# My review of the DEA Pulsar Screen. WOW!



## LumensLover

*My review of the D.E.S. Pulsar Screen. WOW!*

Let me give you a quick list of screens I've owned before I get on to this review.

Silver Ticket alr material
Stewart Firehawk 
DNP Blade .08
DNP Supernova 2.3
Screen Innovations Black Diamond .08
Screen Innovations Black Diamond 1.4
Elite Screens Cinegrey 5D
Elite Prime Vision Darkstar 1.4
Draper React
Seymour Matinee Black
Screen Innovations Slate

I can say by far and away this is hands-down the best ambient light rejecting material I have ever owned. It rejects off axis light like I've never seen before. Even the lights in the back of the room on the left and right side of the projector have little effect on the screen. 

Image fidelity is very good with no visual graininess or sparkles on the screen. Off-axis viewing is very good with no visual drop in brightness when walking from left to right of the screen from sharp angles. This screen totally and utterly crushes the Sceen Innovations Black Diamond. There is no doubt about that.

It crushes the Black Diamond when it comes to image fidelity, color accuracy, off-axis viewing with a gradual drop in brightness, and no graininess or sparkle to the screen. 

The only slight con I can see for some people with the screen is there is a slight bias towards blue which can easily be calibrated out. It does not bother me at all because I prefer a cooler image. My eyes will detect any over-saturation with red which looks like rosacea face to me.

The Pulsar material is superb. I'm sure the .9 gain is also great but I highly recommend the Pulsar. It's brighter than the Black Diamond 1.4 and it retains blacks levels excellently.

I was on the verge of giving up front projection all together but this screen has rekindled my passion for home theater. This is the culmination of my screen journey and it's been well worth it to get me here.


----------



## biliam1982

@LumensLover

Thanks for the quick review. Can you answer some questions?

1. Did you have any of those other screens to direct compare against the Pulsar? Or samples of them to see any difference and not just go off memory?

2. Did you compare any other DE Screen Materials? Like the Abyss, Infinite Abyss or Stardust? What made you decide on the Pulsar?

3. What size screen/aspect ratio did you get and what projector are you mating it with?

4. Did you get their DIY material or one with a screen frame too?

5. Their website doesn't publish pricing. Can you give a rough estimate of their costs? DIY or frame options?

6. Do you have any info on their Acoustically Transparent Micro-Perforations option? Cost? What screen material of theirs can it be used on? 

7. Are they still limited to ~120" 16:9 and ~150" 2.35:1?

Thanks!

Edit: Oh yea... Pics or it didn't happen!


----------



## LumensLover

biliam1982 said:


> @LumensLover
> 
> Thanks for the quick review. Can you answer some questions?
> 
> 1. Did you have any of those other screens to direct compare against the Pulsar? Or samples of them to see any difference and not just go off memory?
> 
> 2. Did you compare any other DE Screen Materials? Like the Abyss, Infinite Abyss or Stardust? What made you decide on the Pulsar?
> 
> 3. What size screen/aspect ratio did you get and what projector are you mating it with?
> 
> 4. Did you get their DIY material or one with a screen frame too?
> 
> 5. Their website doesn't publish pricing. Can you give a rough estimate of their costs? DIY or frame options?
> 
> 6. Do you have any info on their Acoustically Transparent Micro-Perforations option? Cost? What screen material of theirs can it be used on?
> 
> 7. Are they still limited to ~120" 16:9 and ~150" 2.35:1?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Edit: Oh yea... Pics or it didn't happen!


I have samples for each of the previous screens I've owned. However I do not need samples to compare screen materials. I am someone who obsesses over every minute detail for every product I buy. It is my greatest strength and my greatest weakness at the same time. I'm definitely not the type of person who has to have his memory jump started to remember why I moved on from various products.

I did not compare any other materials from DEA because I'm not interested in any below gain screens. I'm someone who likes bright, vivid images and I will not go with something that's going to possibly force me into using inaccurate color modes sacrificing color accuracy for lumens or low contrast, high lumen projectors.

My screen is 110 inch Pulsar,16 by 9 aspect screen. I am using it with a Sony HW45ES. The image fidelity is superb in my opinion. Image is also quite bright in eco mode.

Out of respect for Stephen I would recommend contacting him for pricing. My screen material is the do it yourself material which is similar to The Screen Innovations Slate Flex material.

I have not tried or looked at any acoustically transparent screens since I do not have the right 
room setup for one.


----------



## LumensLover

Pics


----------



## LumensLover

Pics2. Lights on and off.


----------



## LumensLover

Pics3


----------



## LumensLover

Pics4


----------



## LumensLover

Pics5


----------



## LumensLover

Pics6


----------



## LumensLover

Pics7. Lights in the room.


----------



## Calibratedlumens

Does it show any texture, shimmer, sparkle etc on white scenes?


----------



## LumensLover

Calibratedlumens said:


> Does it show any texture, shimmer, sparkle etc on white scenes?


I don't see any texture, grain, sheen, or sparkle on white scenes. I was previously told that shimmering can be common for ALR screens with gain added however I have not seen any shimmering with my screen.


----------



## LumensLover

Pics8


----------



## LumensLover

Pics9. The money pic. Lights off and lights on.


----------



## LumensLover

Pics10. Four lights are on in this room. Notice how dark the strands of the little girl's hair appears.


----------



## unretarded

The screen looks great in the light, but I am more excited to see the huge mains !!!!!!


----------



## LumensLover

unretarded said:


> The screen looks great in the light, but I am more excited to see the huge mains !!!!!!


So am I.


----------



## Ftoast

Would you be willing/able to set something like a small desklamp (or flashlight in a pinch) on the floor against the wall beneath the screen where it shines up sideways across the screen, then share words (or even pictures) of how dark-colored the Pulsar looks compared to the BD1.4, CineGrey5D, Slate, and MatineeBlack with the projector off and that light as the only strong light hitting them?

Something like this would give me a more apples-to-apples way to follow along at home since DarkEnergy doesn't provide/sell samples anymore, and it sounds like the Pulsar is working great!


----------



## igetittera

Whats up with this, go to there website ,know pricing info ,ordering info,click on the u-tube videos they don't play. Do you work for this company, or just someone that happened to order one, after some research? Know offense but something doesn't pass the smell test here. From what I have been able to gather so far, not particularly cheaper for compairible material. More expensive than Elunevision 4k audio weave,already put together. Literaly half if you want to DIY. And these screenshots , come on now has a lot to do with your projector. Like I said doesn't pass the smell test.


----------



## LumensLover

igetittera said:


> Whats up with this, go to there website ,know pricing info ,ordering info,click on the u-tube videos they don't play. Do you work for this company, or just someone that happened to order one, after some research? Know offense but something doesn't pass the smell test here. From what I have been able to gather so far, not particularly cheaper for compairible material. More expensive than Elunevision 4k audio weave,already put together. Literaly half if you want to DIY. And these screenshots , come on now has a lot to do with your projector. Like I said doesn't pass the smell test.


Go back and look at my post history. No one on this website has posted more about various alr screens. No one has more first hand experience with ambient light rejecting screens on this website than me. So if I'm not qualified to talk about a high-performing ambient light rejecting screen on this website. Who is? 

I am not a lurker with a low post count who suddenly shows up every 2 or 3 years to make one post. I'm someone who steadily posts on this website daily. And anyone who knows me knows that I am passionate about ambient light rejecting screens. My post history and my thread history clearly shows that fact.

To your other point, pricing and ordering needs to be streamlined on D.E.S's website. I will agree with you on that. That was the major reason why I hesitated on purchasing a screen from them for over a year.

As for the screenshots, you have to have black levels to retain. I see people commonly using cheap, low contrast projectors with ALR screens. The results will be mediocre because there are no black levels to retain. 

If you start off with a low contrast protector with the inability to produce anything beyond grayish black levels, then that's what you're going to also see on the ALR screen. This is why so many people using DLP and low contrast lcd projectors paired with ALR screens get poor results in the end. An ALR screen will not enhance what's not there. It can only help retain black levels under certain lighting situations for which it is designed.


----------



## igetittera

LumensLover said:


> Go back and look at my post history. No one on this website has posted more about various alr screens. No one has more first hand experience with ambient light rejecting screens on this website than me. So if I'm not qualified to talk about a high-performing ambient light rejecting screen on this website. Who is?
> 
> I am not a lurker with a low post count who suddenly shows up every 2 or 3 years to make one post. I'm someone who steadily posts on this website daily. And anyone who knows me knows that I am passionate about ambient light rejecting screens. My post history and my thread history clearly shows that fact.
> 
> To your other point, pricing and ordering needs to be streamlined on DEA's website. I will agree with you on that. That was the major reason why I hesitated on purchasing a screen from them for over a year.
> 
> As for the screenshots, you have to have black levels to retain. I see people commonly using cheap, low contrast projectors with ALR screens. The results will be mediocre because there are no black levels to retain.
> 
> If you start off with a low contrast protector with the inability to produce anything beyond grayish black levels, then that's what you're going to also see on the ALR screen. This is why so many people using DLP and low contrast lcd projectors paired with ALR screens get poor results in the end. An ALR screen will not enhance what's not there. It can only help retain black levels under certain lighting situations for which it is designed.


Well thanks for clearing that up. That said, what did you pay for your screen? I am in need of an audio transparent screen, I have had my eye on Elunavisions 4k audio weave 106". Around $2250 Can. Do you think that, !. Pulsar would out perform this,why?
2. Would it be compairable price wise? 3 Do you know if they make roll up or electric screens, as they all look fixed frame on there web-site? And I really ment Know offense just very cautious.


----------



## LumensLover

igetittera said:


> Well thanks for clearing that up. That said, what did you pay for your screen? I am in need of an audio transparent screen, I have had my eye on Elunavisions 4k audio weave 106". Around $2250 Can. Do you think that, !. Pulsar would out perform this,why?
> 2. Would it be compairable price wise? 3 Do you know if they make roll up or electric screens, as they all look fixed frame on there web-site? And I really ment Know offense just very cautious.


The D.E.S. Pulsar screen is an ambient light rejecting screen. It is not an acoustically transparent screen. I'm not sure if D.E.S. offers acoustically transparent screens. Also not sure if they make any retractable screen options. You can contact Dark Energy Screens at 888-733-9233 to ask them about those options.

As for pricing, the owner does not want that information given out. So you would have to contact D.E.S. at the aforementioned number for a direct quote. However, I will admit that online sales will be stifled until streamlined pricing is freely listed on their website.


----------



## Ftoast

They are advertising perforated AT options on their website, so there's a decent-ish chance of all their materials being available as perforated AT screens.
I've seen folks mention DES coating existing screens, which I can't 100% remember if it's been fine to a rollup or not, but that's likely a good thing to ask about if you call wanting a rollup..Then you can see if they have particular recommendations and how it affects pricing.


----------



## a/v HD fan

LumensLover said:


> As for pricing, the owner does not want that information given out. So you would have to contact D.E.S. at the aforementioned number for a direct quote. However, I will admit that online sales will be stifled until streamlined pricing is freely listed on their website.


I'm aware of this, and it is certainly DES's prerogative to approach their business however they deem best, but I can't quite wrap my head around this. If there was a dealer network to protect, who got to choose their own pricing, then it would make sense, but I don't think that's the case here. 

I saw DES deflect the question (somewhat) as saying they want to consult with every customer first and ensure the product matches their goals, and they don't want to have an "order now" option on the website. All well and good, and yet that has nothing to do with publishing pricing on their site. They could list at least the most common sizes and materials, and then mention custom projects would be quoted individually. Choosing to NOT do that, and only quoting via direct requests, understandably makes some consumers leery.

The only thing I can think of, would be if they have a large variability in input costs from their suppliers and don't want to constantly be fiddling with the prices listed on the site. No idea if that's true, just one possibility.


----------



## Blue

LumensLover said:


> My screen is 110 inch Pulsar,16 by 9 aspect screen. I am using it with a Sony HW45ES. The image fidelity is superb in my opinion. Image is also quite bright in eco mode.


110" wide or diagonal? How far back are the eyes in your seats?


----------



## Gorilla Killa

Stands to reason they think the product is unique enough that it needs to be explained in depth. Get someone in the door, and if your good you make the sale and shut them down from tire kicking. Does seem a little to tight to the vest


----------



## LumensLover

Blue said:


> 110" wide or diagonal? How far back are the eyes in your seats?


Screen is 110 inch diagonal, 16 by 9 aspect. My seats are 15 feet away from the screen. My projector is also 15 feet away from the screen.


----------



## tigerfan33

Would this screen work shelf mounted eye level?


----------



## LumensLover

tigerfan33 said:


> Would this screen work shelf mounted eye level?


That is exactly the way I have my projector mounted. It is working fine for me.


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 11


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 12


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 13


----------



## Shinobi_cro

Nice review @LumensLover, much appreciated! 

Do you think DES Pulsar would be good choice for Epson 3700 also, or should I go with Abyss? (projector in living room, so not 100% light controlled)


----------



## LumensLover

Shinobi_cro said:


> Nice review @LumensLover, much appreciated!
> 
> Do you think DES Pulsar would be good choice for Epson 3700 also, or should I go with Abyss? (projector in living room, so not 100% light controlled)


The Epson 3700 is a true light cannon. I would suggest going with the .9 gain Abyss with that projector. They should make an amazing combination.


----------



## Dave in Green

@LumensLover, I suggested some time back that if these screens were as great as everyone posting here seems to think that they ought to send a screen to one of the trusted professional AV review sites for instrumented testing and evaluation. It seems to me that a credible positive professional review could potentially multiply their sales volume many times over. But it seems that there has been no effort to do this. Based on your experience can you think of any reason why these screens might produce anything other than great results in controlled, instrumented testing by an experienced, unbiased professional reviewer?


----------



## LumensLover

Dave in Green said:


> @LumensLover, I suggested some time back that if these screens were as great as everyone posting here seems to think that they ought to send a screen to one of the trusted professional AV review sites for instrumented testing and evaluation. It seems to me that a credible positive professional review could potentially multiply their sales volume many times over. But it seems that there has been no effort to do this. Based on your experience can you think of any reason why these screens might produce anything other than great results in controlled, instrumented testing by an experienced, unbiased professional reviewer?


