? I would think it would be the height difference between the lens of the projector and the eye level of the viewer, plus the distance from the screen for both.
> 
> 
> Example: If a person sat exactly above the lens and the height difference was say 3.5', while the distance the lens was from the screen was 14'. That would make the angle, if my geometry is correct, angle=invTan (3.5/14) or 14.03 degrees. I know this is only for the vertical plane, but is this how you came up with your numbers? I was thinking of seeing what the screen gain would drop to in relation to eye level and then consider the horizontal plane where the gain dropoff from center seat would occur.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> Lexman*



I had similar questions for similar reasons a month or so ago. With the help of others geometry I put together and posted a spreadsheet that calcs the viewing angles based on pj lens height, screen height, and your eye level. To find it try searching on my username for a post with "geometry" in the subject. HTH.


----------



## Tryg




> Quote:
> _Originally posted by LexMan_
> *
> 
> Could you explain how you determine the viewing angles?*



I'm not factering in vertical angle since it's really too small for the ceiling mount situation. All HORIZONTAL viewing angles are computed from the center of the screen (except of course that angle illustration in my initial post. those calculate individual photons that hit the far side of the screen then come back to the viewer on the opposite coach etc. just summing the angles there). All the other photos Projector is at 0 degrees...directly in front of the screen. Camera moves in 10 degree increments


----------



## KBK

"I'd even consider some Goo".


Is inherent bias or incomplete thinking showing through? Pardon me if I am doing the same.


Because I have decided to give people direct access to a fully formulated Screen coating, as a rollable, sprayable DIY alternative .... this is something that should not be frowned upon or taken out of context.


----------



## Tryg

Ok Ken, show me your stuff


Send me a couple samples of your best stuff...I'll PM my address


Since I dont work in the AV industry in any way I can be somewhat objective and I generally don't get caught up in the hype of any product(unlike most of this forum). I will call em as I sees em.


I am human however. So, of course I'm biased. A product that costs $10 and does exactly the same thing as a product that costs $2000 will likely get warmer words from me.


----------



## LexMan

Tyrg/lovingdvd,


Thanks for the replies. I have the same idea you had of making a spreadsheet to calculate viewing angles.


-Lexman


----------



## KBK

The problem, Tryg, is I can make anything I want..and send it to you. Not fair! so I have to send you the product we are selling, of course! One sample on it's way. It will be a rolled, and sprayed sample. I could cheat and send in a Ringer (lab brewed fun stuff), but no. If I did that.. people might expect me to make that availble too.


----------



## Tryg

?? Ken if you got some magical stuff that you pulled out of a downed UFO then send it.


are you saying you only sell your crappy stuff? or is your secret stuff so good us mortals can't handle it?


----------



## mandarax

Tryg....


The amount of effort to supply great information is incredulous. Thanks.


KBK...


I dont understand why you don't make the "Ringer" I presume that is what everyone would want the fun stuff. How much more would it be for the "fun stuff" if it was mass produced and the product you are currently selling set aside?


----------



## DarkSmileyX

This seems to be kind of a unique opportunity with Ken sending a Goo sample to Tryg. I wonder if someone could send a Gesso screen and a Behr Silverstag/pearlecent paint screen sample. Those seem to be the most popular DIY coatings, it would be the first time they were all compared together.


----------



## Rob4x20

a worthy first post!


I hope someone can send those in as well!


----------



## KBK

No.. no UFO stuff. It's just that with a lab (at my designing disposal) that has produced over 4800 different finished products, all tending to be the best the planet has to offer in their respective class of product......the variations on a theme can get ridiclous. Too many options.


----------



## Tryg




> Quote:
> _Originally posted by KBK_
> *that has produced over 4800 different finished products,*



Wow, how do you get the time to send out any customers product? Lets see, a little over a year let just say 400 days, that's about 12 finished products per day... You must have a huge storage facility.


You can just send me the one you think gives nice gain(1.5-2.0), sheds all ambient light, is viewable from all angles, and has perfect colometry.


you probably got some of that stuff right?










On the other hand, just send me something I'll be impressed with.


----------



## PerfKnee

Excellent post, Tryg. That's the kind of thing the HT mags should be doing but aren't. Kudos.


I've always been a high power advocate, believing that it gives a better picture than grey screens whenever you don't have lumens to burn coming out of the projector. Bright is perceived as contrastier than a dim picture of the equivalent contrast. Especially if there is ambient light.


It's a shame you didn't have any of the Draper M2500 material that I use (gain 2.5). I would have liked to see how it compares to the Da-Lite High Power.


-Tom


----------



## mandarax

Tryg....


I dont think KBK was stating that he actually produced the the 4800 different finished products, but rather that the lab....at his designing disposal has produced them. Maybe I am wrong... but that is what I thought KBK was stating.


----------



## blitzkreig

Here is a link to the lab plans for one of the products







:
http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html


----------



## mandarax

Thanks for the link blitz.... too funny...


----------



## tichinose

is there much difference in the dalite cinema vision and the high contrast cineama vision????


----------



## DarkSmileyX

Well, I decided to go ahead and make a Behr Silver stag/Pearlescent screen. (now if only my HS-10 would arrive) Anyway, I sent a screen sample off to Tryg today, all we need now is a Gesso screen!


----------



## Steve13

Tryg-

How did you measure the drop off (or lack thereof) in gain as the viewing angle changed?


----------



## Tryg

Steve,


I didn't. Did you see in my review that I did? I did however make some subjective comments based on what I saw the products do, and how they performed.


----------



## Steve13

Tryg-

I just ASSUMED (bad idea) that there was a least some science to your review, especially since I noticed that you've posted on the LiquiScreen thread by "correcting" a chart. How can you correct that chart, which has specific numbers, if you haven't done any measurments on your own??


I'm not saying whether or not the Liquiscreen chart is right, but I think it's important to make sure that others understand that your review is simply your subjective judgement, and not in any way based on science of measurements.


I guess it's my fault to have read too much into your review, but when you threw out numbers about viewing cones and gain, etc. I just figured you had made the effort to actually measure it. I guess your post is more of a "nice read" rather than a definitive review! Nonetheless, you've certainly spent a lot of time and effort on it, and thanks for that!


----------



## Tryg

Steve, I didn't say I haven't taken measurements with an instrument(because I have). I stated, I didn't want to share them in the review because I didn't want to dispute any manufacturers claims or argue about minute details of the data.


However, in the liquiscreen case the claims are glaringly false for at least one product. For more info on gain curves and specific data provided for a product, Stewart does a great job. See their site here

http://www.stewartfilm.com/home_cine...tudioTek%20130 


Many people that seek screen information are in the learning phase. ANY obvious misrepresentations of products should be stopped before people start using that info to make decisions.


----------



## KBK

Yes. the lab has been in operation for approximately 8-9 years. And it has produced 4800 finished product designs within that time period. (averages out to approximately 10 per week!) So we can fool around in the lab, no doubt about that. We have attempted to come up with a different solution, compared to the standard design of screen product that is available today. We started with a clean slate, and tried to cut absorption of light to the most minimal amount possible, to retain as much punch and balance in a reflected image as is possible.


I applied some of my more simplistic understandings of temporal/boundary/junctive/field effects to the product's design considerations. Why not? It's universal key, it applies everywhere.


----------



## Phat Phreddy

Junctive ?? As applied to screen design ???


Junctive as in one of the 3 kinds of comparative verbs ?? Lost me there my man...


----------



## KBK

Also, would like to say..that accurately measuring gain in two different places, with different equipment is of course, going to give you different results. Tryg has the right view of not countering manufacturer's claims by posting his measurements. This is the right thing to do. Only if things are GLARINGLY off their spec, should mention of it be made. Others should not be posting or making claims against someone else's product, specifically if there is a commercial concern, and specifically if it is on this forum, which is not to have a commercial cast to it. Mention of discrepancies should be noted, or made public, only by concerns (or people) that are obviously outside of any commercial concerns or bias, as much as is humanly possible. Then, it may be possible to rely upon such information, but still...even then...take it with a grain of salt, is my advise. See it yourself.....



For example, you would not believe some of the emails and PM's I've had.. or on a strange day or two.. Pm'd some seriously strange stuff to people in the industry, or they to me. Ahhh...the stories! Some are gut-bustingly funny... some just sad. We all have our bad days.


I can answer questions, but definitely try to steer my self away from getting feverish. I have even started threads based on the great value and usefulness of another company's product.


----------



## KBK




> Quote:
> _Originally posted by Phat Phreddy_
> *Junctive ?? As applied to screen design ???
> 
> 
> Junctive as in one of the 3 kinds of comparative verbs ?? Lost me there my man...*



Molecular-frequential-harmonic-temporal-junctive-vectoral-etheric-relativistic considerations, my man.


Hiesenbuggy as the day is long.


Everything anyone will ever need to know about the true nature of reality is contained in that one sentence.


Figure it out.


Simple enough.










Be afraid. Be very afraid.


----------



## Tryg




> Quote:
> _Originally posted by KBK_
> *We started with a clean slate, and tried to cut absorption of light to the most minimal amount possible, to retain as much punch and balance in a reflected image as is possible.
> *



Ken, you really need to get a sample of this Silver Star stuff. It is truely in a different league from all other screens for light efficiency. Turn the projector down and watch you blacks go though the floor, all while your white's and colors stay vibrant.


I'm still working on trying to find a full screen set up near Seattle that is set up properly for eval.


I will now take four hits of acid and join you in your Molecular-frequential-harmonic-temporal-junctive-vectoral-etheric-relativistic considerations.


----------



## KBK

Make sure that's blotter, and it was bought from a DeadHead, otherwise you are wasting your time. I guess we will see you in about 3 days or so.


----------



## Tryg

I have made updates to the Review. The Cinema Vision product is now different than the product I purchased in 2000.


I hope updates are understandable. The new Cinema Vision product and High Contrast Cinema Vision product will be in my next review.


----------



## mark_1080p

Great Review, a valuable reference tool.


Mark


----------



## mark_1080p

""Science"... is merely the depth of expression of the origins of 'human' fear... attempting to place a controllable, knowable, comfortable face upon the aspects of existence that bring discomfort to this semi-intelligent beast that is trapped between the boundaries that define this moment of temporal understanding."


Is not science really the culmination of human curiosity and experimentation rather than fear? Theory has in fact brought great discomfort and disorder, consider the Heliocentric revolution began by Copernicus, Relativity is most discomforting as is the cosmological "Big Bang", evolution by random mutations of the DNA sequence. Religion is comforting, science is disturbing but that does not make science false.