No sir I cannot. This material though not flawless, is a superb product. It is priced at a fraction of it's high end competition which it handily outperforms in my experience. But let me give a few opinions on this situation. Anyone reading this please understand these are my opinions alone and do not represent Dark Energy Screens. Now I am someone who was involved in running a small business before. So typically when you have a small startup business capital is hard to come by. 

Sometimes you do not have any additional money to purchase materials for demo items which you can not resell quickly. My other opinion comes from my personal experience of observing people online on this forum and observing people at many high-end shops in the city where I live. From what I've observed people who are going to buy mid to higher end items go in to find what they want and they purchase said product. Normally after they talk to a sales agent. 

On the other end of the spectrum I've noticed the paralysis by analysis group which is prevalent online. These are the people doing hours of research, reading countless professional and consumer reviews, yet rarely purchase anything new. They are stuck in a neverending cycle of "I'll think about it" and "maybe I will look into getting said product next month/quarter/year". 

Perpetual windowshoppers do nothing to help a business maintain any semblance of a profit margin. As a former small business owner myself, I would not waste any time trying to cater to the latter crowd of people.


----------



## Shinobi_cro

@LumensLover one more question and I'm out I promise  If somehow I get a good price for Epson 4000 or 5040, and buy it, would you still recommend Abyss over Pulsar for those two? 
Also, in my country, model 4000 is exactly double the price of 3700 (1.600$ and 3.200$). Is it worth it, or should I stick with 3700?


----------



## LumensLover

Shinobi_cro said:


> @LumensLover one more question and I'm out I promise  If somehow I get a good price for Epson 4000 or 5040, and buy it, would you still recommend Abyss over Pulsar for those two?
> Also, in my country, model 4000 is exactly double the price of 3700 (1.600$ and 3.200$). Is it worth it, or should I stick with 3700?


Ask as many questions as you like. 

If you go with the Epson 4000, I would still suggest the .9 gain Abyss. Projector reviews stated it is only 10% less bright than the Epson 5040. I don't think the gap in image quality between the 4000 and the 3700 is that great. I definitely would not pay twice the price. 

However, if you mainly watch 4k UHD movies you will notice the added sharpness provided by the E-shift enabled Epson 4000. If you are using a larger screen bigger than 120", I would heavily advise going with the Pulsar.


----------



## xbladr

I own the abyss .9. I do not have a ton of experience with screens. I have been through many projectors but, screens not so much. Saying that I have found this screen to be absolutely amazing! The pulsar was not available when I purchased it otherwise I would have considered it. The only issue is I have the Epson 2045 and anything with this kind of light output would more than likely be too bright in most modes for the 1.4 Pulsar. I would suggest you reach out to Stephen if you are at all interested though. He has been incredibly helpful in walking me through everything. 

The 3700 would be much better suited with the abyss .9 I would think. Also keep the projector 14' or more away. If you do not in some of the incredibly bright modes you can get hot spotting. With my 2045 and a brand new bulb even in the brightest mode at 12' I do not see any hot spotting with Epson Super White - ON. 

I would love to see a side by side with the Pulsar and the Abyss just to compare but I doubt this will hapen.


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 14. 

Notice how black Van Damme's shorts remain with one light on each side of screen. Both lights contain 800 lumens bulbs.


----------



## LumensLover

Pics15

Wide angle to show brightness off axis


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 16

Funeral shot. Notice how dark this woman's black dress remains under moderate levels of ambient light. Also notice the black cars behind her.


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 17

Two lights on left and right side of screen.


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 18


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 19


----------



## bud16415

No loss in brightness off axis, but strong light rejection from the sides, and 1.4 gain on axis. 

Makes you wonder how this can be as that goes against the laws of physics. In order for a screen to do this it would have to actually produce light. 

All I can figure is the screen can tell the difference between projector light and all other light and allow projector light to pass as normal and the screen then absorbs all other light. That world explain some of the claims but not how it can have gain and not loose light off angle is a puzzle. 

This material really need to go thru a unbiased testing process by a third party to confirm all this. I hope the owners of the company have patents on the screen and process. 

I’m not sure why you like bright lights off to the side of your screen though? I would rather have the bright lights down by where the viewers sit.


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 20


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 21


----------



## Riyaz Ajmeri

LumensLover said:


> Pics 21


how this screen compare to elite cinegray 5d. i mean graininess or sparkles, texture.

thanks


----------



## LumensLover

Riyaz Ajmeri said:


> how this screen compare to elite cinegray 5d. i mean graininess or sparkles, texture.
> 
> thanks


Texture is smooth. I don't see any added graininess or sparkles. This material is miles ahead of the Elite Crooks Cinegrey 5D in my opinion. Their brightness seems nearly the same however the Cinegrey 5D does not reject off axis and overhead light nearly as good as the Pulsar does.

The Pulsar retains much deeper black levels compared to the Cinegrey 5D. The Cinegrey 5D is comparable to the Screen Innovations Slate. Both are bright screens and retain good black levels under a low level of ambient light like a few can lights. However, both the Cinegrey 5D and the Slate will wash out under a moderate amount of ambient light such as floor lamps or table lamps with 450 lumen bulbs.


----------



## --Sclaws

Shinobi_cro said:


> @LumensLover one more question and I'm out I promise  If somehow I get a good price for Epson 4000 or 5040, and buy it, would you still recommend Abyss over Pulsar for those two?
> Also, in my country, model 4000 is exactly double the price of 3700 (1.600$ and 3.200$). Is it worth it, or should I stick with 3700?


I know LumensLover responded but FWIW I have the .9 Abyss and used an Epson 4000 first, and now a 5040. I noticed no difference in brightness, and both looked great. No regrets.


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 22


----------



## bud16415

In your on angle and off angle shots of the same image example Pics12 Post # 31, the near side always shows increased brightness and the far side increased darkness compared to the on axis photo that shows uniform brightness. 

This would be very distracting to me as I often sit off axis. Most screen manufactures post a half gain angle on screens >1.0. It is an accepted fact with gain screens that some brightness is lost off axis but in the case of this screen the brightness is increased on one side and lessened on the other. It is even noticeable in some of the slightly off axis screen shots. 

Could you tell us a angle where you can sit off axis and the image still appears to be uniform brightness?


----------



## bfore1

LumensLover said:


> Texture is smooth. I don't see any added graininess or sparkles. This material is miles ahead of the Elite Crooks Cinegrey 5D in my opinion. Their brightness seems nearly the same however the Cinegrey 5D does not reject off axis and overhead light nearly as good as the Pulsar does.
> 
> The Pulsar retains much deeper black levels compared to the Cinegrey 5D. The Cinegrey 5D is comparable to the Screen Innovations Slate. Both are bright screens and retain good black levels under a low level of ambient light like a few can lights. However, both the Cinegrey 5D and the Slate will wash out under a moderate amount of ambient light such as floor lamps or table lamps with 450 lumen bulbs.




I'm gonna guess that you paid over $700 for the DIY material. Is the pulsar worth 3, 4, or 5 times the cost of DIY Cinegrey 5D?


----------



## LumensLover

bud16415 said:


> In your on angle and off angle shots of the same image example Pics12 Post # 31, the near side always shows increased brightness and the far side increased darkness compared to the on axis photo that shows uniform brightness.
> 
> This would be very distracting to me as I often sit off axis. Most screen manufactures post a half gain angle on screens >1.0. It is an accepted fact with gain screens that some brightness is lost off axis but in the case of this screen the brightness is increased on one side and lessened on the other. It is even noticeable in some of the slightly off axis screen shots.
> 
> Could you tell us a angle where you can sit off axis and the image still appears to be uniform brightness?


The dark edges you see is not the screen. That is my phone attempting to adjust the picture due to the bright glare coming in from the adjacent lights.

I would not own an ALR screen with visibly sharp, dark edges while attempting to watch movies or TV. The only alr screen I've ever had which did so noticeably was the Black Diamond first generation material. And I quickly sold that after 2 months due to vignetting, colorshift off axis, and extreme drop off in brightness when viewed outside of 45 degrees.


----------



## LumensLover

bfore1 said:


> I'm gonna guess that you paid over $700 for the DIY material. Is the pulsar worth 3, 4, or 5 times the cost of DIY Cinegrey 5D?


Hell yes.


----------



## LumensLover

Since I'm a very upfront person I'm going to be real with you guys in this thread. We know there are certain people in this thread who have no intention of ever purchasing an alr screen from DES or any alr screen manufacturer. They are only here to scrutinize. I'm trying to be a nice guy but please don't push me further with questions based on limited equipment I have which is a cheap cell phone camera and additional questions based on the request for a professional review for which I cannot answer since I am not the company owner.

This thread was done for fun with the intention to possibly help others who are earnestly looking for an affordable alr option. I am in no way trying to sell anyone on the aforementioned product. I'm also in no way presenting myself as professional reviewer. 

So if anyone who's potentially interested in this product wants to ask questions for which I can attempt to help, I'm more than willing to do so. For anyone who has no real interest in this product, It will be best for them to participate elsewhere on the forum.


----------



## bud16415

You are correct I will most likely never buy a screen from DS or any ALR screen as I have no need for ALR properties in my theater except ambient light coming to the screen from the exact same location as the projectors light. Nothing from the sides or behind the screen. That does not mean I don’t help a lot of other people select screens for use with different situations concerning ambient light issues and it does not mean I don’t have an interest in the science behind it. 

If this thread is closed to anyone that is not going to buy a DS screen in the near future then we need to know that because at that point the thread becomes an advertisement. 

I have participated in thousands of screen threads without purchasing them and it was never once mentioned I needed to be planning a purchase in order to not anger the OP.

You posted about 50 off axis screen shots that clearly show a brighter image on the side of the photo nearest the camera and darker on the far side in comparison to photos taken of the same image straight on. Some show the bright light in the corner some don’t within the frame of the photo. I don’t dispute it could be your cameras auto adjusting doing its thing as screen shots actually mean very little as they adjust just as you stated and also adjust to perceived black levels just as our eyes do in ANSI images and so far all we have seen is ANSI images. If the camera can be doing this distortion then we have no reason to believe it isn’t inaccurate in how it is portraying black levels when they appear to be excellent. 

I followed this thread for a week and looked at many screen shots. I’m told it is imposable to get samples of the material and we don’t know the price. If I was in the market or trying to help someone select a screen I would have to advise them based on that information. 

Scrutinize & Question is what these forums are all about.


----------



## LumensLover

For any other potentially interested people in this thread, I will post some more screenshots of the screen in the dark tonight. That will prevent my phone's anti-glare function from interfering with the pictures I take. I probably should have done this earlier, however I figured people do not want to see night time, dark room shots of the air screen. For those of you who are phone savvy, I'm not sure how to turn this anti-glare function off my phone. Anytime there's a bright light coming in from either corner when I take pictures my phone instantly adjust the corners of the image darker and it does it every 15 seconds while I am attempting to take a picture near a bright light.

Either way, my phone does not do this screen justice for how good it looks in person. But it's the best I can do right now to share my experiences with this screen with others.


----------



## bud16415

Ftoast said:


> Would you be willing/able to set something like a small desklamp (or flashlight in a pinch) on the floor against the wall beneath the screen where it shines up sideways across the screen, then share words (or even pictures) of how dark-colored the Pulsar looks compared to the BD1.4, CineGrey5D, Slate, and MatineeBlack with the projector off and that light as the only strong light hitting them?
> 
> Something like this would give me a more apples-to-apples way to follow along at home since DarkEnergy doesn't provide/sell samples anymore, and it sounds like the Pulsar is working great!


Here is a simple request that went unanswered.


----------



## LumensLover

bud16415 said:


> You are correct I will most likely never buy a screen from DS or any ALR screen as I have no need for ALR properties in my theater except ambient light coming to the screen from the exact same location as the projectors light. Nothing from the sides or behind the screen. That does not mean I don’t help a lot of other people select screens for use with different situations concerning ambient light issues and it does not mean I don’t have an interest in the science behind it.
> 
> If this thread is closed to anyone that is not going to buy a DS screen in the near future then we need to know that because at that point the thread becomes an advertisement.
> 
> I have participated in thousands of screen threads without purchasing them and it was never once mentioned I needed to be planning a purchase in order to not anger the OP.
> 
> You posted about 50 off axis screen shots that clearly show a brighter image on the side of the photo nearest the camera and darker on the far side in comparison to photos taken of the same image straight on. Some show the bright light in the corner some don’t within the frame of the photo. I don’t dispute it could be your cameras auto adjusting doing its thing as screen shots actually mean very little as they adjust just as you stated and also adjust to perceived black levels just as our eyes do in ANSI images and so far all we have seen is ANSI images. If the camera can be doing this distortion then we have no reason to believe it isn’t inaccurate in how it is portraying black levels when they appear to be excellent.
> 
> I followed this thread for a week and looked at many screen shots. I’m told it is imposable to get samples of the material and we don’t know the price. If I was in the market or trying to help someone select a screen I would have to advise them based on that information.
> 
> Scrutinize & Question is what these forums are all about.


 I will not respond to you further in this thread. You have a blessed day.


----------



## LumensLover

Ftoast, I have not forgotten about your question. I will do the flashlight thingy tonight.


----------



## LumensLover

Same angle. One pic was taken in between the phone doing the auto glare adjustment. While the second was taken after the phone kicked in the auto glare adjustment. Notice how much darker the left side is after the phone's auto glare adjustment kicked in.


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 23 Sharp angle shots


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 24 Sharp angle shots


----------



## LumensLover

Previous dark room shots


----------



## siuengr

Lumens Did you modify your own screen or did you send it to DES to get modified? I contacted them about having them modify my current screen to the Abyss, but was wondering how easy it is to do yourself. I am also debating if I would want the Abyss or Pulsar. I have an Epson 5040 in a cave, 120" screen at around 12 ft. Ambient light is not a problem with the light off. With the front light on it is mostly washed out. Any suggestions?


----------



## LumensLover

I try to to be fair, so as I stated before there are some cons that come with the screen. It has a slight bias towards blue so it is not ISF certified. If you do not like a cooler image, you will have to calibrate your projector once you receive this screen. Also I will state that I've never been someone to notice such things as screen door effect, shimmering, or sparkles. Shimmering is a common attribute for ALR screens with gain added so if you were to receive this screen your mileage may vary as far as any degree of shimmer that you might notice. Once again I have not noticed any shimmering, however I cannot speak for everyone.

I sat at 45 degree and 60 degree angles from the screen. I did not notice any perceived drops in brightness. When walking around the screen from left to right I'm sure there is a gradual drop off in brightness however it is so gradual that I did not notice it.

I know this screen cannot bend the laws of physics. So there has to be a drop-off in brightness for the viewing cone to work, however once again I can only state from my personal experience I've not noticed any significant drop off in brightness when I walk from left to right of the screen. I've never uploaded a video on to this website, however I could try walking from left to right of the screen tonight and upload a video. However, if my phone's camera does anything to deter from the brightness I'm actually seeing in person, I will not upload it.

One thing I can state for sure, is this screen retains the deepest black levels of any alr screen I've ever seen or owned. My custom screen builder who's seen just as many screens as me, was also blown away by the performance of this product. We both went in thinking this product will be a decent competitor to the Black Diamond for a cheaper price. Nothing more. Neither one of us expected to be blown away by the results with his product. But we both admitted we were floored upon seeing it and never saw any other ALR screen hold black levels this efficiently. The pictures don't lie on that and what I'm seeing in person is actually deeper black levels than the pictures are showing. Where you're seeing shades of blue in some of these pictures is actually a deep black in person. As I stated before, this phone does not do this screen complete justice to what I'm seeing in person. But the images are still good enough to where I'm trying to share online to show others the performance of this screen.

The most frustrating thing about this website sometime is the constant bickering over products when people do not have a visual benchmark of what is being discussed. By that what I mean is you have to get out and see products sometime in your life. If you're only going by other people's reviews, professional reviews, and scientific breakdowns about how a product works that is only one aspect of product research. But you, yourself need to have a visual benchmark for some of the top products in the industry. If anyone has seen the Black Diamond, Stewart Firehawk, DNP 08 Blade, etc in person they will understand what I'm saying. It's readily apparent what those screens do well along with their flaws once you see them in person. It's something that could be assessed in one minute or less. So once you have that established you can come online and have a discussion as to how new products compare to the benchmark products for the alr market. 


Seeing the Black Diamond, Darkstar, etc can at least give you a reference for what I'm attempting to show. But if you never seen any of these materials and you only going by online research you're not going to understand what I'm trying to get across here.

I also wanted to add that people should not believe the baseless jargon that is spoken here when it comes to weak rooms. I used to have a bat cave where all my walls were painted jet black. The contrast levels I had in that room were off-the-charts like sitting in a space auditorium. However, even in my current room with white walls all around I am able to get reasonably deep black levels assuming I use a higher contrast projector such as my previous JVC and my current Sony projector paired with an alr screen.


----------



## LumensLover

siuengr said:


> Lumens Did you modify your own screen or did you send it to DES to get modified? I contacted them about having them modify my current screen to the Abyss, but was wondering how easy it is to do yourself. I am also debating if I would want the Abyss or Pulsar. I have an Epson 5040 in a cave, 120" screen at around 12 ft. Ambient light is not a problem with the light off. With the front light on it is mostly washed out. Any suggestions?


I ordered the do-it-yourself material from D.E.S. My custom screen builder used a Black Diamond zero edge frame from a previous screen I owned and retrofitted it with the Pulsar material. If you are in a dark room with a Epson 5040 and ambient light is not an issue I would definitely recommend the abyss .9 game material. You will get deep dark blacks and the Epson 5040 is so bright that will make a super combination together. I'm betting in a dark room they will look spectacular.


----------



## siuengr

LumensLover said:


> I ordered the do-it-yourself material from D.E.S. My custom screen builder used a Black Diamond zero edge frame from a previous screen I owned and retrofitted it with the Pulsar material. If you are in a dark room with a Epson 5040 and ambient light is not an issue I would definitely recommend the abyss .9 game material. You will get deep dark blacks and the Epson 5040 is so bright that will make a super combination together. I'm betting in a dark room they will look spectacular.


Thanks, I am using an Elite Grey screen now, and have been debating if it is worth the upgrade. Thanks for posting all of the pictures and review.


----------



## LumensLover

siuengr said:


> Thanks, I am using an Elite Grey screen now, and have been debating if it is worth the upgrade. Thanks for posting all of the pictures and review.


You are very welcome sir.


----------



## bfore1

LumensLover said:


> Hell yes.


Thanks, I'd probably have one of these in my basement right now if the DIY material prices were listed on the DES site. With no industry reviews and limited forum info no one wants to throw away a grand without knowing what they are getting.

I agree with running your business as you see fit and Stephen explained the whole custom frame deal to me. I just can't wrap my head around the DIY material being secretive.

But, it's his business!


----------



## LumensLover

bfore1 said:


> Thanks, I'd probably have one of these in my basement right now if the DIY material prices were listed on the DES site. With no industry reviews and limited forum info no one wants to throw away a grand without knowing what they are getting.
> 
> I agree with running your business as you see fit and Stephen explained the whole custom frame deal to me. I just can't wrap my head around the DIY material being secretive.
> 
> But, it's his business!


I completely understand your sentiment on that. Have you tried contacting D.E.S. for a quote? It might be worth your time to do so.


----------



## Riyaz Ajmeri

LumensLover said:


> Texture is smooth. I don't see any added graininess or sparkles. This material is miles ahead of the Elite Crooks Cinegrey 5D in my opinion. Their brightness seems nearly the same however the Cinegrey 5D does not reject off axis and overhead light nearly as good as the Pulsar does.
> 
> The Pulsar retains much deeper black levels compared to the Cinegrey 5D. The Cinegrey 5D is comparable to the Screen Innovations Slate. Both are bright screens and retain good black levels under a low level of ambient light like a few can lights. However, both the Cinegrey 5D and the Slate will wash out under a moderate amount of ambient light such as floor lamps or table lamps with 450 lumen bulbs.


i have jvs dla rs420 projector. which on is better pulsar 1.4 or abyss .9 screen


----------



## LumensLover

Riyaz Ajmeri said:


> i have jvs dla rs420 projector. which on is better pulsar 1.4 or abyss .9 screen


Definitely suggest the Pulsar for any JVC projector since they are not overly bright and the added gain from the Pulsar will definitely benefit them. JVC black levels plus the Pulsar would be immaculate.


----------



## Riyaz Ajmeri

LumensLover said:


> Definitely suggest the Pulsar for any JVC projector since they are not overly bright and the added gain from the Pulsar will definitely benefit them. JVC black levels plus the Pulsar would be immaculate.


thanks


----------



## tigerfan33

I’m trying to decide between 1.4 and 2.0. I’m coming from HP 2.4 but I rarely see the max brightness even though the projector is only a few inches above my head. I sit a few feet from center and sometime as much as 45% off center.


----------



## LumensLover

I tried taking some pictures and a video in the dark last night however my phone's anti-glare function was still kicking in due to the brightness of the screen. So that won't work. Ftoast I could not find my high lumen LED flashlight. I will go out to purchase another one today and see if I can get your question answered tonight.


----------



## LumensLover

tigerfan33 said:


> I’m trying to decide between 1.4 and 2.0. I’m coming from HP 2.4 but I rarely see the max brightness even though the projector is only a few inches above my head. I sit a few feet from center and sometime as much as 45% off center.


It depends on what your priorities are. The 2.0 gain screen will most likely give you a brighter more vivid image. However it will be at the expense of lighter black levels. If you have a dedicated room where ambient light is not an issue for you I would recommend the 2.0 Stardust material.

If you are coming from an HP high gain screen, that might be less of a drop in brightness for you.


----------



## tigerfan33

LumensLover said:


> It depends on what your priorities are. The 2.0 gain screen will most likely give you a brighter more vivid image. However it will be at the expense of lighter black levels. If you have a dedicated room where ambient light is not an issue for you I would recommend the 2.0 Stardust material.
> 
> 
> 
> If you are coming from an HP high gain screen, that might be less of a drop in brightness for you.




Thanks.
I really liked your review of the 1.4. I haven’t seen anyone that has tried 2.0 as of yet.


----------



## LumensLover

For those who were wondering about the color of the Pulsar material in person. It is actually darker than the Black Diamond 1.4 gain screen material. So it is definitely not a light gray shade material like the Screen Innovations Slate. It is a darker shade that is comparable to the Black Diamond .8 material.


----------



## bud16415

Riyaz Ajmeri said:


> i have jvs dla rs420 projector. which on is better pulsar 1.4 or abyss .9 screen


I know I am no longer being answered in this thread but I see lots of questions and recommendations being given out. 

I assume this is a ALR screen material but I don’t see the questions being asked as to screen size or room conditions or the source and direction of the ambient light issue or even if there is one. All that is known is the projector being used and that this company has a screen that’s right for that projector no matter what. 

I would advise those seeking a screen to totally understand all the factors that go into picture quality and select a screen that works best with your specific factors. 

Again if these screens are best for every situation every time then this will be the first screen of its type ever invented.


----------



## LumensLover

Anyone new to ambient light rejecting screens or anyone who has not seen many ambient light rejecting materials from different manufacturers here is a quick rundown.

The main function of an ambient light rejecting screen is to maintain image fidelity, contrast, and black levels as much as possible in a room where ambient light is present. Now some people use ambient light rejecting screens in dark rooms for other issues such as light scatter but I won't get into that here.

No ALR screen will work well to reject light coming from the same direction as the projector. So when shopping for ALR screens you need to be looking for ambient light rejecting for overhead or off-axis meaning light coming from the sides. Daylight is the hardest light to reject. No ALR screen will look it's best with daylight coming in directly on the screen.

The major trade off when using any ALR screen will be a reduction in the viewing cone. The wider the viewing cone, the weaker the ALR rejection capability will be. The narrower the viewing home, the stronger the ALR rejection will be.

Screen uniformity can be a possible issue with all ALR screens since they have to use an narrower viewing cone to reject either off axis or overhead light. Some ALR screens will have more severe screen uniformity issues versus others. I can only speak for my personal experience, however let me give you a quick rundown of the best-performing ALR screens for overhead and off axis I have seen. I also listed these screens in my alternative to Black Diamond thread.

The best overhead light rejecting ALR screen I've ever seen is the Elite Prime vision Darkstar material. Both their 1.4 and .9 gain materials. It rejects up to 95% of overhead light. Four overhead can lights had virtually no effect on the screen's image quality and black levels. Also turning on ceiling fan lights had little effect on the screens image quality and black levels.

Best off-axis light rejecting material I've seen is the Pulsar. Placing any wall lighting or floor lamp lighting to the left and right side of the screen has little effect when using bulbs 800 lumens or less. It's overhead light rejecting capabilities are not quite as good as the Darkstar material, however it still rejects overhead light very well. It is comparable to the Black Diamond's overhead light rejecting capability. However it's off axis light rejecting capability is discernibly better than the Black Diamond's in my opinion.

If you are looking for an ALR screen with the most accurate color then you will need to look for an ISF certified ALR screen. This means that your ALR screen will not be altering the color balance in any way from your projector. This also means that you will not have to do any calibrations when first purchasing the screen and using it with your projector. The best ISF certified screens I've seen for color accuracy are the the Dalite Parallax, DNP 08 Blade, and the EPV Darkstar. The colors on the screens are spectacular out of the box when used with a accurately calibrated projector.

Something else to consider is how sensitive you are to shimmering, sparkles, sheen, graininess, color accuracy, and brightness uniformity. If you are someone who cannot stand any minor screen uniformity issues however you still want an alr screen, I can only suggest the best I've seen in the industry for image fidelity and screen uniformity without any of the aforementioned issues. These screens are the Dalite Parallax and DNP 08. Either of those two screens are the best I've seen when it comes to image fidelity with no visible alterations. However this comes at the expense of reduced alr capabilities. They have a wider viewing cone off-axis with no visible reduction in brightness therefore their ALR capability when it comes to protecting light off axis is average at best. However they're over head ambient light rejecting capability is solid. Their color accuracy and image fidelity is spectacular when used with the right projector.

I love high gain screens. So all of my alr screens have typically been over 1.0. However with added gain comes the possibility of shimmering. If you do not want to deal with any type of shimmering issue it is best to get a 1.0 or below gain ALR screen. Screens such as the DNP 08 Blade and the Dalite Parallax have fairly wide off access and overhead viewing cones. This is why they are so popular due to the image fidelity having little to no uniformity issues. However this is also why their alr capabilities are at the bottom of the list. So you have to choose what you want carefully and you can't have it all in any ALR screen. 

With all that being said the D.E.S. Pulsar screen was the perfect combination of what I was looking for. It's image quality is as uniform as the EPV Darkstar material in my opinion. However I could not put it in the same level for image fidelity as the Darkstar and DNP materials because the Pulsar will need to be calibrated for the most accurate image fidelity possible. The Pulsar retains black levels in the presence of moderate levels of ambient light better than the Black Diamond in my opinion and it also rejects overhead light somewhat better than the Black Diamond in my opinion. The Pulsar material has brightness comparable to the screen Innovations Slate combined with stronger ambient light rejecting capabilities comparable to the Black Diamond. This is what I've been searching for since I began my ALR screen journey. I wanted a screen bright enough to give me a plasma like image comparable to what I was receiving with the EPV Darkstar material.

I also wanted the alr screen to retain deep black levels comparable to what I was seeing with the Screen Innovations Black Diamond under the right lighting. I've accomplished all of those goals with the Dark Energy Screens Pulsar material and this is the happiest I've ever been with any home theater purchase outside of my Klipsch 535 Jubilee speakers. I'm ecstatic right now and can't wait to get home every night to watch movies and TV. I am very thankful that I was able to find this level of performance for such an affordable price.