I just had to slip this in.


Mark


----------



## mulveling




> Quote:
> _Originally posted by dr_mark2001_
> *""Science"... is merely the depth of expression of the origins of 'human' fear... attempting to place a controllable, knowable, comfortable face upon the aspects of existence that bring discomfort to this semi-intelligent beast that is trapped between the boundaries that define this moment of temporal understanding."
> 
> 
> Is not science really the culmination of human curiosity and experimentation rather than fear? Theory has in fact brought great discomfort and disorder, consider the Heliocentric revolution began by Copernicus, Relativity is most discomforting as is the cosmological "Big Bang", evolution by random mutations of the DNA sequence. Religion is comforting, science is disturbing but that does not make science false.
> 
> 
> I just had to slip this in.
> 
> 
> Mark*



Scientific models are not truth, they are merely convenient and useful approximations of reality. These models work in a man-made deterministic environment (Mathematics), which is controllable and predictable. The real world isn't deterministic so these models aren't ever perfect approximations (Newtonian physics). The purpose of the scientific method is to make sure these models are "good enough" approximations.


Mike U.


----------



## Tryg

I have invited Spock in to do the the actual testing for my next review.











_"Deriving sustenance from emotion is not unknown in the galaxy. And fear is among the strongest and most violent of the emotions. The fear of buying a screen that does the same thing as a white wall will likely cause you to buy the most expensive product. "_ Spock


----------



## Truro

That's too funny, Tryg










I set up an Aurora pull up portable screen a friend gave me. It was his Dad's, a 1950's/ 60's glass bead looking screen for the first 8mm? home movies. I set it up in front of a Parkland screen and got a surprise! Wow, not everything's equal. Guess it was an example of a high power, was much brighter. Black and color level, apparent contrast were down, it had a cone to it's gain as opposed to the wide view parkland, but it certainly got my curiosity up about screen materials/coatings.


----------



## Tryg

Some of the modern emulsions do a great job. Some dont. So far my gut feeling says stick with Matte White unless you're really trying to do something fancy. Some materials are up for the task and some fall short.


----------



## mulveling




> Quote:
> _Originally posted by Tryg_
> *Some of the modern emulsions do a great job. Some dont. So far my gut feeling says stick with Matte White unless you're really trying to do something fancy. Some materials are up for the task and some fall short.*



I have both a matte white (damat) and a highpower screen, and the highpower blows the matte white away, no contest. I've seen the highpower sample swatch, and I should point out that unless you see a full screen with a table mounted projector, you will not get anywhere close to seeing this material's potential. Blacks look terrible on the sample swatch, while they look fantastic on the fullscreen, since your eye adjusts to the higher brightness level. You also don't get to see how uniform and free from hotspots a full screen is. Additionally, if you don't use a table mount you're throwing away half of the highpower's gain and more than half of the ambient light/cross reflection rejection characteristics. Hope you take this into account in your review.


Mike U.


----------



## Rob4x20

why would ambient light rejection differ w/ a ceiling mounted pj??


----------



## Dan Miller

Did you see the KBK stuff yet?


----------



## darinp




> Quote:
> _Originally posted by Rob4x20_
> *why would ambient light rejection differ w/ a ceiling mounted pj??*



Since nobody answered this I will give it a try. To make it easy, lets assume that light from a table mounted pj near eye level with the Hi-Power gets 2.8 gain, but light from off axis (like ceiling mounted pj) get 1.0 gain. So, here are the gains


1. Projector

Table mount: Gets 2.8 gain

Ceiling mount: Get 1.0 gain

2. Ambient light from your viewing position

Gets 2.8 gain for both setups

3. Ambient light from off axis

Gets 1.0 gain for both setups


With table mount the projector light can overcome the ambient light better than the ceiling mounted projector will, no matter where the ambient light comes from. I didn't take any other issues, like turning the lamp down, using a neutral density filter, etc, though.


Hope this makes sense.


--Darin


----------



## rogo

How do you put the projector on a tabletop at eye level? Wouldn't it be sitting right in front of you then?


----------



## JimmyR

Come on Rogo, you get a projector with a clear plastic see thru case.


----------



## Tryg

Mike, I'm a big fan of the Da-Lite High Power. Great emulsion! Da-Lite should really send out larger samples. 8 1/2 x 11 minimum.


Dan, I have seen the digital grey goo. It definately holds it's own among the grey screens.


----------



## Dan Miller

Tryg, I too have seen the High Power in action (I was at a dealer who had a portable roll-up version in a frame). The uniformity and brightness was amazing, *BUT (and I think that you need to make this clear every time something is said about this product), due to its EXTREMELY narrow cone of viewing*, its applications are extremely limited. Ceiling mount will negate all of the advantages, as will anything other than a long narrow room.


For those who are centrally located in the viewing environment and have a coffee table PJ, it is pretty nice. Although I can't think of many customers who are in that situation.


DM


----------



## mulveling




> Quote:
> _Originally posted by Dan Miller_
> *Tryg, I too have seen the High Power in action (I was at a dealer who had a portable roll-up version in a frame). The uniformity and brightness was amazing, BUT (and I think that you need to make this clear every time something is said about this product), due to its EXTREMELY narrow cone of viewing, its applications are extremely limited. Ceiling mount will negate all of the advantages, as will anything other than a long narrow room.
> 
> 
> For those who are centrally located in the viewing environment and have a coffee table PJ, it is pretty nice. Although I can't think of many customers who are in that situation.
> 
> 
> DM*



True, I doubt many of the +5K setups are going to involve a table mount setup, but for even with a ceiling mount you aren't necessarily throwing all of the highpower's advantages away, especially in long throw situations. Many of the PLV70 owners like JimmyR use it with a ceiling mount configuration because it still gives them a modest 1.2-1.6 gain with no sparklies, good uniformity, and a little cross reflection rejection, not to mention its wrinkle-hiding abilities.


Of course there are tradeoffs due to the very narrow cone, but for some sub 3K'ers like me who are willing to make some sacrifices to get the best image for our money (in the sweet spot), they're reasonable sacrifices. For us it represents a way to get the best cross reflection rejection and thus best ansi contrast without spending firehawk money. Also, I haven't seen the firehawk but I doubt the viewing cone is *that* much better than the highpower since its optical gain is in the 1.8-2.0 range.


Mike U.


----------



## LexMan

Tryg


Does the Vutec allow a projector to be ceiling mounted unlike the High Power? I quickly scanned through the earlier pages and could not find any information regarding this. I like the idea of having lumens to spare...


----------



## darinp




> Quote:
> _Originally posted by rogo_
> *How do you put the projector on a tabletop at eye level? Wouldn't it be sitting right in front of you then?*



I'm not sure if this was a serious question, but I'll take it as if it is. For one thing, the projector can be next to you and still give close to the maximum gain. Also, it can be a foot or two off axis and still be close. So, for my case I can sit on my couch while the projector is on something next to the couch and down a little bit. As I said, I was trying to make it simple, so I didn't want to go into the whole curve (plus I don't know where to get the actual gain curve at the moment). However, I can see how that painted a funny picture.


Since we are approximating things here we tend to say that the Hi-Power works with table mount, but not to its best with ceiling mount. However, this is just a generalization, since there is no rule that a ceiling mounted projector can't be closer to the viewer's eye level than a table mounted projector. I actually think it might work best with shelf mounting with the projector just a little above eye level.


--Darin


----------



## rogo

It was a serious question. I am a projector-logistics newbie at best despite a long time at AVS (new to here).


I am very intrigued by using a high-gain screen at a relatively small diagonal and hoping to get tolerable viewing with ambient light.


So you're off-axis explanation is helpful.


That said, with, say, a Panasonic 300, it seems like the short throw would dictate that the projector be in front of the seating area (aka couch in my case). For that reason, I find it hard to imagine how in my space a shelf-mount would work (perhaps I ought to consider an HS10 and hope the noise is not an issue for me -- unlikely, tho). I could imagine a slightly offset table-mount position.


I am intrigued, especially, by the SilverStar and Tryg's comments about the surprisingly wide viewing cone w/gain still being preserved. I look forward to his "Part 2" review with whatever the "low cost" alternative is.


I will also doubtless have a mess more newbie questions on this topic. It is obvious, Darin, that you and others are a helpful lot here. I try to offer a similar service in the plasma forum -- my normal stomping ground.


Mark


----------



## mulveling

rogo, have you considered the ae300's long-throw lens attachment? I think it increases throw distance for a given image size by 1.2X. It should also run about $350, so that's something to consider.


Mike U.


----------



## darinp

Mark,


BJM has an AE300 that he brought over Saturday night and we viewed it on my 116" wide Hi-Power. He has decided that he wants a big screen and after checking things out he decided that he wants the Hi-Power. He was going to hang the projector low from his ceiling and just at the back of his couch to get the good gain. I don't think most people would want to sit so close, but it is all about trade-offs. With the AE300 I think that most people would want it in front of them, based on the throw ratio. You may have seen the thread on the >$5k forum where he mentioned that he checked on the price and the fabric costs more than a pull-down of the same size.


I talked to a couple of Panasonic engineers from Japan at CEDIA last September. They didn't speak a ton of English, but we were able to talk about some stuff. They really wanted to know who in America buys projectors and how we set them up. They told me that 80% of projectors in Japan are used in the table mount position, which I assume is why the AE300 has the throw distance that it does.


In my living room I have two couches that are kind of at an angle to the screen, on either side of the room. When I had the AE300 (I bought one of the first ones after talking to those engineers about the SmoothScreen technology) I just put it on an endtable that I put between the couches and that worked pretty well with the Hi-Power.


If you could put a shelf with the HS10, you might be able to lower the lamp power because of the gain in the screen and then not have the lamp kick into high mode. The difference between the fan in low and high on that projector is pretty significant.


I personally think the choice between the HS10 and AE300 is a pretty tough one, although I think the HS10 is probably lower risk for those who can't see both (just because of scanlines and Fixed Pattern Noise that I've seen more on the AE300).


If you like plasmas I'm guessing that you would want to avoid projectors/setups that are pretty dim.


--Darin


----------



## maple leafs

Tryg, could you expand on your comparison of goo. I've read mention of a half-grey mixture which may or may not be a standard product(Ken?). Something like this may possibly be a good compromise for those undecided between a grey and a white screen. Or do you think this would still be too grey for your liking?


----------



## Tryg

Silver Star is angular reflective, ceiling mount should work.


DIY Silver Star and Goo will be in the SHOOTOUT at the end of Review II


Digital grey goo is a good product. DIYs can also make a similar product.


----------



## Rob4x20




> Quote:
> _Originally posted by mulveling_
> *
> 
> 
> Of course there are tradeoffs due to the very narrow cone, but for some sub 3K'ers like me who are willing to make some sacrifices to get the best image for our money (in the sweet spot), they're reasonable sacrifices. For us it represents a way to get the best cross reflection rejection and thus best ansi contrast without spending firehawk money. Also, I haven't seen the firehawk but I doubt the viewing cone is *that* much better than the highpower since its optical gain is in the 1.8-2.0 range.
> 
> 
> Mike U.*



Mike, I'd like to point out a few things about this paragraph. 1st, the firehawk is 16$ per sq.ft, while the high power is still 13$/sq.ft. Not much savings really. I guess 100-150$ might make the difference but not for many.


Next, the firehawk I thought was 1.3 gain...correct me if I'm wrong. If so then it might not have as severe a limit on its cone. I say 'might' b/c I haven't seen a High Power, but I have seen the firehawk and its cone wasn't very limited, imo. Not so much that it should be a major concern in a typical layout anyway. I'd like to hear if the 1.3 gain is incorrect for the FH, b/c higher would be better for me. However, it is gray, so that might factor in for aiding blacks...or not...I sure as hell don't know! So frustrating...


My choices right now are between the firehawk, high power, and some goo setup. I too am waiting for Tryg's next shootout for additional info on these. I believe the prices are about equal and very likely the ambient light rejection is equal as well between the FH and HP, not so sure about the Goo. Cheaper for sure, but a PITA, and no ambient light rejection? Not sure....


----------



## Rob4x20

to be fair, Stewart charges an arm and a leg for frames, so maybe comparing materials by the sq.ft. isn't a valid comparison for many. I have a frame I built so I'm looking at material only...


----------



## darinp




> Quote:
> _Originally posted by Rob4x20_
> *to be fair, Stewart charges an arm and a leg for frames, so maybe comparing materials by the sq.ft. isn't a valid comparison for many. I have a frame I built so I'm looking at material only...*



It actually is kind of strange, just because of how the markets work, but Da-Lite actually charges a negative amount for their Hi-Power frames. What I mean by that is that it is generally cheaper to get a pull-down Hi-Power screen than to buy the equivalent amount of fabric.


--Darin


----------



## mulveling




> Quote:
> _Originally posted by Rob4x20_
> *Mike, I'd like to point out a few things about this paragraph. 1st, the firehawk is 16$ per sq.ft, while the high power is still 13$/sq.ft. Not much savings really. I guess 100-150$ might make the difference but not for many.
> 
> 
> Next, the firehawk I thought was 1.3 gain...correct me if I'm wrong. If so then it might not have as severe a limit on its cone. I say 'might' b/c I haven't seen a High Power, but I have seen the firehawk and its cone wasn't very limited, imo. Not so much that it should be a major concern in a typical layout anyway. I'd like to hear if the 1.3 gain is incorrect for the FH, b/c higher would be better for me. However, it is gray, so that might factor in for aiding blacks...or not...I sure as hell don't know! So frustrating...
> *



As Darin pointed out, highpower + frame is generally much much cheaper than firehawk + frame. Your point about cost per sq foot being close is very valid for the DIY frame guys, though.


As for the gain, the Firehawk does have a 1.3 *overall*, but the screen itself it composed of two different surfaces with two different gains. The base is a matte gray material that I've heard has around a 0.5-0.6 gain. The top optical coating (angular reflective) would have a gain of around 1.8-2.0 if it were placed on a matte white base 1.0 gain base (I've heard). The overall gain is going to be a function of these two gains (and must necessarily lie between the two gains), though I'm not sure you can just multiply them together to get the overall gain; it may be much more complicated than that. But basically the overall gain is 1.3.


The optical gain will give you an idea of the hotspotting, viewing cone, and ambient light rejection qualities of the screen.


The overall 1.3 gain is what determines your black level; it will have the same theortical maximum black level as a 1.3 gain white screen. HOWEVER, in a room that isn't fully light controlled blacks will be better on the firehawk.


I haven't seen the firehawk, but most people can't easily see a 30% increase in brightness.


Mike U.


----------



## Rob4x20




> Quote:
> _Originally posted by mulveling_
> *I haven't seen the firehawk, but most people can't easily see a 30% increase in brightness.
> 
> 
> Mike U.*



really? I didn't know that. It sounds like a huge difference to me. Is it the same as a 100w bulb vs. a 70w bulb?


As for the high power being so affordable in a pull down, WHY is that? Holy smokes, for ~$250 I'd buy a full size screen just to test out. It's the ~$700 firehawk or highpower material only prices that are keeping me at bay...


How hard is it to cannibalize a highpower pull down for its material??


----------



## KBK

Cannibalization can happen in MINUTES. It is very easy. I know some very money conscious, but non-technical people (I mean very non-technical!) who have done exactly that.


----------



## Rob4x20

right on Ken, now we're talkin'. Can you tell me more about it? Is it detachable or does it need to be cut, etc...?


----------



## rogo

Mike U: Once you add the doohickey to the Panasonic, suddenly it costs as much as the Sony.


Darinp: Interesting thoughts on the Sony. If I am understanding you correctly, you are suggesting that the Sony on a shelf mount with the Silverstar (or similar) might produce a very bright powerful image without even being in high-power lamp mode.


The question is how much ambient light can this setup tolerate and still be watchable, say for sports in the afternoon? Or TV in the evening with a small lamp on?


Tryg: Are you suggesting that the Silverstar is so magical that you can ceiling mount and still get high gain from the seated position?


Mark


----------



## Tryg




> Quote:
> _Originally posted by rogo_
> *
> 
> Tryg: Are you suggesting that the Silverstar is so magical that you can ceiling mount and still get high gain from the seated position?
> 
> 
> Mark*



It's angular reflective so yes. For it's high gain it does a great job of diffusion. I need to see a full screen for full review.


Stand by soldier.

I'm about to unleash the "DIY Triple Threat" tm.


1. White Wonder

2. Firehawk Killer

3. Super Silver Star


Operation DIY SCREEN FREEDOM is on the front lines...


----------



## rogo

Standing by, Gen. Tommy "Tryg" Franks.


----------



## Sime

When people are making a silverstag/pearlescent screen, what are they using for the medium......matte, eggshell, satin, semi-gloss or gloss?


How many coats...... and are people using Floetrol?


Also, what percentage of pearlescent are they using for optimal results? I have a 1400 lumen LCD projector with a 16ft throw. It will be ceiling mounted and I intend to use a 16:9 format with 115" diagional.


I know that Tryg is going to cover this in his forthcoming review, but can anyone give me an idea about how much better the digital grey goo is over the silverstag solution?


Ken, if I went the goo route, how much goo would I need to make a 16:9, 115" diagonal screen? I'll be rolling it.....do I use Floetrol with this too?


Thanks!


----------



## Tryg

New Review should be out this Friday morning (tomorrow).


I need to get back to my real life


----------



## Rob4x20

that's the sweetest thing I've heard all week. WTG Tryg. I can't wait to ask you questions all weekend!!!!











~Rob


----------



## Tryg

Silver Star is angular reflective


If anyone out there has one I'd love to hear your thoughts on its performance


----------



## rogo

I'm thinking of getting one. I am hoping to call Vutec on Monday to talk to them and then figure out how to order one.


It's going to be small, though.


Mark


----------



## Tryg

hold on to your seats...I have something in the works


----------



## rogo

You are the cruel tease, Tryg-o-nometry man.


----------



## Tryg

tease yes. I would think people building Home Theaters would be fond of a little drama....


I will let you in on a little secret as I will be starting to prepare my new review next week. The next review may be the one many of you veterans have been waiting for.


It will include only professionally manufacted FULL screens and will demonstrate White, Grey and yes Silver.


----------



## rogo

Oooooh.... I will await this almost as much as I am awaiting the release of the oft-delayed Samsung 530 phone from Verizon.


----------



## Rob4x20

what's the time frame tryg?


----------



## mad_arab

I use a 30 something year old screen now with the AE300 (I have no idea about gain, is there any way to find out? i don't notice a big diff at different angles).


My problem is that the local store here has a matte white and the 2.5 gain glass beaded, which wasn't among the best in your review here. So I'm wondering how far off from center until the 2.5 gain one is at the brightness levels of a regular matte white? And how far off until it is actually worse?


If you really don't think I should get the 2.5gain screen, I'd also like to hear it, so that I can start looking somewhere else (If its possible to find any other screens locally......).


----------



## JHouse

This thread was the prequel!


----------



## LTD02

Thanks Tryg for the tremendous screen reviews!










I am going to order the HiPower 106" to match up with my new AE500.


----------



## RobertWood

Holy Mackeral. That is the dangdest thing I have ever seen. It's awe-inspiring.


----------



## Tryg

Bob, what is?


----------



## RobertWood

Your screen reviews.


----------



## shane_creamer

Just as an fyi to page 5 where Tryg and other were rummaging around wondering how well a Silverstar works as a angular reflectiing screen with a ceiling mounted projector.


I have a Sanyo Z2 mounted 13 feet away from a 122" Silverstar after comparing with my current DIY formula (Superplex) screen. The lens is horizontal with the top of the screen, and with the Z2's lens shift I have an excellent picture quality image that you would expect from a Silverstar.


The angle from the lens to the seated view is about 30 degrees which seems to be a great downfiriing reflection angle for the Silverstar.


I have some screen shots posted here if anyone is interested, but will have to wait for my 3rd post to include the screen shots (AVSforum spammer prevention stuff).


I will reply to this thread below with the URL's to my own screenshots.


Thanks again Tryg for the excellent reviews, it was the Silverstar vs. the Firehawk and Draper high power review that made me decide to purchase the Silverstar for the gain and the fairly wide angle dispersion compared to the Highpower.


I couldn't agree more as a PQ enthusiast with your review, and couldn't disagree more with Ken's review at ProjectorCentral. Naturally since he did not see fit to include screenshots with his review I have to wonder what he must have seen to make such statements about the Silverstar.


In fact it appears that Silver reflective surfaces are where it's at as I think that in North America most of the projector installs are trending towards ceiling mount of the my colleagues in Seattle, WA who are coming into the projection community from RPTV. Silver reflective materials are a foundation of both CMRA/Mississippi Man's Superplex/Lightfusion DIY formula, and the Silverstar itself.