The time has come for the niche alr market to evolve. I am thankful that Screen Innovations expanded the alr market and pretty much put the ALR niche market on the map to everyday consumers. However the days of charging exorbitant $5,000 prices for ALR materials is definitely something that needs competition to bring the prices down to affordable levels.

I do realize that everyone learns in a different manner. Some people prefer a more scientific, technical approach when doing their research. For those of you who want a more scientific, organized breakdown of how ALR materials from popular screen manufacturers compare, I advise looking up the ALR screen shootout article on projector central.com. With that being said I had seen all of the materials listed in the alr screen shootout long before that article was posted online. I'm someone who learns from first hand experience. Also my extreme obsessive compulsive disposition allows me to retain the most minute details about products that I see for long periods of time. So the alr shootout article on projector central.com only reaffirmed what I already knew. But it helped me understand that what I had experienced was accurate and that my own biases did not interfere with my memories on comparing products.

Anyone who's followed my post over the years before the shootout was posted, will see that my opinions were pretty much spot-on compared to what was posted in the ALR shootout. I state that because I know many question what I say here because I'm not a professional reviewer. Which is understandable. But I've stated before I do get out and see new products every month. And normally what I post here is spot-on when items are tested. So I do feel my opinion holds value.


----------



## LumensLover

I also apologize in advance for any mistakes in grammar you see from my long posts. Being that I have extreme obsessive compulsive disorder, I've sold all the computers in my house in order for my next computer upgrade. I cannot use my computer at work and I do not have a computer at home right now. I'm having to do all these long posts on my phone by using Google Voice text. Which is not very accurate. So I'm constantly having to go through all of my posts to find and correct errors.


----------



## Luminated67

That is seriously impressive, I honestly didn’t think a projector setup could ever replace a TV in an average living room but this has changed my mind.

P.S.
I like your speaker choice....... are they bookshelf ones. LOL


----------



## Paul Engle

For Lumens Lover: You have a great deal of experience with screens. I'd appreciate your advise. I have a dedicated theater so ambient light isn't a problem (not a bad cave but darkish walls). I have a 2 month old Sony 285. The $5k price barrier convinced me and I love it. I have a 12 year old Firehawk. 19:9 135" diagonal (not perforated). It's light grey looking in room light. Picture looks great but to my liking not bright enough and black is really black and detail lost. I would like a new screen that's brighter in this dedicated theater. I'd like to go bigger 135" 16:9 diagonal but recognize that might not be a good idea in this setup.
I'd appreciate your views.


----------



## LumensLover

Luminated67 said:


> That is seriously impressive, I honestly didn’t think a projector setup could ever replace a TV in an average living room but this has changed my mind.
> 
> P.S.
> I like your speaker choice....... are they bookshelf ones. LOL


Thank you very much for the kind words. And I just saw your post edit. It made me laugh out loud.

I too was coming to the same conclusion a few months ago. After cycling through countless ALR screens. I felt that there's no way the home theater experience will rival the plug-and-play feel of a TV setup. I'm also not someone who settles for "watchable" picture. Either the image quality is going to look good for most times of the day or it's not.

So after the last few alr purchase headaches I was ready to give up front projection altogether. The Dark Energy Screens Pulsar has restored my faith in front projection and showed me that under the right lighting conditions along with the right equipment, a front projector setup can definitely rival a TV in a non dedicated room. I am very thankful for this setup and I am enjoying it immensely at this time.


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 25


----------



## LumensLover

Paul Engle said:


> For Lumens Lover: You have a great deal of experience with screens. I'd appreciate your advise. I have a dedicated theater so ambient light isn't a problem (not a bad cave but darkish walls). I have a 2 month old Sony 285. The $5k price barrier convinced me and I love it. I have a 12 year old Firehawk. 19:9 135" diagonal (not perforated). It's light grey looking in room light. Picture looks great but to my liking not bright enough and black is really black and detail lost. I would like a new screen that's brighter in this dedicated theater. I'd like to go bigger 135" 16:9 diagonal but recognize that might not be a good idea in this setup.
> I'd appreciate your views.


For a 135 inch screen that is brighter than the Firehawk, I would recommend the Screen Innovations Slate. It shows a clean, refined image. It is one of the brightest alr screens I've seen. It is definitely brighter than the Firehawk and it will retain solid blacks levels under low amounts of ambient light. In a dark room, it shows a stellar image.


----------



## LumensLover

I finally feel that my front projection setup is perfect the way things look now. I would not change anything on this set up. My limiting factor now is the bulb' brightness in my projector. I know that due to my obsessive compulsive nature, as soon as the bulb starts to dim it is going to irritate the hell out of me. I can't wait for an affordable 2000 lumens laser projector with high contrast to become available under $5,000. That will be the last piece of equipment I need to keep this setup looking as grand as it does now with no deterioration in brightness quality over time(at least for a few years.)

My front projector setup definitely looks like a large plasma now. The only other setup I've seen that looks more vivid with strong black levels under moderate amounts of ambient light is the Sony VPLVZ1000ESSKU short throw laser projector paired with a custom Screen Innovations short-throw ALR screen. I saw those two together in a showroom with five overhead lights on and one light on to the side. It look like a hundred inch TV with no loss in image quality, brightness, or black levels. From the moment I saw that, I was awestruck and it has been my goal to duplicate that set up at home. I must say that this setup I have now comes darn close to it.


----------



## LumensLover

Ftoast said:


> Would you be willing/able to set something like a small desklamp (or flashlight in a pinch) on the floor against the wall beneath the screen where it shines up sideways across the screen, then share words (or even pictures) of how dark-colored the Pulsar looks compared to the BD1.4, CineGrey5D, Slate, and MatineeBlack with the projector off and that light as the only strong light hitting them?
> 
> Something like this would give me a more apples-to-apples way to follow along at home since DarkEnergy doesn't provide/sell samples anymore, and it sounds like the Pulsar is working great!


I will take a picture with the flashlight this evening. However did you want me to do this with the room completely dark or with lights on?

As far as the shade of color of the screen, I've seen it side-by-side next to the Black Diamond 1.4. The Pulsar material is about 20% darker than the Black Diamond 1.4 material. It is definitely not a lighter shade of grey like the Screen Innovations Slate material. It is also discernibly darker than the Elite Crooks Cinegrey 5D material.


----------



## Ftoast

I'd like the room dark (aside from the single light hitting both the screen and sample/s at an extreme angle from below, against the wall) if possible.


----------



## Ftoast

LumensLover said:


> I tried taking some pictures and a video in the dark last night however my phone's anti-glare function was still kicking in due to the brightness of the screen. So that won't work. Ftoast I could not find my high lumen LED flashlight. I will go out to purchase another one today and see if I can get your question answered tonight.


It didn't have to be super bright or anything fancy, just a light that you can move near the floor+wall and shine upward. A little study lamp or even a phone flashlight could probably work as long as it makes enough light for you to see some differences between the screens/materials. ...unless you also need to make sure you have a flashlight handy for reasons besides this.


----------



## LumensLover

Ftoast said:


> It didn't have to be super bright or anything fancy, just a light that you can move near the floor+wall and shine upward. A little study lamp or even a phone flashlight could probably work as long as it makes enough light for you to see some differences between the screens/materials. ...unless you also need to make sure you have a flashlight handy for reasons besides this.


Okay got it. Will do it tonight in a dark room.


----------



## tigerfan33

After talking to Stephen, I’ve decided to go with 1.4. He feels the added contrast should even out or add more to the loss of brightness. Plus the fact when I Watch most of the time I’m probably getting maybe 1.5 to 1.8 gain from the HP using my Sony hw40.
Thanks Lumens for your help.
Keep those pics coming!


----------



## LumensLover

To everyone else in this thread I want to state that I normally prefer a very streamlined ordering system. I don't like talking to a middle man or anyone else before making a purchase. I do my own research and when I'm ready to purchase a product I'm already well-versed on said the product at the time of ordering. However, I can understand wanting to talk to customers first before orders go out. This is for two major reasons. Keep in mind these are my opinions and do not reflect in any way Dark Energy screens. 

First thing is that starting a small business, inventory is hard to come by. So when I ran my business I normally had inventory made-to-order but I could not afford to purchase inventory first and have it sitting and waiting on customers to purchase it. Second thing is returns are a very big deal when you are running a small business with with a slim profit margin. Constant returns killed one of my previous businesses. So in that respect, I can understand wanting to talk to customers to make sure they fully understand the product they're ordering. 

For example if someone has a great room with huge windows around near the ceiling and does not want to use curtains, this is going to have constant blazing sunlight throughout the room in the day dowsing an ambient light projection screen, such a room is setting said screen up for failure. Then said party may want to return the product because it does not meet their expectations.

Another example is someone say wanting a large 135 inch screen in a below gain material. If paired with the wrong projector this screen may appear too dim for the customer's liking. Or once the lamp hits 500 hours, customers might no longer be content with the brightness of the screen. Which once again could result in a return.

I also want to add, that after a year of bombarding D.E.S threads with brightness questions, I went against my normal judgment and decided to call Steven to talk about a possible order. I will admit I was expecting a used car salesman approach with someone telling me basic information that I already know and trying to force the product down my throat. I must say I was pleasantly surprised that Steven was totally opposite. 

He was very helpful and patient and did not try to push the product on me. Even after not showing definite purchasing interest and entering Dark Energy Screens product threads for over a year asking repeated questions about brightness, projector use, and projector brightness modes he was still patient with me when I called back to finally put in order a year after first inquiring about his products. So once again I'm not trying to upsell anyone but I will give credit where credit is due for good customer service.


----------



## Paul Engle

LumensLover said:


> For a 135 inch screen that is brighter than the Firehawk, I would recommend the Screen Innovations Slate. It shows a clean, refined image. It is one of the brightest alr screens I've seen. It is definitely brighter than the Firehawk and it will retain solid blacks levels under low amounts of ambient light. In a dark room, it shows a stellar image.


Surprised you wouldn't recommend the DEA Pulsar.


----------



## LumensLover

Paul Engle said:


> Surprised you wouldn't recommend the DEA Pulsar.


I would love to recommend it. But I thought that DES does not make screens larger than 120 inch diagonal. I apologize if I misunderstood your question. If you're asking about a 135 inch scope screen which is bright and retains strong black levels levels, I highly recommend the Pulsar.


----------



## humbland

I have been following this thread with interest.
I emailed DES and asked them about the availability of electric drpo screens. I got an immediate response from CS:
"Unfortunately we do not offer a roll down version at this time, but we can laminate our material onto an existing one". 
Aparently several customers have drop shipped a tab tensioned screen directly to DES and they have laminated their screen on to it, then shipped it out to the end customer. I asked for further info and cost projections, but got no response...
Have any of you ever heard of anything like this? Our set up requires an electric drop.
Thanks in advance


----------



## LumensLover

humbland said:


> I have been following this thread with interest.
> I emailed DES and asked them about the availability of electric drpo screens. I got an immediate response from CS:
> "Unfortunately we do not offer a roll down version at this time, but we can laminate our material onto an existing one".
> Aparently several customers have drop shipped a tab tensioned screen directly to DES and they have laminated their screen on to it, then shipped it out to the end customer. I asked for further info and cost projections, but got no response...
> Have any of you ever heard of anything like this? Our set up requires an electric drop.
> Thanks in advance


For this type of question, I would strongly recommend calling Dark Energy Screens directly and talking to Stephen. Hopefully he can help you get the product you're looking for.

You can always ship the screen material from a pre-existing tab tension screen and D.E.S. can laminate it for you. From what I've been told the results should be identical to their manufactured screens.


----------



## tigerfan33

I’ve emailed Stephen over this past year and he was very quick to respond with detailed answers.
The total opposite feedback you would get from Microlite Screens...if they still exist.


----------



## LumensLover

Here are your requested pics Mr. French Toast


----------



## LumensLover

More


----------



## humbland

LumensLover said:


> For this type of question, I would strongly recommend calling Dark Energy Screens directly and talking to Stephen. Hopefully he can help you get the product you're looking for.
> 
> You can always ship the screen material from a pre-existing tab tension screen and D.E.S. can laminate it for you. From what I've been told the results should be identical to their manufactured screens.


Stephen was the guy who responded initially.
Perhaps the answer depends on a number of different factors that were not easily determined, so he did not follow up....


----------



## Ftoast

LumensLover said:


> Here are your requested pics Mr. French Toast


I might've worded my request awkwardly. I'm interested how the DE Pulsar looks with a sample of SI BlackDiamond1.4 resting on top (near center if possible) with a light shining basically straight up across the screen+sample at the same time...viewed from the middle (like your middle seat, but likely closer so you can see differences a bit more easily).
Sorry for the confusion. 
I'm fine with you describing the difference instead of taking pictures if you'd prefer.


----------



## LumensLover

Ftoast said:


> I might've worded my request awkwardly. I'm interested how the DE Pulsar looks with a sample of SI BlackDiamond1.4 resting on top (near center if possible) with a light shining basically straight up across the screen+sample at the same time...viewed from the middle (like your middle seat, but likely closer so you can see differences a bit more easily).
> Sorry for the confusion.
> I'm fine with you describing the difference instead of taking pictures if you'd prefer.


Sorry I misinterpreted your previous post. I gave away my Black Diamond samples to other members here. I've had seven Black Diamond screens over the last 3 years so every aspect for every generation of the BD 1.4 material is burned into my brain at this point. I could potentially order another sample from Screen Innovations for comparison purposes only. However I can say from experience that if you were to see these screens in passing you will not be able to tell the difference from the materials. I can tell that the Pulsar is somewhat darker just because I'm so familiar with the Black Diamond material but most people will not be able to see the difference.