I think Silverstar as a angular reflective screen is the standard if you are ceiling mounted. With the Draper Highpower glass beaded and directly reflection back is the better solution for table top or seating heigth level projectors.


-shanec


----------



## shane_creamer

Here are my screenshots for the above post. Strictly amateur, but I tried to be reasonably consistent with the distance, height, and angle.

http://gallery.avsforum.com/showphot...&cat=500&page= 

http://gallery.avsforum.com/showphot...&cat=500&page= 

http://gallery.avsforum.com/showphot...sort=1&cat=500


----------



## Tryg

Nice screen shots.


Is there even a difference between the Goo and Superplex? I never built one because it seamed like too much work for same results as paint.


Also, are you fastening those materials to your Silverstar?


----------



## shane_creamer

The Goo Systems Digital Grey Lite is much darker normally that the DIY Superplex formula.


The Goo screenshots you are seeing in my screen shots have a Behr Silver Metallic backing to crank up it's gain. Without the Silver Metallic backing it is clearly darker than the Superplex, and is subtly so with a gain inducing Silver Metallic bottom coat.


Those are 1/8" 12"x18" sheets of plexiglass that are at rest on the screen at a 5 degree lean, that subtle of an angle did not impact the visual quality when I compared them to screen shots of my directly holding the sample directly against the screen . Never fear, I did not glue or attach them to the Silverstar... =)


Sorry this is not a "pure" Digital Goo comparison. I found unacceptably dark enough that I gave the Goo a boost since many following the DIY Superplex formula wondered about putting a Silver backing to increase Goo's gain. It works. And that is a Goo sample that has cured for a month in case any were curious.


I really hope [email protected] tries a silver backing test himself. A Behr Silver metallic backing does increase the gain nicely without impacting the top coat.


What I am really trying to show is obviously the Silverstar use of silver colored substrate is a excellent approach, it even works with other brands.. ;-)


----------



## JimmyR

Bump for newer members.


To see all three screen type reviews by Tryg click the links in his signature.


White, Grey, or Silver - A Review!

A Screen Showcase & DIY Review

The High-Gain/Exotic Screen Review


----------



## ToddMcF2002

I'm not sure I agree with Tyrg's general opinions on screens. He is always pimping high gain materials.


He admits he is no black level freek - and that is fine by me - but some of these screens are focused on that issue. If his reviews don't discuss relative black levels then why review the screens?


Firehawk? Retro Grey? These screens are designed specifically for boosting black levels - and they do an amazing job at a pretty small penalty on whites / colors.


Trust me - I've tried Studiotech 130, Dalite HiPower, Carada Brilliant white etc. and on my BenQ 8700 they wash out the blacks to grey like nobody's business. Heck even the CinemaVision (regular one) looks virtually identical to white paint when projected.


The real question is - why on earth does Don Stewart continue to send Tyrg screens?


Be advised - if its high gain and its NOT silver, your asking for grey instead of black - at least on most DLP's.


----------



## maxleung

Todd, black level isn't much of an issue on LARGE (>106") screens. The Benq 8700, table mounted and projected onto a 120" Da-Lite High Power screen looks very good. Blacks look black (well ok a rather dark grey - almost black). Maybe your Benq 8700 needs the brightness adjusted? I have the DLP Brightness in the service menu set to -4 and Brightness in the user menu set to 26, and it looks very good. On a 65" screen it's not bad - greyish, but an ND filter makes it look extremely good. Hell, I don't even use an ND filter most of the time, except for dark movies.


----------



## Tryg

Todd


1. Don sends screens because everytime anyone puts his name or company in print it sells product. Advertising 101. Plus Don is a great guy, and sells great products. Potential customers should know this. Current customers already do.


2. I dont pimp high gain. I pimp enjoyable foot lamberts. Anything between 20-50 is generally enjoyable to most. These new wimpy DLPs that only put out 300 lumens NEED a high gain screen to maintain its size and brightness. People rave about Plasmas and they are in the 70+ foot lambert arena


3. Black is not a function of the screen. Black is the absence of light. You either need to eliminate ambient light and/or get a higher contrast projector. Relative black level? it's relative...usually to your viewing environment. Painting your walls black to block any secondary reflections to your screen will do more for lowering your black level than ANY screen.


I'm not a black level freak. I simply will not compromise a good image to go one notch lower in absolute black level(it's an endless fight). After reviewing 100's of materials I've always preferred to higher gain ones. Why? Brightness.


It has many benefits!


1. Higher brightness images simply have more realistic colors, whites and detail. (try wearing your sunglasses around inside your house for a while)


2. Higher gain screens offer higher brightness and thus your eyes adjust thus increasing your perceived contrast. Make your whites whiter and those greys look even blacker. Perceived increase in contrast! More punch more exciting image, and more accurate colors and whites. Makes me happy










Try these illusions and see if you agree

http://www.colorcube.com/illusions/scindctn.htm 

http://www.cut-the-knot.org/Curricul...Contrast.shtml 


If you dont agree with this you can try to make your screen even darker and see how you like that. That should be a lot of fun...







shoot for about .5 gain. then try .2 gain.


----------



## ToddMcF2002

maxleung:

I'm running 110". Blacks are grey. My brightness in different settings ranges from 13 to 18. As I raise contrast I generally drop brightness. 26 and blacks? I can't imagine that - especially on a high power. What do your black bars look like? I havent been in the service menu. What is DLP Brightness entail?


Tryg:

I agree, getting darker blacks without sacrifice is an endless fight - but the Firehawk has done something different. Its the only Dark Silver on the market. Its hard to catagorize - it easily has the darkest blacks with least sacrifice - compared to Carada grey, DaLite HCCV or Stewart Greyhawk for example. Is it grey or is it silver? Is it the screen color or the coating boosting colors and brightness? How did they get that ambient light rejection? Its an amazing product (in my mind) and you've yet to touch on really any of its attributes. That was my point.


If I were to join you on the high gain crusade it would have to be with silver products to get good blacks - but even these have issues. In really bright scenes I've seen the Vutec SilverStar and Dalite Silver Matte show themselves - the white suddenly transitions to Silver and you see the actual screen. For Example - if you have Fellowship of the Ring - when Frodo passes out after the Rivendell river rises - the scene goes brilliant white and the screen just plain shows up







. Maybe its just my room and poor ambient light rejection on the screen. Not sure.


Anyway, Its ALL a compromise. On one hand you give up blacks and on the other colors and whites. Some screens are simply better than others for what the *intend* to do. Thats the kind of review I wish you'd do, as opposed to considering them agianst each other - instead of from the Whites and Colors all others be damned faction - officially WACOBDF







.


I know, go write my own review right? You do write valuable stuff with a wide range of coverage - so thanks for that.


----------



## Tryg

I just call em as I see me.


The firehawk is a good product (it's definately grey though). I have one, yet I prefer to watch the higher gain screens mostly because they are simply brighter. If my screen was 5 foot wide instead of 10' I might feel otherwise( or if my projector was 5000 lumens). I also notice the hotspotting on the Firehawk as they had to give up a significant amount of the viewing cone to obtain posative gain with the grey backing.


BTW Silver in itself really isn't magic. I like other white higher gain screens too










Any setup that obtains 40 foot lamberts, or more, is my cup of tea.


----------



## maxleung

Todd, I don't have a High Power screen, just a 65" diagonal matte white screen for now. I did see a 150" diagonal high power screen (projecting only about 110", or maybe it was 120"? The throw didn't permit a larger image at the time) with a table mounted Benq 8700, with only 20 hours of lamp time. It looked nice and punchy. With a few tweaks to brightness the black levels looked quite good for most material we saw.


Keep in mind that I'm using Takisot's (try a search, he has some nice tweaks) DLP menu and user menu tweaks. The DLP brightness was dropped to -4 from the default of 0, which is a LOT of brightness lost. DLP brightness is basically a very course brightness adjustment - when combined with user brightness it seems to give you more brightness range.


I'm pretty sure my Benq is only outputting 350 lumens now! User contrast is at 18 too.


Todd, I suggest you press Memory 3 on your remote - it lowers the brightness quite a bit, and will give you an idea of how bright my image is. Assuming you didn't reprogram 3 that is.










I like Tryg's reviews, because since everyone's ideas of what a screen should do is subjective, he at least tries to compare them with each other so we can use our own judgement based on his (more) objective comparisons. And he does it without throwing measurements around making it easy for laymen such as us from getting swamped in the details.


I liked the High Power when I saw it. Surprisingly, the elevated black level didn't bother me as much as I thought it would...it really does depend on the video material used. Movies such as Fellowship of the Ring, even in dark scenes, looked really good because of the way the film was shot...dark backgrounds but always with a bright light source or reflection in the foreground (ie. torches, well-lite character's faces, shiny swords, etc.). However, if the movie is very dark with low light sources, the overall contrast is extremely low, and will not look nearly as good - and you may perceive elevated black levels as a result. At least with a high-gain screen, you have a better chance of perceiving subtle shadow detail.


----------



## ToddMcF2002

The Frehawk viewing angle isnt so great. I also noticed gain drop off at the bottom - I assume the sides as well. White high gain eh? I thought your Silver/White/Grey review was pretty darn good - and you were a Silver believer. If I could stomach the cost I'd probably buy a SilverStar myself - for the record. I think the Firehawk is about it for my pain threshold in dollars.



I did remap 3. The first time I tried it I did notice an improvement though. Thanks for the info on DLP Brightness. I'll have to check out the service menu.


----------



## Tryg

The biggest benefit by far of the Silverstar is that it's viewing cone is simply much wider than any other high gain screen in it's class (2.5 and up). And wider than the Firehawk at only ~1.35 gain. This has many benefits.


Shop around.


If you think high gain may be for you, get your eyes to a Da-Lite High Power.


----------



## ToddMcF2002

I have the pitifully small DaLite sample of the High Power. I couldnt stand the black levels - way too grey - similar to the StudioTech 130.


I have ordered larger samples of the two CinemaVision's and the Silver Matte. The Silver Matte was pretty incredible - brighter than white (wall paint) and as dark as the Firehawk for blacks.


The problem was though - the viewing cone is rediculous - like a one person cone - reach over for your beer and the the room goes black







.


----------



## JimmyR

I have the pitifully small DaLite sample of the High Power. I couldnt stand the black levels - way too grey - similar to the StudioTech 130.

.....................................

I hope I'm not the first to inform you







but making a purchase decision with only screen samples won't ever come close to telling you the whole story about any screen material.


For instance, there have been many members that wouldn't ever consider the HiPower after playing with it's sample. But when they saw the material as a full size screen they were amazed what it can do, especially perceived black level.


----------



## nirvana_av

My 8700+ is projecting onto a Draper M2500. I get exceptional blacks with excellent dark detail. I have a completely light controlled room which I feel is required to get the best blacks your projector can produce whether you use a white or gray screen (well, it's not really producing blacks... more like NOT producing blacks).


With my setup, the biggest black improvement occured when the 8700+ was driven by a Momitsu V880 through DVI.


----------



## ToddMcF2002

JimmyR:

Do you suggest I try the $2K sample? The best I can do is the 2ft square samples they are sending me.


I do understand the concept of perceived black levels - where the white is so bright the grey blacks seem black. Maybe the larger sample will do that for me, I don't know.



nirvana_av

I have the momitsu too. I'll order some Draper samples - I keep forgetting about them. Thanks for the heads up!


----------



## nirvana_av

Todd,


Vutec and Da-Lite also offer screen fabrics similar to the Draper M2500. Vutec has one they call "Pearlbrite" while the Da-Lite equivalents are "Pearlescent" and "Video Spectra". The vutec sample that I have is really small so I can only compare the look of the fabric. However, the Da-Lite samples that I have, look almost identical when compared to the Draper using a projected image.


----------



## ToddMcF2002

Thanks nirvana_av, I contacted Draper. Hope to see it soon!


----------



## Dan Miller

Todd, unless you use an entire screen to test (almost impossible, I know), you can't judge anything, particularly with regards to black level. Instantaneous CR is what the eye sees, unless your PJ has really crappy blacks, and if it does there's no screen that can change that.


Here's an example. In my theater (a black hole- fully black velveteen covered walls and ceilings. There is absolutely NO light reflected from the room back to the screen), a Firehawk looks extremely close to a VideoMatte 200 (1.8 gain). They are almost exactly the same emulsion, therefore give exactly the same gain characteristics. The firehawk adds the gray backing. My projector has perhaps the lowest absolute black level in any watchable mode out there (S3). Can I detect the raised blacks in the VM200? Yes, but only in really dark APL scenes, but when the APL gets high, I almost feel like I need sunglasses. So the gray backing is acting like a ND filter, nothing else. But if a take a 2x2 square of the material, and place it up to the firehawk, I would say YUK.


What is special about the Firehawk is the gain characteristics and its ability to reject ambient and/or reflected light. Any high gain angular reflective surface can do that. But nothing can increase the CR of your PJ (even perceived CR).


To me (and everyone is different here), screen visibility is of paramount importance. A studiotek 130 gives me what I'm looking for in that regard. Even though the Silverstar lit up my room like a plasma, the shimmer of the emulsion could be seen by me and was objectionable. On the other hand, my wife either couldn't see it or didin't care. She loved the brightness. Each to their own in that regard. As Tryg pointed out, taking care of your room will do more for your image (particularly if your PJ is bright) than ANY change in screen. A light colored room for video is equivalent to a glass walled room in audio.


Just be careful using small samples to judge. There are many variables.


Dan


----------



## darinp2




> Quote:
> _Originally posted by Dan Miller_
> *Here's an example. In my theater (a black hole- fully black velveteen covered walls and ceilings. There is absolutely NO light reflected from the room back to the screen*



Have your measured the ANSI CR from the projector and then from the screen? I have black velvet (or something like it) over most of the room and still get much lower ANSI from the screen than from my 11k. I would be curious how high your ANSI would be off your screen as mine hasn't been as high as I would expect. I need to measure from my projector (Sharp 11k) again just to make sure the lens didn't get dirty or something though.


If you can get the same ANSI off the screen as directly from the S3 then I need to go back to work making my room darker.










--Darin


----------



## Dan Miller

My present equipment doesn't allow direct CR measurements from the PJ. Every one I have taken is from the screen and then I move the PJ as close to it as I possibly can whil still being able to focus. This way I can get a black reading that is more toward the portion of the light meter (Minolta LS-100) that is linear. I also haven't done ANSI, because, well to put it simply it's a pain in the butt.


----------



## darinp2




> Quote:
> _Originally posted by Dan Miller_
> *My present equipment doesn't allow direct CR measurements from the PJ. Every one I have taken is from the screen and then I move the PJ as close to it as I possibly can whil still being able to focus. This way I can get a black reading that is more toward the portion of the light meter (Minolta LS-100) that is linear. I also haven't done ANSI, because, well to put it simply it's a pain in the butt.*



You're right, it can be a pain. I would bet that you would be surprised at how much reflection you are getting even with the black stuff on your walls though.


If you ever do get time I would be curious at a clue to what kind of ANSI you would have though. For that you can just put up an ANSI checkerboard and just measure 2 or 4 squares. That should give a range at least. I was at 200:1 last I checked with close to a real ANSI (I think I just did all squares with one checkerboard instead of swapping the checkerboard and doing 2 sets of measurements).


--Darin


----------



## scwheeler

Hi,


I've tried all the dalite, carada, vutec, harkness hall samples.


My setup - front room - magnolia walls white ceiling (no hope in hell of repainting







unless someone makes a light coloured paint that doesn't reflect light







) , 8700+ ceiling mounted, and currently blackout cloth screen.


Silverstar blows all other screens away in my setup - particularly has made me realise how grey my whites are on white screen (probably because of so much reflected light from walls - in pitch dark room pj lights whole room up to comfortable reading level).


Hi power to me when stood up is even a little brighter than silverstar imho allthough don't think blacks are quite as good looks a little washed out but not much in it.


All the other high gain screens have a nasty pearlescent sheen which may not be to bad if you've never seen silverstar or hi power but now I wouldn't buy one.


So after all that rambling my question is this - I love the silverstar but I am a very poor man and I have no hope in hell of ever owning one. Buying the hi-power material and making my own frame just within buget but I have ceiling mount and gain seated I guesstimate to be about 1.3 not much better than my blackout cloth so not worth the expense. Is there any screen with out pearlescent sheen, angular refelctive, about 3ish gain that is similar to dalite in price.


I doubt it, but would be nice....


----------



## david8613

did you look at the dalite video spectra.... i am one the fence with the video spectra and the hipower...


----------



## dokworm

You can always put curtains on your white walls


----------



## bootron

i believe the draper m2500 would be a good solution for wanting high gain and ceiling mounted. it will have a wider viewing angle than the high power without quite as much gain.


----------



## darkwire

I bought the video spectra instead of the Hi Power and although I like the picture, it did develop waves shortly after purchase, just like people on the forums claimed.


I probably should have bought the Hi Power, and likely will, if the Sony Black isn't out in a larger size


----------



## david8613

i ended up going with the 92" dalite high power after reading about waves... its great, if set up properly the high power is bright and punchy, blacks are not affected, i used to have a pioneer elite 710 64" rear projection and the infocus 4805 and dalite high power combo looks just as good to me, and i love it...


----------



## Jon_Patrick

good job tryg, to bad you didn't get the drapper 2500 material, i think it is highly under rated. I am using a drapper 2500 for my HD2K while i wait for my silverstar to arrive, i also have a firehawk but it just does not look good with my HD2K.


----------



## HiHoStevo

Jon.......


When I tested the M2500 along with the M1300, SilverStar, Carada Brilliant White, Vutec Brite White, Da-Lite HCCV, I forget who's Pearlescent, and Blackout Cloth....


I found that the M2500 altered the colors quite noticeably.


----------



## Don Rombach




> Quote:
> _Originally posted by indygreg_
> *first, this is a great post and like others i want to thank you for taking the time to share all this work.
> 
> 
> after looking at your post i got interested again in the silverstar. i have a sample from them that i got a while back. i just went and looked at it again. i opened a small picture up and started dragging it around the screen so that parts of it were on the silverstar sample. it is like a looking glass and as i move the picture around i can see details in the picture that i cannot see on my screen. this is not a subtle thing i have to look for - i have to say this thing is stunning. and as you said, it does not fall off as much as other screens yet it is dramatically brighter. maybe it is just the contrast that it gives but the blacks definitely look blacker to me.
> 
> 
> i am sure it is not for everyone but if you like that razer sharp, high contrast, crt tube (not projection) type of image, you have to see this thing. it is expensive and might reveal flaws in the video source but for me it is like buying a 6000 lumen projector.
> 
> 
> greg*



Thanks to Tryg's earlier reviews I use a Silverstar 6gain with a G70 pj.


With a CRT projector, it does indeed give the image that razor sharp, high contrast look of a crt tube display.


A nice bright image, outstanding color, and no annoying artifacts.


----------



## Prehjan

hi and thanks for the reply to my post..and your review rocks!

have you tiredthe goo syystems?? i just got my paint and i guess we will see soon..i ll keep you all posted!

Thanks anyhow


Martin


----------



## Tryg

All are good products. Thanks for the Kudos


----------



## Zilla

Incidentally, I pointed the folks at Goo Systems to Tryg's screen reviews and they said they'll develop a paint that mimics the silver screen.


----------



## Tryg

I cant wait! I'm not sure this is possible. 95% possible...Yes. 100% possible...not likely. That last 5% is a very sensative area!


----------



## beatboy77

Will the Da-Lite High Power and a ceiling mounted Panasonic AE900 work alright together. I like a very bright picture. With my set up the Panasonic would hit the screen in the upper third of the screen.


~Josh


----------



## Tryg

yes as long as your ceiling is not too high. This combo is the best value I know of in Home theater


----------



## ginmtb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> yes as long as your ceiling is not too high. This combo is the best value I know of in Home theater



Tryg,


Great job on the reviews - unfortunately now I'm more unsure than ever on what screen to get. Hopefully you can help me. I'm also doing the Panny PT-AE900U. It will be mounted at the ceiling, probably located at the top of the screen. I have vaulted ceilings, but fortunately a lower arch that I can mount it to. It will be located about 3'-4' behind the main seating position. The room is entirely beige - floor, walls, ceiling. Yes, not ideal. Here is a link to my plans so far:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=716992 


I plan on watching movies at night, but also some sporting events during the day (and I'm guessing the kid's movies will be during the day/early evening primarily). There is a fair amount of ambient light in the day, even with our plantation shutters.


I was going to go with the Da-lite High Contrast Matte - but now am wondering if I should go with the high power version instead. Projector is about 20' from the screen.