----------



## Stattico

humbland said:


> I have been following this thread with interest.
> I emailed DES and asked them about the availability of electric drpo screens. I got an immediate response from CS:
> "Unfortunately we do not offer a roll down version at this time, but we can laminate our material onto an existing one".
> Aparently several customers have drop shipped a tab tensioned screen directly to DES and they have laminated their screen on to it, then shipped it out to the end customer. I asked for further info and cost projections, but got no response...
> Have any of you ever heard of anything like this? Our set up requires an electric drop.
> Thanks in advance


Maybe just a delay leading into the weekend? I am super interested in this scenario as well. Did you ask about the rollable screens they fused theirs too? What was the best base layer? Any thoughts on how they held up over time?

In my scenario (pic attached) my assumption is that a 110" screen under the soffit against the back wall where the TV is would be horrible in terms of reflection/glare from above. So my thinking is that a retractable screen a few feet closer against the lip / front face of the soffit will be the best. *LumensLover*, any thoughts on this based on your ALR experiences?

Project choice is most likely the JVC RS640.


----------



## bud16415

Stattico said:


> Maybe just a delay leading into the weekend? I am super interested in this scenario as well. Did you ask about the rollable screens they fused theirs too? What was the best base layer? Any thoughts on how they held up over time?
> 
> In my scenario (pic attached) my assumption is that a 110" screen under the soffit against the back wall where the TV is would be horrible in terms of reflection/glare from above. So my thinking is that a retractable screen a few feet closer against the lip / front face of the soffit will be the best. *LumensLover*, any thoughts on this based on your ALR experiences?
> 
> Project choice is most likely the JVC RS640.


Don’t you think they are just painting their screen surface onto the screen you ship them. If they actually attached another screen to the one you shipped them it would be thicker and would roll up to a larger diameter who knows if it would even fit in the case. Then the bonding between the two would be stressed when rolling and how could they know the bond would be good as every screen has different coatings and such. With the extra weight of two screens how much harder would it work the drive for the screen. 

If I had an old screen sitting around I might think about doing this but to go buy a new tab tension screen and then risk having it modified, No way.


----------



## humbland

Stattico said:


> Maybe just a delay leading into the weekend? I am super interested in this scenario as well. Did you ask about the rollable screens they fused theirs too? What was the best base layer? Any thoughts on how they held up over time?
> 
> "I'm Stephen McGuire with Dark Energy Screens and we greatly appreciate your interest in our advanced ALR projection systems. Unfortunately we do not offer a roll down version at this time, but we can laminate our material onto an existing one. However, since it's not our screen.. I can't make any gaurantess nor can I warranty it either. If you are still interested, I would be happy to do that for you. Some customers in the past have purchased a tab-tension screen and had it shipped directly to us where we would resurface it with our material. Then we would simpl ship it to you through whatever shipping means is necessary. The outbound shipping of such a big box can be quite expensive though. Just let us know if this is something you would be interested in persuing and we will gladly work out the details. Until then, thank you for your interest in DES and we look foward to your reply."
> 
> Above is the email I received four days ago. I asked for further details and a rough estimate on modifying a 110" diagonal Elite Cinetension2 electric drop screen.
> 
> Perhaps I will hear back this week sometime. I'll post back if I hear something.


----------



## LumensLover

Stattico said:


> Maybe just a delay leading into the weekend? I am super interested in this scenario as well. Did you ask about the rollable screens they fused theirs too? What was the best base layer? Any thoughts on how they held up over time?
> 
> In my scenario (pic attached) my assumption is that a 110" screen under the soffit against the back wall where the TV is would be horrible in terms of reflection/glare from above. So my thinking is that a retractable screen a few feet closer against the lip / front face of the soffit will be the best. *LumensLover*, any thoughts on this based on your ALR experiences?
> 
> Project choice is most likely the JVC RS640.


Sorry for the late reply, but it appears that humblin has answered your question.


----------



## LumensLover

Ftoast here is a pic of a 1.4 Black Diamond sample on top of a 1.4 Pulsar screen.


----------



## Stattico

LumensLover said:


> Sorry for the late reply, but it appears that humblin has answered your question.


Actually can you take a look at my picture and soffit question? Curious to know from your experience if you think ALR would help in this scenario.


----------



## LumensLover

Stattico said:


> Actually can you take a look at my picture and soffit question? Curious to know from your experience if you think ALR would help in this scenario.


Is there light coming from any Windows hitting the area where the TV is directly?


----------



## Stattico

LumensLover said:


> Is there light coming from any Windows hitting the area where the TV is directly?


Yeah from the right there is a glass door (I've been told I can't cover it up with a curtain, but can put frosted film over it). And to the left it is open to the kitchen. Picture attached.


----------



## LumensLover

Stattico said:


> Yeah from the right there is a glass door (I've been told I can't cover it up with a curtain, but can put frosted film over it). And to the left it is open to the kitchen. Picture attached.


That will be a bit of a gamble because it will depend on what angle the sun is hitting the area during the day. I know most days I keep my drapes open in my loft and my air screen works exceedingly well. However there a few days each month where the sun is angled at a certain direction and the light will be hitting my screen directly and I will experience some washout. On those few days I have to use drapes in order to maintain solid picture. If you cannot use drapes at all due to the patio doors then you might be safer going with a TV in that room.


----------



## Stattico

LumensLover said:


> That will be a bit of a gamble because it will depend on what angle the sun is hitting the area during the day. I know most days I keep my drapes open in my loft and my air screen works exceedingly well. However there a few days each month where the sun is angled at a certain direction and the light will be hitting my screen directly and I will experieemce some washout. On those few days I have to use drapes in order to maintain solid picture. If you cannot use drapes at all due to the patio doors then you might be safer going with a TV in that room.


Well I am pretty luck that the door faces North, and it's a covered patio and I live in the Seattle area. Thanks for the fast replies and for posting these reviews, super informative as I lead up to my first PJ purchase.


----------



## LumensLover

Stattico said:


> Well I am pretty luck that the door faces North, and it's a covered patio and I live in the Seattle area. Thanks for the fast replies and for posting these reviews, super informative as I lead up to my first PJ purchase.


Okay well both the Pulsar and the Abyss have strong off-axis ambient light rejection. In my previous condo, I had patio doors to the right and light coming from an open kitchen to the left. I was using a Black Diamond 1.4 during that time. On most days the picture was very watchable in the day and awesome in the evening using a floor lamp to the right of the screen. So it can be done as long as you have realistic expectations.

Can you install room darkening panels or vertical blinds over your patio doors?


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 26 Eye Candy under 800 lumens bulb on both sides of screen. Projector in eco mode.


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 27 Vivid colors and solid contrast with moderate amount of ambient light in room.


----------



## LumensLover

This thread is Bolo approved.


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 28 Let there be light


----------



## LumensLover

Please keep in mind I do not watch TV and movies under these high levels of ambient light like I'm showing in the aforementioned pictures. I'm doing this to show this screen's marvelous ability to retain a quality image under heavy amounts of ambient light. I have no need for 800 Lumen bulbs and such a high level of ambient light all the time, but I want everyone to see what this screen can do in both low and high amounts of ambient light.


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 29 110" tv under heavy and moderate amount of ambient light.


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 30


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 31 The money shot under heavy amount of ambient light. Notice solid black level contrasted with retention of color in gold MGM insignia. You will need to zoom in on the first picture to get the full effect of how solid the black levels are under heavy amount of ambient light in my room.


----------



## LumensLover

Getting so excited just thinking about the screen right now that I don't want to go to work in the morning. I continue to wait for someone to pinch me and I wake up and this is all just a dream. I did not think this screen would be the answer to my front projector setup journey so I had already made plans to purchase a 85 inch Sony TV at the end of March. Thie performance of this screen has blown that plan away. So happy with the screen that I can't express it in words right now.


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 32 Darkness fend off the light.


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 33


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 33


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 34


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 35


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 36


----------



## markmon1

This screen sounds interesting. Too bad its limited to such small sizes. I'm out.


----------



## guitarchitect

just curious, have you ever been able to compare it to a painted screen? I'm finally getting back to my screen after having an unsatisfactory viewing of The Ritual (lots of washed out shadows), and the last place I left my screen explorations was at the level of flat grey paint. I have a very light room but with good light control. I have a dynamic iris on my projector (Epson 3100), but it's just too aggrivating to use. 

I really want to love DEA but in all seriousness, the website is horrible. Really, really horrible. The first few times I came across it, I thought it was a scam site. Even the photos / demos aren't that great - like there's one with someone's bare feet in it?! I've done a few websites (and I'm a professional photographer for architecture + interiors) and part of me wants to redesign it for him, top to bottom, in exchange for a screen!  That being said, the one time I emailed him the formatting of the response was almost as illegible as the site... it breaks my heart because everything points to it being a great product. Sure, maybe I'm being picky/snobby, but I think there's a lot to be said for having a polished presence when the product is highly technical.


----------



## LumensLover

guitarchitect said:


> just curious, have you ever been able to compare it to a painted screen? I'm finally getting back to my screen after having an unsatisfactory viewing of The Ritual (lots of washed out shadows), and the last place I left my screen explorations was at the level of flat grey paint. I have a very light room but with good light control. I have a dynamic iris on my projector (Epson 3100), but it's just too aggrivating to use.
> 
> I really want to love DEA but in all seriousness, the website is horrible. Really, really horrible. The first few times I came across it, I thought it was a scam site. Even the photos / demos aren't that great - like there's one with someone's bare feet in it?! I've done a few websites (and I'm a professional photographer for architecture + interiors) and part of me wants to redesign it for him, top to bottom, in exchange for a screen!  That being said, the one time I emailed him the formatting of the response was almost as illegible as the site... it breaks my heart because everything points to it being a great product. Sure, maybe I'm being picky/snobby, but I think there's a lot to be said for having a polished presence when the product is highly technical.


I understand your trepidation. It took me over a year before I built up the gumption to place an order with D.E.S. As far as your paint question, I did experiment with various paints before I went to ALR screens. To be flat out honest every paint combination I tried sucked majorly under ambient light. I would not touch any type of painted screen again.


----------



## Dave in Green

LumensLover said:


> ... As for pricing, the owner does not want that information given out. ...


It was bizarre enough when I pointed out on this forum the fact that the prices for DEA screens were listed on the Jamestown Home Theater Screen website and within hours the prices were deleted from that site so hurriedly that they forgot to delete the line to see prices below.

It's beyond bizarre for a vendor to demand that no customer buying their product is free to mention the price paid. It's not only not a normal way to conduct business but demonstrates a level of secrecy reminiscent of a cult. Surely everyone understands why all of this naturally leads to skepticism.

A little healthy skepticism is never a bad thing even with the most tested and proven products. In situations with an unusual number of question marks a higher degree of skepticism should be no surprise but should be expected and accepted as healthy.

The product may be as good as those posting here seem to think it is, and in time as hard data becomes available more people may tend to look at it differently. But all the glowing prose and all the cell phone photos in the world would not be sufficient to offset the healthy skepticism that has been and will continue to be expressed due to all the unusual circumstances.


----------



## guitarchitect

Dave in Green said:


> It was bizarre enough when I pointed out on this forum the fact that the prices for DEA screens were listed on the Jamestown Home Theater Screen website and within hours the prices were deleted from that site so hurriedly that they forgot to delete the line to see prices below.
> 
> It's beyond bizarre for a vendor to demand that no customer buying their product is free to mention the price paid. It's not only not a normal way to conduct business but demonstrates a level of secrecy reminiscent of a cult. Surely everyone understands why all of this naturally leads to skepticism.
> 
> A little healthy skepticism is never a bad thing even with the most tested and proven products. In situations with an unusual number of question marks a higher degree of skepticism should be no surprise but should be expected and accepted as healthy.
> 
> The product may be as good as those posting here seem to think it is, and in time as hard data becomes available more people may tend to look at it differently. But all the glowing prose and all the cell phone photos in the world would not be sufficient to offset the healthy skepticism that has been and will continue to be expressed due to all the unusual circumstances.


For what it's worth it was around $650 for the DIY Flex material @ 100" (not the pulsar). It's absurd to think that numbers can't be distributed widely and freely, it's just information and it's shared with anyone who expresses an interest in purchasing. There's nothing stating secrecy in any of the emails, either. They also offer a full refund if you're not happy, which is a valuable thing to have!


----------



## bud16415

With all the 100’s of screen shots in this thread when do we get to see one where the light source is down by the viewer. 

Isn’t it logical if someone is building a room they might like light down where they are sitting so they can see what they are eating? No one I know wants to add lights in at the screen end of the room. Now I know those lights are supposed to represent windows or something in the room so if I have a room with windows I just get some black out blinds and block the light out. That’s a lot cheaper than any kind of screen. In a room where people want a ALR it could be for screen reflection off of white walls and ceilings or it could be they want to turn on some lights down on the end of the room where they sit. 

You have those big black speakers blocking most of the light from those “high lumen” lights. Bring one of those lights up and sit it under the projector so we can see what happens. We have see 100 of the off to the side ones. 

I have posted photos before with the same brightness of light as the projector directly under the projector and pointed to the screen before.


----------



## LumensLover

Dave in Green said:


> It was bizarre enough when I pointed out on this forum the fact that the prices for DEA screens were listed on the Jamestown Home Theater Screen website and within hours the prices were deleted from that site so hurriedly that they forgot to delete the line to see prices below.
> 
> It's beyond bizarre for a vendor to demand that no customer buying their product is free to mention the price paid. It's not only not a normal way to conduct business but demonstrates a level of secrecy reminiscent of a cult. Surely everyone understands why all of this naturally leads to skepticism.
> 
> A little healthy skepticism is never a bad thing even with the most tested and proven products. In situations with an unusual number of question marks a higher degree of skepticism should be no surprise but should be expected and accepted as healthy.
> 
> The product may be as good as those posting here seem to think it is, and in time as hard data becomes available more people may tend to look at it differently. But all the glowing prose and all the cell phone photos in the world would not be sufficient to offset the healthy skepticism that has been and will continue to be expressed due to all the unusual circumstances.


You are free to have your own opinion. Some of the issues you bring up about this small business are warranted. But as I stated before, I'm not the business owner nor am I here to represent the business.