Your input is greatly appreciated!!!


Thanks!


Mike


----------



## Tryg

I can't really cant say anything more about the high power or if it meets your needs except what's in my review. It's Retroreflective, It's High Gain and it's an amazing screen.


Do some searches to research this further


----------



## HTAVE

I got the highpower on suggestions... haven't regreted it yet!... I wish they made them larger in fact! 106" was the max for the manual contour.


Possible downsides... Sitting outside 10-15 degrees of the center you notice a light drop, to about 1:1, but stays pretty steady after that. With one row of seating at ~13ft it gives about 4 people max full brightness viewing if squeezed in.


Is it bright? I have an AE700 and when car lights flash into the camera from a movie I flinch(Ronin comes to mind)










It's so britght the damn bugs congregate on it and ruin it if you don't brush them off before rolling it up!


----------



## fsamuell

Tryg

I've been bouncing between a HP and 2500, Do you think the silverstar would be a better option if so where do I purchase it from???


Mitsubishi HC 3000

ceiling mount 7'

mounted 14 feet back

seating at 12 and 17'


would like a 119" diagonal screen


Thanks! Frank


----------



## Tryg

Ok, these posts are getting silly










I'm thinking I should get a Suburban or Hummer. Do you think I should get a Corvette?


----------



## ginmtb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Ok, these posts are getting silly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm thinking I should get a Suburban or Hummer. Do you think I should get a Corvette?



I think the FJ Cruiser would be a good choice...


Actually, your problem is that you have done so much testing and research that you are pretty much the screen guru here. The problem of fame...










I've tried sorting through a lot of the info and it is a bit overwhelming. Thing is with a screen, it's one of those purchases that you will make not very often. So we want to get it right. Most people don't have the luxury of changing screens often. Plus, since they're not returnable that adds another variable that mucks up the process. Any companies out there give you a two week trial period? Shoot, they let you test drive a car, why not a screen?


----------



## fsamuell

Tryg

Sorry, just want your imput

Thanks anyway!


----------



## Tryg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ginmtb* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I think the FJ
> 
> Actually, your problem is that you have done so much testing and research that you are pretty much the screen guru here. The problem of fame...



Actually the problem goes something like this. I write 2 + 2 = 4. Then I get 10 PMs a day that say "I read your write up.... does 2 + 2 = 4?"










I love to help people, but please help me by READING the review (and comments) then ask a question that is specific to your situation.


fsamuell I will PM my cell # if you would like to talk to me about your situation. Otherwise my standard answer applies


buy the High Power


----------



## davidcrowe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HTAVE* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I got the highpower on suggestions... haven't regreted it yet!... I wish they made them larger in fact! 106" was the max for the manual contour.
> 
> 
> Possible downsides... Sitting outside 10-15 degrees of the center you notice a light drop, to about 1:1, but stays pretty steady after that. With one row of seating at ~13ft it gives about 4 people max full brightness viewing if squeezed in.
> 
> 
> Is it bright? I have an AE700 and when car lights flash into the camera from a movie I flinch(Ronin comes to mind)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's so britght the damn bugs congregate on it and ruin it if you don't brush them off before rolling it up!



I have not noticed that dramatic of a drop off, in fact I have been surprised at how little the brighness changes as you move around the room. AE900 wall mounted about 25% below the top of the screen. Biggest model c I could get 139" wide, room is 16x22, two rows of seating plus a few bean bags for the kids.


thanks for the screen review!


Dave


----------



## sipester




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fsamuell* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Tryg
> 
> I've been bouncing between a HP and 2500, Do you think the silverstar would be a better option if so where do I purchase it from???
> 
> 
> Mitsubishi HC 3000
> 
> ceiling mount 7'
> 
> mounted 14 feet back
> 
> seating at 12 and 17'
> 
> 
> would like a 119" diagonal screen
> 
> 
> Thanks! Frank



I'm not considering the Silverstar, however, my set-up will be very similar and I have narrowed my choices to the HP and 2500 since I will be dealing with a moderate amount of ambient light. Here are the planned details:


Panasonic AX100

Ceiling mount 7' (assume lens will be at about 6'6")

Mounted 11 feet back

Main seating at 13 feet, some on floor at 9ft and others standing around pool table and bar at 15 - 25 feet.

Room width is 13 feet (in back of room it opens to the sides, think of a T shape with the screen at the bottom of the T).

Considering a 92inch screen - 106 inch screen.


I haven't found a lot on the M2500, would it be better than the HP for the different viewing heights or would it hotspot too much with the projector so close?


----------



## VABills

I have the 106" M2500. Ceiling mounted IN76, and I like it a lot. I can get the room real dark, painted dark red walls, but I also like to watch games, etc.. with the sconces on, so I can see the wings when I am eating. It's bright enough with the lights rom the side on full, and no I don't see any hot spotting. Too be honest I do want it just a little brighter and my plan is to upgrade to a Silverstar probably in a year or so.


Seriously everyone who has seen it, likes it a lot, and noone has complained about RB, hotspots, etc.... And to be honest I look for them and don't see it.


----------



## Tryg

dont expect much more brightness from the Silverstar


----------



## jberylec




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sipester* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'm not considering the Silverstar, however, my set-up will be very similar and I have narrowed my choices to the HP and 2500 since I will be dealing with a moderate amount of ambient light. Here are the planned details:
> 
> 
> Panasonic AX100
> 
> Ceiling mount 7' (assume lens will be at about 6'6")
> 
> Mounted 11 feet back
> 
> Main seating at 13 feet, some on floor at 9ft and others standing around pool table and bar at 15 - 25 feet.
> 
> Room width is 13 feet (in back of room it opens to the sides, think of a T shape with the screen at the bottom of the T).
> 
> Considering a 92inch screen - 106 inch screen.
> 
> 
> I haven't found a lot on the M2500, would it be better than the HP for the different viewing heights or would it hotspot too much with the projector so close?




The AX100 mounted only 11ft back would give you a brite enough image even on a black wall!








Holy cow bra! (Not really a black wall, but you know what I mean, right?) That projector is a monster! Plenty of lumens. May I suggest looking into improving the black levels rather than the gain?


I'm testing the 2500 on my AE900U as we speak. I haven't ruled out the 2500 yet, but we'll see. It doesnt help with black levels one bit. But it's colors and brightness uniformity are great!


I've also tested the HP, which is too brite, causing it not to be uniform enough. That's projecting from 14ft back with a 100" image. The problem with high gain screens is that they are plenty brite at 0deg but move out to the end of the couch and they're too dim!


Perhaps I'm more interested in briteness uniformity than most? I have a wide viewing area and most high gain screens just dont work for me. We really need that magic physics-defying screen to hit the market sometime soon










So I ended up canning the gain idea after many hours of testing many samples, and going to every HT store I could find many times over.


My aim changed to darkening the blacks, without giving up too much briteness, or uniformity. Which has proved to be just as difficult as the initial objective of this review!


----------



## HiHoStevo

Do any of you folks have experience with the Goo CRT White?


It is supposed to be a 1.8 gain, but during Evans (PJC) test he only measured it at 1.0, but with perfect color reproduction.


I also am trying to get as large a screen as possible with the AX100, while dealing with some ambient light as I will be doing it in a "Great Room."


----------



## Lone Granger

I have waded through this thread and naturally thank all contributors - that is a way of saying - if i ask a dumb question I should know the answer to now, I apologise in adance..!


The proposed room set-up: 15' wide, PJ Throw 15', viewing in the 15' to 18' distance (room 19' long) - viewing width max 10' - PJ easy height to mount would be 6' 6" in an 8' high room.


Proposed PJ is the new JVC HD D-ILA HD1 or perhaps the Pearl.


Preferred screen width is 12'

_All_ surfaces of room satin beige.


Screen of preference (havent checked price yet..) from recommendation here is the DaLite HP - however is max width really only 106"?!


I can presumably set PJ to fire up at target wall to set screen height at say 6" below ceiling (6" above floor)



I am looking for a punchy, refreshing image more in line with LCD displays than Plasma / traditional front mount PJs - ie I am happy to 'sacrafice' the full Cinematic effect - I am not a 'full black junky' and would be happier to be stunned by vibrant refreshing images with detail in dark areas than go on a 'black-hole' quest.


I am not sure what Fl this equates to - does 20 sound about right?


If so with say 650 Lumens available from PJ for best part of 1st year (then replace bulb) and a 87 sq ft screen, I have a theoretical target of 1740 adjusted lumens. - ie a 2.7 gain in screen brightness - am I right? - If so then the DaLite @ 2.8 would appear to fit the bill perfectly (still not checked price..)


So, if i am correct so far, the only remaining concern is the angle of incidence / reflection from PJ to a central viewer. - Even if we assume viewer is directly under PJ (prefer 3' further back) - ie viewer is 3' 6" to 4' lower than lense, and nearly 1/2 way up screen height (mid screen ht is 4') - dont know how to do diagrams on here so hope you can see where i am going.



Now then, using an approx scaled diagram and no ability or knowledge retained on logs and in absence of protractor I calculate that, vertically, the bottom of the screen is viewed 15 degrees below PJ line of incidence (halfway toward the line of reflection) - whereas the top of the screen is viewed 12 deg below PJ line of incidence (in the wrong swing from the PJ line of reflection)....



Sooo, now I am not too sure if I should worry about an Angular Reflective or regular screen (both 2.8 gain)...!! -- It would seem to me, the layman that I am vertically off axis by a max of some 15 dgrees at the bottom and that the bottom is an error that an Angular reflective would address whereas the top is negative Reflective - if you see what I mean!


If you feel that this set up is outside performance envelope of a reasonable cost screen to give excellent performance, then i guess I could drop PJ a foot without much hassle (I intend sliding it on rails to side of room into a wall cabinett for stowing) - just dont want it whining away a foot above your head in height and 3 ft in front!


Have i grasped all this theory correctly, am I really creating a problem of 15 degrees or do people simply measure from mid screen to PJ and to eye - I cant help but think that a 10 degree off axis screen will be a problem for the lower 1/3rd of my screen based on my interpretation of these formulae


This would appear to be a classic set-up other than the fact that i am looking for a vibrant image over 12' width with c 650 Lumens PJ


Clearly reducing to a 10' wide screen would mean that I only require a gain of 1.7 - presumably I could get well over 15 degrees deviation here (not re-drawn smaller screen in this room set-up to see how angles change mind) - though I couldnt see it in reviews


Am I screwing the theory somewhere?!


----------



## jackmay




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HTAVE* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> It's so britght the damn bugs congregate on it and ruin it if you don't brush them off before rolling it up!



I had to put a bug zapper behind my HP because it is so bright that the flys especially would sometimes fly back and forth between the screen and the projector.


Apparently they were trying to decide which was best for them. The bug zapper (they love UV as the best of all lights) solved the problem and I seldom have to worry about flattening a bug when I roll up the screen.


----------



## CDubbs

I had the same problem for awhile, small gnats sneaking into the house with smokers would rest on the screen then be rolled up after the lights are thrown on and the dalite model c is rolled up :/


----------



## Tryg

Never roll it up!


----------



## pottscb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tryg* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Never roll it up!



Why?


Hey Tryg, I've seen some discussion going back and forth about the High-Power's angle of decreasing reflection in the vertical plane...did you observe roughly the same dropoff at 10 degrees off vertical axis and 10 degrees off horizontal axis? I would think it would drop off more horizontally than vertically...actually, I would just hope that. I'm thinking of mounting a pj 9 ft up (5 ft. above my head), 20 ft. back and sitting at 12 feet from the 106" screen...would the light dropoff of the High-Power in this scenario be a deal breaker?


----------



## davidcrowe

I have the 139 inch wide model c high power. the room is approximately 17 feet wide and 23 feet deep, two rows of raised seating. The AE-900 is mounted 6 inches below the top of the screen at the back of the room. I have recently raised it to this position from much lower on the wall and I have not noticed any drop off in brightness, and the image is very bright. I bought my screen through Jason at AVS. Be sure to order the case in black, then hang the HP and enjoy.


Dave



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lone Granger* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I have waded through this thread and naturally thank all contributors - that is a way of saying - if i ask a dumb question I should know the answer to now, I apologise in adance..!
> 
> 
> The proposed room set-up: 15' wide, PJ Throw 15', viewing in the 15' to 18' distance (room 19' long) - viewing width max 10' - PJ easy height to mount would be 6' 6" in an 8' high room.
> 
> 
> Proposed PJ is the new JVC HD D-ILA HD1 or perhaps the Pearl.
> 
> 
> Preferred screen width is 12'
> 
> _All_ surfaces of room satin beige.
> 
> 
> Screen of preference (havent checked price yet..) from recommendation here is the DaLite HP - however is max width really only 106"?!
> 
> 
> I can presumably set PJ to fire up at target wall to set screen height at say 6" below ceiling (6" above floor)
> 
> 
> 
> I am looking for a punchy, refreshing image more in line with LCD displays than Plasma / traditional front mount PJs - ie I am happy to 'sacrafice' the full Cinematic effect - I am not a 'full black junky' and would be happier to be stunned by vibrant refreshing images with detail in dark areas than go on a 'black-hole' quest.
> 
> 
> I am not sure what Fl this equates to - does 20 sound about right?
> 
> 
> If so with say 650 Lumens available from PJ for best part of 1st year (then replace bulb) and a 87 sq ft screen, I have a theoretical target of 1740 adjusted lumens. - ie a 2.7 gain in screen brightness - am I right? - If so then the DaLite @ 2.8 would appear to fit the bill perfectly (still not checked price..)
> 
> 
> So, if i am correct so far, the only remaining concern is the angle of incidence / reflection from PJ to a central viewer. - Even if we assume viewer is directly under PJ (prefer 3' further back) - ie viewer is 3' 6" to 4' lower than lense, and nearly 1/2 way up screen height (mid screen ht is 4') - dont know how to do diagrams on here so hope you can see where i am going.
> 
> 
> 
> Now then, using an approx scaled diagram and no ability or knowledge retained on logs and in absence of protractor I calculate that, vertically, the bottom of the screen is viewed 15 degrees below PJ line of incidence (halfway toward the line of reflection) - whereas the top of the screen is viewed 12 deg below PJ line of incidence (in the wrong swing from the PJ line of reflection)....
> 
> 
> 
> Sooo, now I am not too sure if I should worry about an Angular Reflective or regular screen (both 2.8 gain)...!! -- It would seem to me, the layman that I am vertically off axis by a max of some 15 dgrees at the bottom and that the bottom is an error that an Angular reflective would address whereas the top is negative Reflective - if you see what I mean!
> 
> 
> If you feel that this set up is outside performance envelope of a reasonable cost screen to give excellent performance, then i guess I could drop PJ a foot without much hassle (I intend sliding it on rails to side of room into a wall cabinett for stowing) - just dont want it whining away a foot above your head in height and 3 ft in front!
> 
> 
> Have i grasped all this theory correctly, am I really creating a problem of 15 degrees or do people simply measure from mid screen to PJ and to eye - I cant help but think that a 10 degree off axis screen will be a problem for the lower 1/3rd of my screen based on my interpretation of these formulae
> 
> 
> This would appear to be a classic set-up other than the fact that i am looking for a vibrant image over 12' width with c 650 Lumens PJ
> 
> 
> Clearly reducing to a 10' wide screen would mean that I only require a gain of 1.7 - presumably I could get well over 15 degrees deviation here (not re-drawn smaller screen in this room set-up to see how angles change mind) - though I couldnt see it in reviews
> 
> 
> Am I screwing the theory somewhere?!


----------



## Tryg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pottscb* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> Hey Tryg, I've seen some discussion going back and forth about the High-Power's angle of decreasing reflection in the vertical plane...did you observe roughly the same dropoff at 10 degrees off vertical axis and 10 degrees off horizontal axis?




Yes its the same on both axis


----------



## RobbyTV

how about this 80" screen here... at $400 I think it is worth a test.. but no good reviews YET... I may get one for my VP12S4.

http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/...=Compatibility


----------



## Tryg

Do we have a review of the DynaClear screen yet?


----------



## racer256

Tryg,


This is from awhile back but... wondering if you're contradicting yourself..? I'm trying to decide between the two screens so I'm wondering which one you give top honors.


You refer to "upgrading" from the SilverStar at the start of your post "HIGH POWER a Review! Part 1". However, years earlier you preferred the HP at the start of your post "White, Grey, or Silver - A Review!" post as stated below.


"Of course, then the High Power sheds ambient light better. This is definitely attributed to it’s obvious viewing cone and under the right conditions, like higher ambient light and watching sports, it would be an awesome product. For watching movies, I would definitely take the SilverStar. It felt like it had more depth and the screen tended to just disappear more. I’ve heard people say this same thing when going from a matte white screen to a grey screen. The SilverStar exhibits this same quality but at a gain of over 3. High gain, detail, and depth. It’s pretty awesome, and in many ways a stunning combination."


----------



## Elfrima

wow..impressive and interesting! Thank you for good info.


----------



## mike infinity

I just got off the phone with a local retailer that claimed that the Draper luma 2 glass beaded screen was *identical* to the high power.


Any word on whether this is the case as I couldn't find any confirmation online? I was also wondering if anyone around here has tried this ~2.8 gain screen.


Not that it matters much, as I can still get the HP here in Canada for about $100 cheaper than the draper glass beaded even though I am ordering from USA.


----------



## Michael2000

Very nice review!


One question, though...how can the high gain screens be viable with such low viewing angles, when SMPTE recommends a 30 degree viewing angle, and THX recommends a 36 degree viewing angle? It seems like you'll just end up with a screen that is bright in the middle, and dim to the sides.


Michael


----------



## xb1032




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Michael2000* /forum/post/17044783
> 
> 
> Very nice review!
> 
> 
> One question, though...how can the high gain screens be viable with such low viewing angles, when SMPTE recommends a 30 degree viewing angle, and THX recommends a 36 degree viewing angle? It seems like you'll just end up with a screen that is bright in the middle, and dim to the sides.
> 
> 
> Michael



The HP screen does not have hot spotting issues.


----------



## Michael2000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xb1032* /forum/post/17046434
> 
> 
> The HP screen does not have hot spotting issues.



I realize that, but since the brightness falls off at 10 degrees, and THX recommends 36 degrees (equivalent to 18 degrees off to the side), then it seems like it is going to be much dimmer on the sides than the center.


Michael


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Michael2000* /forum/post/17044783
> 
> 
> One question, though...how can the high gain screens be viable with such low viewing angles, when SMPTE recommends a 30 degree viewing angle, and THX recommends a 36 degree viewing angle? It seems like you'll just end up with a screen that is bright in the middle, and dim to the sides.



Your statement is true for angular reflective screens and false for retroreflective screens. The reason is that retroreflective screens reflect most of their light back to the source. As long as a viewer's eyes are close to the projector lens, every point on the retroreflective screen will appear uniformly bright.


If you are technically inclined and want more info on this subject, please see my All Screen Gain Calculator thread linked below.


----------



## noah katz

"then it seems like it is going to be much dimmer on the sides than the center."


It will be dimmer *from* the sides, but uniform.


----------



## adconti

I have lived with a 110" Silverstar 6.0 since 2005 with a Runco DLP. It has been a great screen. Its bright, has great detail and I have never noticed the screen itself during movies until now. I upgraded to the JVC RS25. Now I have millions of little sparklies over the full screen in lighter scenes, that grow worse in a central hot spot. Ceiling mounted PJ at 12-13 ft from screen. I still love the overall picture, but only if I sit in the back row now. 17-18ft. I can't train myself to ignore this artifact, so I think divorce is imminent. I know this is a ? dying thread, but I thought I'de add my two cents. It works great in combination with a dimmer PJ, but the newer higher lumen PJs overwhelm the senses with this screen. I have a fully dark dedicated room. IMHO.


----------



## Tryg

When your bulb dims you'll be wanting it back!


you should consider a neutral density filter while the bulb in brand new.


----------



## adconti

An interesting thought about a filter, but I'm not sure that would solve all of the artifact problems with the 1080p projector. Might be worth a try. For twenty bucks. But screen samples hopefully on the way! I can set aside the Silverstar for a few years until the bulb dims.