I'm only here to share my joy for a product I'm very happy with. I know you are not interested in purchasing any alr material and I also know Bud is not interesting in purchasing any alr material. I find it extremely boring to argue about the merits of a product that someone has no intent on purchasing or at least seeing in person. So to you I also say to have a blessed day. I will not be responding to your skepticism in this thread.


----------



## bud16415

Here is my screen with the lights out and here it is with 3000 lumens of white light shooting straight to the screen directly below the projector.


----------



## LumensLover

Once again to the same two disinterested parties in this thread. I've stated before I will not respond to you any further in this thread. So sending countless posts waiting on a response, counter, or retort will go unanswered. You will not get any rebuttals from me. Once again, have a blessed day.


----------



## LumensLover

guitarchitect said:


> For what it's worth it was around $650 for the DIY Flex material @ 100" (not the pulsar). It's absurd to think that numbers can't be distributed widely and freely, it's just information and it's shared with anyone who expresses an interest in purchasing. There's nothing stating secrecy in any of the emails, either. They also offer a full refund if you're not happy, which is a valuable thing to have!


I concur. Anyone interested can contact Dark Energy screens and ask for a quote. They also offer a return policy so if you get screen that you are not happy with, you can return it for a refund. Simple as that.


----------



## Dave in Green

For the record I don't expect any counters, retorts, rebuttals or responses of any kind to any comments or observations I make on this forum unless I directly ask someone to specifically address an issue I have a question about. I also don't make assumptions about what other forum members may or may not be interested in or whether that has any bearing on whether or not they should be posting in a given thread. AVS Forum has always been all about everyone feeling free to express their opinions within any thread as long as they abide by the rules of the forum. That includes expressing satisfaction, dissatisfaction or skepticism about any concept or product. Most of the forum rules are aimed at maintaining civility among all forum members and respecting the right of those we may disagree with to hold differing opinions. So we all seem to be on good footing here.


----------



## unretarded

bud16415 said:


> Here is my screen with the lights out and here it is with 3000 lumens of white light shooting straight to the screen directly below the projector.





You sure that's 3000 lumens, not 300 ?




In my business , I sold high end flashlights and a 300 lumens flashlight will completely delete the entire picture from a screen, like not even tell a PJ is even throwing a image.


----------



## LumensLover

The following pictures will show an image with all available light on in my loft with the exception of the ceiling fan light because it is in the same direction as as the projector. This includes light from the front wall lights, rear wall lights, side hallway light, stairs light, side corner lamp, and light bleed from kitchen and living room lights on downstairs.


----------



## LumensLover

Here are pictures of the various light positions in my room. Note that the front wall lights are behind my speakers so there is no way my speakers can block the light from them bleeding on to my screen. I will also post a picture of the light bleed onto my screen.


----------



## LumensLover

All lights on in room


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 37 The truth and the light

Notice the contrast that can still be discerned between the starlight and the darkness of space. Also notice how the details of the ship and the vibrant color of the ship's exhaust are still visible under an extremely heavy amount of ambient light in the room.


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 38 notice how the details in the space background are still clearly evident. The stars are readily visible. The darkness of space in the background is readily visible. This image on a regular wall would be completely washed out. This image on a regular white screen or gray screen would be completely washed out. This image on most of the ambient light rejecting screens that I've used would be completely washed out. However the images are still very much watchable in my room under a heavy amount of ambient light which no one would ever use.


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 39 proof all lights were on while the aforementioned image was taken


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 40 Light bleed from adjacent lights


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 41 110 inch TV in Loft with all available lights on.


----------



## LumensLover

In this loft I've had the Black Diamond, the Darkstar, the Seymour Matinee Black, the Cinegray 5D, and numerous painted screens. They were all quickly humbled and completely washed out when I placed all the lights on in the loft. But notice how the Dark Energy Screens Pulsar retains a very solid image under horrible amounts of ambient light in the same room. I rest my case.


----------



## bud16415

unretarded said:


> You sure that's 3000 lumens, not 300 ?


What I had for a light source was (4) 75 watt incandescent flood lights. I think they are about 800 lumens each. But they covered an area as large as the whole wall .


----------



## Dave in Green

guitarchitect said:


> For what it's worth it was around $650 for the DIY Flex material @ 100" (not the pulsar). It's absurd to think that numbers can't be distributed widely and freely, it's just information and it's shared with anyone who expresses an interest in purchasing. There's nothing stating secrecy in any of the emails, either. They also offer a full refund if you're not happy, which is a valuable thing to have!


This is good to know in keeping with the spirit of this forum to share useful information with fellow AV enthusiasts. It helps reduce concern about a cultish level of secrecy. That $650 for raw screen material fits with what I recall about finished screen pricing before it was deleted from the Jamestown site. As I recall finished screens in the 100" range were priced in the $1,000 range.

That would put pricing square in the middle between the lower cost ALR material from Carl's and Elite and the higher cost material from premium screen companies that can run into the thousands. If DEA performance exceeds the lower cost ALR screens and approaches that of the higher cost screens then it would fit well into the ALR screen universe. It only remains for more definitive proof of performance to be demonstrated. For example it's a shame that DEA wasn't included in projectorcentral.com's extensive ALR screen comparison.

Hopefully others will contribute data and opinions to this thread, whether pro, con or skeptical. Good discussions reflecting all points of view on various AV subjects are what first drew me to start reading this forum nearly 15 years ago and join 4 years ago to start participating in the discussions.


----------



## guitarchitect

LumensLover said:


> Pics 41 110 inch TV in Loft with all available lights on.


This is really great to see - I have a similar situation in that my walls are very light. 
Is there a danger going with a 1.4 screen if one has light walls? I was always thinking that I should go for a low gain screen, especially since my projector is fairly bright on the dimmest setting (Epson 3100). But part of me thinks that the high gain is needed with such a dark screen, for a contrast boost... in other words a very dark high gain screen leaves a different impression than a white high-gain screen? I have low ceilings (6'4") in my basement so it's a bit of a tight space, so light bleed on the walls is pretty bad. we keep things totally dark when watching a movie but with friends + things over I'd like to have low ambient light!


----------



## LumensLover

guitarchitect said:


> This is really great to see - I have a similar situation in that my walls are very light.
> Is there a danger going with a 1.4 screen if one has light walls? I was always thinking that I should go for a low gain screen, especially since my projector is fairly bright on the dimmest setting (Epson 3100). But part of me thinks that the high gain is needed with such a dark screen, for a contrast boost... in other words a very dark high gain screen leaves a different impression than a white high-gain screen? I have low ceilings (6'4") in my basement so it's a bit of a tight space, so light bleed on the walls is pretty bad. we keep things totally dark when watching a movie but with friends + things over I'd like to have low ambient light!


This is a tough question to answer since you do have a very bright projector. I had the same dilemma when debating between the Abyss and the Pulsar before placing my order with Dark Energy Screens. My walls are a taupe color and I was nervous that 1.4 gain screen might not be enough to retain strong black levels under moderate amounts of ambient light. However my pictures show that the 1.4 gain Pulsar has no problem with low to moderate amounts of ambient light in my loft. 

With that being said the .9 gain material would most likely give you the strongest black levels without the possibility of shimmering from added gain. It depends on what size of screen you plan to go with. But if you want the strongest black levels possible I would advise the Dark Energy Screens Abyss. However if you want strong black levels plus a brighter screen then I would recommend the Pulsar. Both have very strong off axis light rejection. So you can't go wrong with either product. It just depends on how bright you like your screen in a low amount of ambient light or in a dark room.

I wanted to get as close as possible to TV brightness since I am a lover of lumens as my screen name denotes. I was willing to risk losing some black level and the possibility of shimmering to gain the benefits of a brighter screen. The wonderful thing about the Abyss and the Pulsar are they are both dark colored materials except one has gain added. So as I stated before I don't think you can go wrong with either product.

In conclusion, if you want the strongest black levels possible and if you are willing to give up some brightness, go with the Abyss. If you want a brighter screen with strong off axis ALR ability, and you're willing to potentially give up some black levels in exchange for added brightness, go with the Pulsar.


----------



## guitarchitect

LumensLover said:


> This is a tough question to answer since you do have a very bright projector. I had the same dilemma when debating between the Abyss and the Pulsar before placing my order with Dark Energy Screens. My walls are a taupe color and I was nervous that 1.4 gain screen might not be enough to retain strong black levels under moderate amounts of ambient light. However my pictures show that the 1.4 gain Pulsar has no problem with low to moderate amounts of ambient light in my loft.
> 
> With that being said the .9 gain material would most likely give you the strongest black levels without the possibility of shimmering from added gain. It depends on what size of screen you plan to go with. But if you want the strongest black levels possible I would advise the Dark Energy Screens Abyss. However if you want strong black levels plus a brighter screen then I would recommend the Pulsar. Both have very strong off axis light rejection. So you can't go wrong with either product. It just depends on how bright you like your screen in a low amount of ambient light or in a dark room.
> 
> I wanted to get as close as possible to TV brightness since I am a lover of lumens as my screen name denotes. I was willing to risk losing some black level and the possibility of shimmering to gain the benefits of a brighter screen. The wonderful thing about the Abyss and the Pulsar are they are both dark colored materials except one has gain added. So as I stated before I don't think you can go wrong with either product.
> 
> In conclusion, if you want the strongest black levels possible and if you are willing to give up some brightness, go with the Abyss. If you want a brighter screen with strong off axis ALR ability, and you're willing to potentially give up some black levels in exchange for added brightness, go with the Pulsar.


When you say strongest blacks possible, though, what are the chances that dark areas become muddy? That was my issue this weekend - I was watching The Ritual which has some very dark scenes (or scenes with dark areas and light areas), and the dark areas were a big muddy pile of black. Part of me thinks it was a netflix issue, because i'm pretty sure the algorithms they use to transmit films drastically reduce dynamic range (banding in scenes with blue skies gave that away), but part of me thinks that it was also being washed out from all of the ambient light in the room from the light part of the scene. I can imagine that a dark screen could affect it the opposite way, where it's tough to establish shadow detail because of the darkness of the material. I can imagine a 1.4 gain "boosting" any minimal light in those dark areas, but I'd definitely be worried about shimmer, too. I guess it's up to me to decide which I hate least!


----------



## TheGrendl

LumensLover said:


> Definitely suggest the Pulsar for any JVC projector since they are not overly bright and the added gain from the Pulsar will definitely benefit them. JVC black levels plus the Pulsar would be immaculate.


man, after reading this thread, i wondering if i should send my Silver Ticket white back. I'm running a JVC 420. it looks fantastic at night. but, any natural light and its super washed out. i am starting to realize i don't want to be in a completely blacked out room all of the time.


----------



## bud16415

TheGrendl said:


> man, after reading this thread, i wondering if i should send my Silver Ticket white back. I'm running a JVC 420. it looks fantastic at night. but, any natural light and its super washed out. i am starting to realize i don't want to be in a completely blacked out room all of the time.


You mentioned the show “The Ritual” I haven’t watched that but I got curious and I looked on line for it and found the preview for it on Youtube. 






Maybe you can get @LumensLover to play that demo and pause it on a couple of the dark night time images with his room lights on and take a couple screen shots so we can see how the screen holds up to night images with the lights on. 1:09 is a good one where we want to see the tree limbs thru the night darkness. 1:24, 1:44, 2:07, etc. 

With your JVC and a white screen that should be killer on dark detail with all the lights out. But you want to see similar detail with the lights on with this screen. If he could show us I might be thinking a upgrade as well.


----------



## LumensLover

guitarchitect said:


> When you say strongest blacks possible, though, what are the chances that dark areas become muddy? That was my issue this weekend - I was watching The Ritual which has some very dark scenes (or scenes with dark areas and light areas), and the dark areas were a big muddy pile of black. Part of me thinks it was a netflix issue, because i'm pretty sure the algorithms they use to transmit films drastically reduce dynamic range (banding in scenes with blue skies gave that away), but part of me thinks that it was also being washed out from all of the ambient light in the room from the light part of the scene. I can imagine that a dark screen could affect it the opposite way, where it's tough to establish shadow detail because of the darkness of the material. I can imagine a 1.4 gain "boosting" any minimal light in those dark areas, but I'd definitely be worried about shimmer, too. I guess it's up to me to decide which I hate least!


I know exactly what you are saying. Anytime you go with a below gain screen you run the risk of an overly dim image especially during dark scenes. When I first received my Black Diamond .8 gain screen I was enthralled.

Blacks were by far the strongest that I had seen at that time of any ALR screen. However the more content I watched over time, I noticed during dark scenes I could not make out any details. Especially outdoor night scenes. I was constantly messing with the gamma setting and shadow detail was nonexistent. Brighter projectors helped, but then that got me into low contrast, high lumens territory.

So in the end I had to sell my .8 gain Black Diamond. So that is the risk you take with a below gain alr screen however if you're going with a smaller size that might not be an issue. But if you're going closer to 120 inch diagonal that can definitely be an issue with the wrong projector.


----------



## bud16415

The difference between a 1.0 gain screen and a .8 gain screen is 20% loss in brightness. That is it. if you increase the brightness by 20% the image is going to be exactly the same. 

But what is a .8 gain ALR screen? It can be a hundred different things. You can start with a 1.0 gain white screen and darken the pigment in it until it is a .2 gain dark gray and then you can add qualities to it to bring the gain back up by reducing the viewing cone. It is still that dark color but now all the light that would be projected around the room is focused back to where the viewers are at and it can become a “.8 gain” again. If you want to add enough angular gain back in it can even go higher than 1.0 gain. 

It is robbing Peter to pay Paul. There are no mysteries about it. 

The nice thing about angular gain is it works like a mirror. Take your flashlight and shine it at a mirror. The angle it hits the mirror it reflects off at the same angle. So if you shine it from the side (ambient light) it reflects off to the other side of the room and nothing back to the viewers location. There however is always advantages and disadvantages to everything and the trick with ALR is to minimize the bad stuff and get more good stuff. it can never be better than no ambient light in the first place.


----------



## nissand

This review has been helpful, along w all the pictures. I contacted them before this was posted but, unfortunately, they weren't able to accommodate bc I'm looking for a 150" 16:9 screen. Their response was very helpful and comprehensive though, so I wouldn't question their integrity or passion for the product.

However, I can't stand when vendors don't want to be transparent in their pricing. Forums are probably the last remaining places where vendors play these "PM me for pricing" antics. It is detrimental to the experience and adds unnecessary friction, even for serious buyers. There's a reason why Amazon pushes so hard to make purchasing frictionless -- it's a better customer experience. I understand if it's for products that require MRP but, otherwise, what's the point? 

Anyway, their 120" 16:9 Infinity SS screen quotes at $1,900 shipped.


----------



## FNwoz

LumensLover I just want to say I think its great you took the time to add all of these pictures and feedback. I haven't set up my DE Abyss yet but am finally getting close. I read a ton of posts before taking investing this much money into a screen seriously. I appreciate all your insight as I was pretty close to just pulling the trigger on a basic 1.1 or 1.2 gain white screen. After saving so much on my projector (Epson 2150) by skipping 4K for now, I took the money I saved over going with a 4k projector and invested in the screen. My screen has been sitting in the box for well over a month but I am within a week or two of being able to set it up. I will be sure to start another thread on my thoughts (even though I am a projector noob) on the DE Abyss. Stephen was great to work with so far and recommended that screen for my setup even though he had these available. I do recommend calling him if anyone is serious about an Dark Energy ALR Screen.


----------



## LumensLover

FNwoz said:


> LumensLover I just want to say I think its great you took the time to add all of these pictures and feedback. I haven't set up my DE Abyss yet but am finally getting close. I read a ton of posts before taking investing this much money into a screen seriously. I appreciate all your insight as I was pretty close to just pulling the trigger on a basic 1.1 or 1.2 gain white screen. After saving so much on my projector (Epson 2150) by skipping 4K for now, I took the money I saved over going with a 4k projector and invested in the screen. My screen has been sitting in the box for well over a month but I am within a week or two of being able to set it up. I will be sure to start another thread on my thoughts (even though I am a projector noob) on the DE Abyss. Stephen was great to work with so far and recommended that screen for my setup even though he had these available. I do recommend calling him if anyone is serious about an Dark Energy ALR Screen.


You are very welcome sir. I believe you will be amazed by your Abyss screen once you have it set up. I try to to share my experiences in the hope of helping others who are attempting to enjoy this hobby. Be blessed and I hope you thoroughly enjoy your new setup.


----------



## LumensLover

nissand said:


> This review has been helpful, along w all the pictures. I contacted them before this was posted but, unfortunately, they weren't able to accommodate bc I'm looking for a 150" 16:9 screen. Their response was very helpful and comprehensive though, so I wouldn't question their integrity or passion for the product.
> 
> However, I can't stand when vendors don't want to be transparent in their pricing. Forums are probably the last remaining places where vendors play these "PM me for pricing" antics. It is detrimental to the experience and adds unnecessary friction, even for serious buyers. There's a reason why Amazon pushes so hard to make purchasing frictionless -- it's a better customer experience. I understand if it's for products that require MRP but, otherwise, what's the point?
> 
> Anyway, their 120" 16:9 Infinity SS screen quotes at $1,900 shipped.


I wholeheartedly agree with you. However I've had to deal with it when I got into the world of home theater products. The people who own this website will not give you open pricing, you always have to call one of their agents for pricing. When I go to any of the online high end shops in my city they never have prices listed. They always show please call for pricing.

I do not like the middleman approach. However, This is fairly common in the niche market of home theater electronics. I'm also someone who likes reviews but I do not feel paralyzed if reviews are not readily available at the time of purchase. If I'm being fair there are no reviews with measurements for the Stewart halr material. Yet it sells for obscene pricing. 

There are no professional reviews with measurements for the Elune Vision Aurora screen. There are no professional reviews with measurements for the Seymour AV 1.4. There are no professional reviews with measurements for the newest line of Draper's Tecvision screens. There are no available online pricing for high end alr materials from Draper, Stewart, Elite Prime Vision Etc. 

I have a vast amount of experience purchasing higher end alr materials from various companies and none of them gave me pricing online.I had to call for pricing on all of them. 

So I try to be fair because I had to jump through hoops to purchase high-end ALR materials from all of them. People are picking and choosing who they want to bicker about on this website however they do not have the experience of purchasing from as many high-end companies as I have. 

And I had to go through the same process with all of them. I could go on but I'm sure you get my drift here. So I'm not going to be overly hard on one company when lack of professional reviews, lack of measurements and lack of online pricing are common occurrences in the home theater industry. 

Problem here is that you have the same group of people here who theorize but never actually go through the purchasing process. So they do not know this. Try purchasing high end alr materials from Stewart, Elunevision, or Draper and see how many prices you find online. I know this because I've done it. 

Please understand I am not trying to sound like an elitist. But I have to be fair. People are beating up one company while ignoring the same practices from other companies in the home theater industry. As I have stated before this issue comes from people who do not have any first-hand experience purchasing high end alr materials from various companies in the home theater industry. Anyone who has purchased high end alr materials from Draper, Elite Prime Vision, Elunevision, etc can vouch for the same purchasing process that I've stated here.

Other companies in the home theater market are charging $3,000 and up for alr screen materials, forcing you to call for a quote, and have not provided professional reviews with measurements included. Yet no one bats an eye at these other companies.


----------



## nissand

I hear you and understand what you're saying. It's OT, and I really don't want to derail this thread, your work and all the information you've provided. All I want to note is that DES is essentially direct to consumer. Many of the other (larger) companies in the space have retailers to distribute their products, so it would make (more) sense for those companies to be protective about pricing and let retailers determine how pricing is disclosed. Perhaps I/we are being unfair in calling out DES for it, but I think it's partly bc they are a D2C. IMO the parallel in the HT space would be ID speaker companies -- a majority of which disclose their pricing on their sites.

Again, this is totally OT and probably unfair to harp on in this thread, so I'll avoid further commentary on this point.


----------



## LumensLover

nissand said:


> I hear you and understand what you're saying. It's OT, and I really don't want to derail this thread, your work and all the information you've provided. All I want to note is that DES is essentially direct to consumer. Many of the other (larger) companies in the space have retailers to distribute their products, so it would make (more) sense for those companies to be protective about pricing and let retailers determine how pricing is disclosed. Perhaps I/we are being unfair in calling out DES for it, but I think it's partly bc they are a D2C. IMO the parallel in the HT space would be ID speaker companies -- a majority of which disclose their pricing on their sites.
> 
> Again, this is totally OT and probably unfair to harp on in this thread, so I'll avoid further commentary on this point.


No problem sir. I just wanted to make the aforementioned point above. It was not meant to be directed towards you in any way. At the end of the day I still agree with your initial comments. I like efficiency and I like streamlined pricing whenever possible.Just doesn't always work out this way with many companies.


----------



## LumensLover

Stewart's flagship alr screen which sells for north of $4,000. Review from well-known source devoid of any actual scientific measurements.

https://www.soundandvision.com/cont...om-halr-ambient-light-rejecting-screen-review

Where is the fallout? Where are the posts stating that the aforementioned review is inconsequential and full of novice type comments from someone who's just stating how much they like the screen without posting any actual scientific measurements to backup the opinions listed in the review. We don't see any.

Because as I've stated a certain few here choose who they want to pick on while giving other companies a pass. So to other members here who may not know this, be careful who you choose to listen to on this website. Some of us try to be fair and we do have in-depth experience. While others do not have much in person experience and they will not attempt to be fair in any way when attacking certain companies while at the same time giving well known companies who charge exorbitant prices for alr screen materials a pass without any scrutiny, questions, or requests for measurements to to justify the premium price.


----------



## LumensLover

On a lighter note, my family came up to visit me this weekend. I can say they were truly amazed with the performance of my set up. I made sure to turn all the lights on in the room while we watched various shows for an hour and we also watched the first 30 minutes of Blade Runner 2049 with with all lights on. My parents commented on how the image quality was not discernibly degraded while watching Blade Runner 2049 with all lights on in the room. I told them that I posted pictures of the screen with lights on and off online. 

I also joked with them how some people still refuse to believe the performance of the screen. My my parents could not believe it and stated the performance of the screen with various lights on was beautiful. I laughed when my mother began recounting all of the previous screens I've had and she stated that this screen is even better than the Black Diamond and the Darkstar. 

My dad joked that I've had over 20 screens in the last two condos and he stated this is the best one yet. He said "Mr. Upgrade should never sell this screen." I told him I plan for this to be my last screen purchase indefinitely.

It made me feel good for my family to revalidate what I've seen for the last few weeks. This is a high performance alr screen and it's the best I've ever owned.

And my loved ones who know my other materials readily agreed with me. We were all wowed with various images from Blade Runner 2049 and the Shape of Water last night under moderate amount of ambient light. I will take more screenshots tonight.

My parents also commented how well the screen retains a vivid, high quality image while watching various TV shows with ambient light present. My dad commented that it was like looking through a window. I also had to have a higher amount of ambient light in the room because my parents are older and they have to have at least three lights on in the room so they can take their medicine periodically and walk in and out the room to use the bathroom. I can say the screen performed like a champ the entire night under a high amount of ambient light and we thoroughly enjoyed it.


----------



## LumensLover

I'm trying to rid myself of the upgrade bug, however there is one thing that concerns me with my current setup. The brightness levels as they are now are perfect with the Pulsar screen in my opinion. However any drop in brightness from now will annoy me. So I'm not sure if I should purchase another lamp for the Sony projector now, or purchase a brighter projector. My options would only be the Epson 3700 or the Epson 5040 at this time.

I actually like the Epson 3700 but the drop in contrast would put me back to DLP territory which I'm not sure how I would handle that long-term. The Epson 5040 is due to be replaced by the end of this year and it has numerous reliability issues. I really wish there was an affordable laser projector available now so I would not have to worry about the aforementioned issue coming soon.


----------



## LumensLover

The following pictures are screenshots from Blade Runner 2049 under a high amount of ambient light.


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 42 noticed colour pop, contrast, and shadow detail intact under a moderate amount of ambient light in the room.


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 43 notice strong black level retention for city night time scene under moderate amount of ambient light.


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 44 solid black level retention, contrast, and color intensity under moderate amount of light.


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 45


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 46 Dark Room Pics


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 47 night time dark scene with Gosling's face standing alone in the darkness outside.


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 48


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 49


----------



## bud16415

Any chance we could get a few more screen shots of your screen?


----------



## LumensLover

TheGrendl said:


> man, after reading this thread, i wondering if i should send my Silver Ticket white back. I'm running a JVC 420. it looks fantastic at night. but, any natural light and its super washed out. i am starting to realize i don't want to be in a completely blacked out room all of the time.


I definitely understand how you feel. My previous JVC projector was a work of art at night in a completely dark room. It was the only time I could sit and watch movies over 6 hours each night in total darkness. However as time progressed it did get somewhat old coming home and having to sit in the dark every night. Especially during the weekends, I would lose track of when it was day or night because it was so dark upstairs with the drapes constantly closed.


----------



## guitarchitect

bud16415 said:


> Any chance we could get a few more screen shots of your screen?


:laugh:

What i really want to know is - how does the screen display on the screen? LumensLover can you project a photo of your screen onto the screen?


----------



## LumensLover

guitarchitect said:


> :laugh:
> 
> What i really want to know is - how does the screen display on the screen? LumensLover can you project a photo of your screen onto the screen?


I will have to get scientific measurements authorized by a M.I.T. professor before attempting such a daring task.


----------



## Dave in Green

If a picture is worth a thousand words, how much is a thousand pictures worth?


----------



## xbladr

Dave in Green said:


> If a picture is worth a thousand words, how much is a thousand pictures worth?


Well assuming we are just going by basic math I would say 1million give or take. Haha

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## LumensLover

xbladr said:


> Well assuming we are just going by basic math I would say 1million give or take. Haha
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


I'm getting the feeling you need a fresh batch of screenshots tonight.


----------



## xbladr

LumensLover said:


> I'm getting the feeling you need a fresh batch of screenshots tonight.


You know it! I do wish you had something a little brighter in terms of projectors to show. Or windows more directly at the screen. I have the abyss and a 2045 and need something brighter. My wife loves windows open during the day and our living room has 3 walls of windows. Im starting to think the pulsar would be awesome. 

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## LumensLover

xbladr said:


> You know it! I do wish you had something a little brighter in terms of projectors to show. Or windows more directly at the screen. I have the abyss and a 2045 and need something brighter. My wife loves windows open during the day and our living room has 3 walls of windows. Im starting to think the pulsar would be awesome.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


I can take some screenshots tomorrow during the day. As for the brightness, I actually share your thoughts on that. But keep in mind all of my pics are being taken with the Sony in eco mode to show that you do not need an overly bright projector or high lamp setting to have a reasonably bright, good looking image with the Pulsar. 

However with that being said, I too am starting to wonder what the Pulsar's image would look like with a very bright projector. Hence why I'm looking into potentially experimenting with the Epson 3700 or the Epson 5040 paired with the Pulsar.


----------



## guitarchitect

LumensLover said:


> I can take some screenshots tomorrow during the day. As for the brightness, I actually share your thoughts on that. But keep in mind all of my pics are being taken with the Sony in eco mode to show that you do not need an overly bright projector or high lamp setting to have a reasonably bright, good looking image with the Pulsar.
> 
> However with that being said, I too am starting to wonder what the Pulsar's image would look like with a very bright projector. Hence why I'm looking into potentially experimenting with the Epson 3700 or the Epson 5040 paired with the Pulsar.


Sigh. You'll never stop, will you? You'll upgrade to the 5040, then downgrade the screen to the 0.9 abyss, then start to wonder if one of the old screens wouldn't work better with the 5040 after all...
just buy a big OLED and be done with it!


----------



## LumensLover

guitarchitect said:


> Sigh. You'll never stop, will you? You'll upgrade to the 5040, then downgrade the screen to the 0.9 abyss, then start to wonder if one of the old screens wouldn't work better with the 5040 after all...
> just buy a big OLED and be done with it!