----------



## vmanju123

Tryg,


I will be buying the 2000Lumens PTAE 7000U 3D Projector(releasing in sept)

I have already bought a 2.6 gain 135" Draper Luma 2 Glass beaded screen, plan to project at 19ft from Screen, Is this a good choice, even if i run projector in EcoMode the screen should deliver is what i am guessing, The room has a bit ambient light all the time in day


thanks

Manjunath


----------



## pottscb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *adconti* /forum/post/20721071
> 
> 
> I have lived with a 110" Silverstar 6.0 since 2005 with a Runco DLP. It has been a great screen. Its bright, has great detail and I have never noticed the screen itself during movies until now. I upgraded to the JVC RS25. Now I have millions of little sparklies over the full screen in lighter scenes, that grow worse in a central hot spot. Ceiling mounted PJ at 12-13 ft from screen. I still love the overall picture, but only if I sit in the back row now. 17-18ft. I can't train myself to ignore this artifact, so I think divorce is imminent. I know this is a ? dying thread, but I thought I'de add my two cents. It works great in combination with a dimmer PJ, but the newer higher lumen PJs overwhelm the senses with this screen. I have a fully dark dedicated room. IMHO.



Try clamping down the manual iris at night (& running in low power mode), this should reduce sparklies.


----------



## canton160

Anyone interested in high gain screens, the best ones are made in portugal by a company called lusoscreen


no photoshop, no scams, this is the real thing, ive seen with my own eyes in their showroom.

http://forumhifi.com/forum/showthread.php?31877-Ecr%E3s-Lusoscreen-Home-Cinema 

http://forumhifi.com/forum/showthread.php?31705-Ecr%E3s-Lusoscreen-Alto-Ganho 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-B-VCDo18ZM&feature=player_embedded 


see the video





ive seen one of does screen in person, and its amazing how much contract and blacks levels this screen can show in a completely light room


http://img703.imageshack.us/i/hc2zpsfe052417.jpg/  

http://img163.imageshack.us/i/img30303zps341e6877.jpg/


----------



## Elix

I haven't heard about this screen before. It seems like a direct competitor to MOCOM screens (the same technology). I think it will have a lot of sparkles and will hot-spot like hell.


----------



## canton160

I found this company "lusoscreen" when i was searching my projector screen, their factory is about 25 miles where i live.


i didnt bought the curved screen because i had no space to put them, but i was really impressed with it in showroom from what i see.

at the time the owner himself told me that its a family business, and they being producing their screens, for more than 20 years, their high gain screen to use outside has 26 gain and is meant to be used in sport events or direct sunlight.


According to their website http://www.lusoscreen.com/pt/company/aboutus.htm their screens won a CeBIT-Home awards in Hannover em 1996 and a gold medal in genebra inventions event in 1997 .

At the time it was the only screen in the world capable to work with direct sunlight , and their home theather screen has more 500+ contrast than a white screen, I think at the time of my visit it was mention their home cinema screen had 13 gain, but can remenber well.


150cm (with wood +/- 175cm) (4:3 or 16:9)

200cm (with wood +/- 225cm) (4:3 or 16:9) price 880€ that about 1.150$

234cm (with wood +/- 260cm) (only 16:9)


ps: dont no how much the other brands charge for their high gain screens, but this one looks like a bargain and they are not made in "china"


----------



## Elix

Their website is laughable. No prices, no technical specifications. Contrast >350 times than matte white screen? In what conditions? How did they measure it? Sorry, but that's not credible information. Famous leader in the industry DNP produces a very expensive screen which has 8 times more contrast than MW screen in high ambient lighting conditions. And that's been tested. Also their screens are concave. Which means there are certain conditions which must be met when installing it like position of projector and audience. No info about that on their website either.


If this screen is so great why you still don't own it?


----------



## canton160

If


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Elix*  /t/228371/the-high-gain-exotic-screen-review/180#post_23247363
> 
> 
> Their website is laughable. No prices, no technical specifications. Contrast >350 times than matte white screen? In what conditions? How did they measure it? Sorry, but that's not credible information. Famous leader in the industry DNP produces a very expensive screen which has 8 times more contrast than MW screen in high ambient lighting conditions. And that's been tested. Also their screens are concave. Which means there are certain conditions which must be met when installing it like position of projector and audience. No info about that on their website either.
> 
> 
> If this screen is so great why you still don't own it?


if you had read my posts carefully, i mention that i dont have space in my living room.


Why dont you email the lusoscreen company? The owner is Mr. Candeias .


In a exchange of emails with lusoscreen, it was mention that screen was mesured by the portuguese laboratory of civil engineering.


Seems very credíble to my own eyes, i just pass this information on this topic because it seems theres no much subject on this type of screens around .


And the one that exist cost a arm And a leg.

Its seems in other tópics no one believe either that a seiki 4k screen cost only 1299$


This screen is live And very real, And is manufactured in europe.


----------



## noah katz

I see that the camera stays fixed at roughly screen center, and I suspect that there's severe gain dropoff as you move off center.


Also the screen is curved, which may help things but is impractical for most people.


----------



## canton160




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz*  /t/228371/the-high-gain-exotic-screen-review/180#post_23252852
> 
> 
> I see that the camera stays fixed at roughly screen center, and I suspect that there's severe gain dropoff as you move off center.
> 
> 
> Also the screen is curved, which may help things but is impractical for most people.



Please, dont based your premises in something that you read or have reviewed from other screens type , you havent actually see the lusoscreen or tested to assume or suspect any gain drop.


See the 2 lights on the pictures, this are normal lamps and the interference with the screen is minimal, that tell how much this screen can perform in daylight.


Dont no how´s the google translate works from portuguese to english, but i would try to read the interesting conversation in forumhifi about this screen.

http://forumhifi.com/forum/showthread.php?31877-Ecr%E3s-Lusoscreen-Home-Cinema 


Some members from the forum (isf certification) sugest in doing some tests with professional gear in near future, im also looking forward to see the results, its not everyday that i have a possibility to see a screen like this in front of my eyes.


----------



## Elix




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fnazareth*
> 
> Firstly, I've seen the screen mtas times no action and does not look black, or close to it. Grey is right, now close to black, no. Later still, the brightness seems excessive to me, ie, it is good to have the lights on or ambient light, but what if you want to turn off the lights? It's like sitting watching TV in the dark? (My grandmother said was bad q ) Finally, at first glance, it seems to me that the brightness is not distributed evenly across the screen, ie, there mto brighter than the center to the corners (even with the curvature of the screen ).


That's all I needed to know. And I agree with that guy:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nochnoi gost*
> 
> Finally, for me there is a psychological issue in relation to ambient light: In the movie I try to forget I'm watching a movie, to "enter" the action. In a room with projection home, had a light, would see all the furniture, the lamps, the woman reading magazines .... N would distractions. Besides that fact would lose resolution in black, however good the screen to reject the light


----------



## noah katz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *canton160*  /t/228371/the-high-gain-exotic-screen-review/150_50#post_23253065
> 
> 
> Please, dont based your premises in something that you read or have reviewed from other screens type , you havent actually see the lusoscreen or tested to assume or suspect any gain drop.



I'm basing it on the video you linked, and on physics - it's impossible to get high gain without dropoff; the only way to concentrate a given amount of light in one place is to take it from somewhere else.


----------



## canton160




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz*  /t/228371/the-high-gain-exotic-screen-review/180#post_23256931
> 
> 
> I'm basing it on the video you linked, and on physics - it's impossible to get high gain without dropoff; the only way to concentrate a given amount of light in one place is to take it from somewhere else.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz*  /t/228371/the-high-gain-exotic-screen-review/180#post_23252852
> 
> 
> I see that the camera stays fixed at roughly screen center, and I suspect that there's severe gain dropoff as you move off center.
> 
> 
> Also the screen is curved, which may help things but is impractical for most people.



Well my friend "noah katz" and illustrative reviewers, its time to pull the "cliche book" about high gain screens vs gained drop off if you move off center.


A few weeks back i mention this topic to lusoscreen company owners , and they where happy to make/show new personnel videos with the camera position off-center.


first video is direct sunlight from several angles (outdoor high gain screen)









the second video is their home cinema screen with the camera filming on the side of the screen .









Has you can see, this screens dont need bulls****t marketing videos like are showed on the web


regards


----------



## Craig Peer

That video is not a good test. They need to pause a bright scene, and then use a light meter. Using a camcorder doesn't seem like " proof " of anything either - won't the camcorder adjust gain to compensate for less brightness at an angle? Mine sure do.


Better to see one in person. Then decided.


----------



## noah katz

canton,


Craig is exactly right.


Gain vs. angle is technical data, which means numbers, and your videos do not provide any.


----------



## canton160




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz*  /t/228371/the-high-gain-exotic-screen-review/180#post_23345600
> 
> 
> canton,
> 
> 
> Craig is exactly right.
> 
> 
> Gain vs. angle is technical data, which means numbers, and your videos do not provide any.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Craig Peer*  /t/228371/the-high-gain-exotic-screen-review/180#post_23344839
> 
> 
> That video is not a good test. They need to pause a bright scene, and then use a light meter. Using a camcorder doesn't seem like " proof " of anything either - won't the camcorder adjust gain to compensate for less brightness at an angle? Mine sure do.
> 
> 
> Better to see one in person. Then decided.



First this are not my videos, this are luscoscreen video, and im not afilliate with lusoscreen, im a consumer that happend to live 20km from lusoscreen company, and had the opportunity to see this screens when i bought my cinema screen from them.


the videos:


If anyone doubt the video camera has a fix settings, please take a look at the videos "again" and look at the area outside of the screens, doesn't maintain the same brightness all the time ?? that means the camera has fix settings .


"to understand what im talking about , pls ask to someone a technical explanation about camcorders"


What other type of high gain screen can achieve that amount of quality in direct sunlight ??? on the front , on the side , moving camera or even fix camera.


In the video the open space/field where the screen is, everyone can see that the brightness is the same, so no video camera cheating of any kind .


Like you mention Craig, better to see one in person, if you visit portugal one day, your time will not be wasted...


----------



## Elix




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *canton160*  /t/228371/the-high-gain-exotic-screen-review/180#post_23344005
> 
> 
> as you can see, this screens dont need bulls****t marketing videos like are showed on the web





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *canton160*  /t/228371/the-high-gain-exotic-screen-review/180#post_23346810
> 
> 
> this are luscoscreen video


Aren't you contradicting yourself?


----------



## canton160




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Elix*  /t/228371/the-high-gain-exotic-screen-review/180#post_23347092
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't you contradicting yourself?



Dont even try to get off topic, if you dont have anything interesting to add to the conversation stay out of it.....no trolling pls


does vidoes from the lusocreen are far from being that marketing of millions made by da-ite, etc etc


Lusoscreen ?? who the hell is lusocreen? they have presence in forums ? hell no.... well then they dont exist...














and does video are pure imagination on your computer screen /S


regards


----------



## Tryg

ttt


----------