LMAO. You sound like my father. As I stated before my days are upgrading and flipping through screens over. The Pulsar has addressed every need I have and I am as happy as a pig rolling in slop when it comes to this screen.

I have no interest in any below gain screens because I am a lover of lumens and brightness as my screen name entails. I was just thinking about playing around with the projectors at this point. But please keep in mind everyone that my screen and Sony projector are fairly bright in person. They are much brighter than how they appear in the screenshots.

Also when running the projector on high lamp it is very bright in person. I wanted to prove a point that a dark screen with gain added paired with a good projector on eco mode could produce a good image under a moderate amount of ambient light which I feel I've done at this point.

The only way the Pulsar leaves me, is if it is pried from my cold dead hands.


----------



## xbladr

LumensLover said:


> I can take some screenshots tomorrow during the day. As for the brightness, I actually share your thoughts on that. But keep in mind all of my pics are being taken with the Sony in eco mode to show that you do not need an overly bright projector or high lamp setting to have a reasonably bright, good looking image with the Pulsar.
> 
> However with that being said, I too am starting to wonder what the Pulsar's image would look like with a very bright projector. Hence why I'm looking into potentially experimenting with the Epson 3700 or the Epson 5040 paired with the Pulsar.


The 3700 was on my radar. It was more than likely going to be my next upgrade but, im getting the 4k itch with all the gaming I do. 

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## LumensLover

xbladr said:


> The 3700 was on my radar. It was more than likely going to be my next upgrade but, im getting the 4k itch with all the gaming I do.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


I'm sure the Epson 3700 will look great with the Pulsar during daytime scenes. However my fear is the drop in contrast may be distracting when it comes to dark scenes and shadow detail.


----------



## xbladr

LumensLover said:


> I'm sure the Epson 3700 will look great with the Pulsar during daytime scenes. However my fear is the drop in contrast may be distracting when it comes to dark scenes and shadow detail.


I'd love to see it. I feel like it may even be too bright with the pulsar lol

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 50

First pic notice the depth of black in Vader's helmet under a moderate amount of ambient light.

Second pic notice how the darkness outside and city lights are still readily visible opposite the glass under a moderate amount of ambient light.

Third pic notice how bright the colors are and blacks are still noticeably dark under a moderate amount of ambient light.


----------



## LumensLover

This is the Slate ambient light rejecting material from Screen Innovations in a demo room next to one lamp. Notice the lack of black level and lack of color retention. Keep in mind this is only one lamp on the side of the screen. Now compare this to the performance of my screen next to an adjacent floor lamp and numerous other lights on in the room.


I've owned the alr material pictured below and numerous other alr materials that washed out just as heavily under a modest amount of ambient light off axis in the room. After dealing with this for over 10 years it's easy to see why I am so enchanted with the performance of the Pulsar screen.


----------



## tigerfan33

I have tried the Epson 5040 and 3700. Also the JVC RS400. All with HP 2.4 screen. The blacks of the JVC were really good but in my non controlled room I felt like I wasn’t getting full advantage of the JVC black level. The motion and HDR were really awful.
Both Epson’s were bright but not as much as I thought compared to the Sony. Contrast was the reason here. The motion too on both Epson was really bad with sports.
Bottom line is I went back to the Sony after each trial. Sony motion with sports is flawless in my eyes.
Never have used high lamp with Sony with HP and not even taking advantage of the full gain of the screen. 
I may upgrade after I get the Pulsar but will wait to see how the Sony matches with it. Something tell me I may be looking at JVC blacks using a Sony projector


----------



## LumensLover

tigerfan33 said:


> I have tried the Epson 5040 and 3700. Also the JVC RS400. All with HP 2.4 screen. The blacks of the JVC were really good but in my non controlled room I felt like I wasn’t getting full advantage of the JVC black level. The motion and HDR were really awful.
> Both Epson’s were bright but not as much as I thought compared to the Sony. Contrast was the reason here. The motion too on both Epson was really bad with sports.
> Bottom line is I went back to the Sony after each trial. Sony motion with sports is flawless in my eyes.
> Never have used high lamp with Sony with HP and not even taking advantage of the full gain of the screen.
> I may upgrade after I get the Pulsar but will wait to see how the Sony matches with it. Something tell me I may be looking at JVC blacks using a Sony projector


We have a similar purchase history. I've had four Epson 3700 projectors previously and a Epson 6040. The Epson 3700 showed a brilliant and vibrant picture for daytime scenes however I do remember shadow detail being relatively poor. The Epson 6040 wasn't bad however it's native contrast was lower than the Sony 45ES I previously owned. Also the color accuracy on the Epson 6040 was not as good as the Sony 45es. 

I previously owned a JVC X550R which showed a brilliant image when all the lights were off. However it did not hold its contrast as well as the Sony 45es in low ambient light. Also, its color accuracy was inferior to the Sony 45ES. So my gut feeling tells me I need to keep the Sony 45ES until the next generation of Epson and Sony projectors are released at the end of this year.


----------



## siuengr

I am getting a DES upgrade. After discussing it with them, I am going with the 120" Abyss 0.9 screen. It will be paired with and Epson 5040. We'll see how it looks in a few weeks. I would definitely recommend holder off on a new projector until the new ones come out this fall. I haven't had any issues with the 5040, besides it not supporting 18Gbps. I hope the next batch with have truer 4k.


----------



## LumensLover

siuengr said:


> I am getting a DES upgrade. After discussing it with them, I am going with the 120" Abyss 0.9 screen. It will be paired with and Epson 5040. We'll see how it looks in a few weeks. I would definitely recommend holder off on a new projector until the new ones come out this fall. I haven't had any issues with the 5040, besides it not supporting 18Gbps. I hope the next batch with have truer 4k.


I concur. I should not let my impatience get the best of me. I need to wait it out until the end of this year when the latest models from Sony and Epson are released. I believe the Epson 5040 along with the Abyss screen will be a superb combination for you. I bet you're going to be blown away by the results.


----------



## siuengr

LumensLover said:


> I concur. I should not let my impatience get the best of me. I need to wait it out until the end of this year when the latest models from Sony and Epson are released. I believe the Epson 5040 along with the Abyss screen will be a superb combination for you. I bet you're going to be blown away by the results.


I hope so. DES was a little concerned that my throw distance may be too short. I only have 13' 6" lens to screen. They recommend 14'-15' for a 120" screen. Going to give it a try. If it doesn't work out, they said they would make into a 110" screen if I wanted.


----------



## LumensLover

siuengr said:


> I hope so. DES was a little concerned that my throw distance may be too short. I only have 13' 6" lens to screen. They recommend 14'-15' for a 120" screen. Going to give it a try. If it doesn't work out, they said they would make into a 110" screen if I wanted.


In my previous condo, I had a Screen Innovations 120 inch Black Diamond with a 13 feet, six inch throw distance paired with a Epson 6040. I did not have any issues with hotspotting or anything else on the screen.


----------



## LumensLover

The following screenshots are daylight pics with blinds open and drapes open. These pics show raw daylight and glare hitting the Pulsar screen from various angles. The Sony projector is in eco mode.


These are screenshots from the movie Immortals, and a few other pictures from a few TV shows.


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 51


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 52 notice the amount of detail that remains visible under a moderate amount of daylight with blinds open. Color intensity remains intact. The deep crimson of the blood being spilled is readily apparent on the screen with daylight pouring on it.


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 53 notice the black levels in the background under daylight. Blacks are not as dark as they would be under a lower amount of ambient light, however the blacks are still apparent and the screen image contains depth. Colors are not washed out as well.


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 54 notice the color intensity remains largely unhindered by daylight bleeding throughout the room. The boy's green eyes and his bronze skin remain readily apparent with daylight pouring in throughout the room.


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 55 visual proof of heavy glare from daylight pouring in from both sides of the room.


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 56


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 57 notice the intensity of the orange color emanating from the flame contrasted with the solid black level in the background.


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 58


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 59 notice the solid black level from the darkness of space contrasted with the light reflecting off the moon's surface. Once again, keep in mind this is with direct daylight pouring into the room from both sides.


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 60


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 61


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 62


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 63


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 64 time of day where sunlight had intensified and angled towards screen directly. Under some degree of washout, notice how there is still a degree of black level in the racer's apparel, the announcer's apparel and in the background. Also notice the intensity of the green and red colors in the background remain readily visible. All this under very bright daylight at this time of the day. So even when the screen shows some degree of washout. The image remains watchable.


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 65


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 66


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 67 notice the spectrum of colors showing across the crab's body. The intensity of colors is superb. This is with direct daylight pouring in from both sides of the room. Any other screen I've had would be a washed-out mess when trying to watch something as colorful as this image during a wildlife show. The Pulsar screen retains the intensity of the colors brilliantly under a moderate amount of daylight.


----------



## LumensLover

I normally don't open the blinds when I use my projectors for fear of total washout. The Black Diamond could hold a borderline watchable image under raw daylight but that was it. This screen has outperformed my expectations in every aspect. Having not only a watchful image but a fairly good image under daylight bleeding from the windows with blinds open really shocked me today.


I created this thread in order to share my joy from owning this screen with others. However, I also want to help anyone that I can who is serious about putting together a quality front projection setup that can be used during the day , night, and in rooms with various lights on. My hope Is that you can learn through my past mistakes and my past experiences.

I've went through over 30 different front projector setups. I've spent thousands upon thousands of dollars on various sceen materials in the hope of finding a good front projection setup that can be used during all times of day and evening. I've had to buy and sell expensive equipment numerous times over. 

And I've lost a fair amount of my hard-earned money while doing so. So my sincere hope is that some of you out there who are thinking about purchasing an ALR screen can avoid the potential pitfalls I did and head straight towards some of the better performing screens in the industry. I can tell you from my experience that this is the best performing alr screen for off-axis light, low and moderate ambient light coming from indoor lighting, and retains the strongest black levels out of any ambient light rejecting screen I've owned.

However, if you have daylight with no blinds directly bleeding on your screen from multiple windows around the room, patio doors with no blinds, or high windows with light hitting the screen at a sharp angle, I still would not recommend this screen or any other ambient light rejecting screen. The daylight from my windows is glancing on my screen from an angle. 

Also, if you have a dedicated room with no windows but you want to use overhead can lights or an overhead ceiling fan light, I highly recommend the Darkstar material. It was hands down the best ambient light rejecting material I've seen for rejecting overhead light only.

At this point, I think I've done just about everything in my power to show the performance of the Dark Energy Screens Pulsar material under low amounts of ambient light, moderate amount of ambient light, and daylight coming from a shallow angle with blinds open and closed.

I sincerely hope this thread has helped some of you all who are trying to come to a purchasing decision at some particular time for a front projection set-up including an ALR screen. For others who will never venture outside of their comfort zone and have no willingness to try new products. I can only say you really are missing out on a great innovation in the ambient light rejecting screen market.

There are always risks when you are someone who is willing to try new things. If you play it safe all your life and never try anything you will save money. But you will also rob yourself of a lot of experiences in this life. Life is short. I want to experience as much joy out of it as I can and that includes trying new products on a periodic basis.


----------



## xbladr

Lumens what distance is the Sony from the screen? This makes it hard for me to not want to go from my abyss to the pulsar. Looks excellent and that is about the amount of light I usually have coming in as well. I can close the blinds completely as they sew blackout and the abyss is amazing even with light still coming in. The wife just likes the blinds completely open which let's in tons of ambient light making me think the pulsar would have worked a little better in my extreme situation.

The wife has at least agreed to keep the French door blinds shut because those are brutal as they are essentially a direct shot at the screen.









Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## LumensLover

xbladr said:


> Lumens what distance is the Sony from the screen? This makes it hard for me to not want to go from my abyss to the pulsar. Looks excellent and that is about the amount of light I usually have coming in as well. I can close the blinds completely as they sew blackout and the abyss is amazing even with light still coming in. The wife just likes the blinds completely open which let's in tons of ambient light making me think the pulsar would have worked a little better in my extreme situation.
> 
> The wife has at least agreed to keep the French door blinds shut because those are brutal as they are essentially a direct shot at the screen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk



The throw distance for the Sony projector is 15 ft away from my Pulsar screen. By the way, you have a beautiful room there. Love the wall color and the wood floors.


----------



## xbladr

LumensLover said:


> The throw distance for the Sony projector is 15 ft away from my Pulsar screen. By the way, you have a beautiful room there. Love the wall color and the wood floors.


Thx don't mind all the toys. We have a new little lady and her **** is everywhere lol.

Here are some lighter scenes vs dark scenes blinds completely open vs closed. This is with my 2045 putting out prob 2000ish lumens in its brightest mode.

Keep in mind the 2045 has horrendous blacks and the camera is definitely lightening up the image.

I had a plain white screen 1.0 gain before and if I had the blinds closed it would be harder to see then the blinds completely open with the des abyss.









Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## LumensLover

xbladr said:


> Thx don't mind all the toys. We have a new little lady and her **** is everywhere lol.
> 
> Here are some lighter scenes vs dark scenes blinds completely open vs closed. This is with my 2045 putting out prob 2000ish lumens in its brightest mode.
> 
> Keep in mind the 2045 has horrendous blacks and the camera is definitely lightening up the image.
> 
> I had a plain white screen 1.0 gain before and if I had the blinds closed it would be harder to see then the blinds completely open with the des abyss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


If you switch from the Abyss to the Pulsar, I don't think you'll be giving up much when it comes to off axis light rejection. However, you will be gaining a discernible increase in brightness. So you could try out the Pulsar screen in that room. From my past experience, 2000 lumens is the gold standard for an excellent viewing experience with a large alr screen during all times of day and evening.

And I'm talking about 2000 lumens equal color brightness. Not blown up white's that are common with high lumens DLP projectors. And I'm also not talking about using LCD projectors in inaccurate color modes such as dynamic which will give you a brighter Image at the expense of color accuracy. The only projector I know of at this time they will put out 2,000 lumens with equal color brightness in a color accurate mode with above-average black levels is the Epson 3700.

The Pulsar looks as close as I've seen to a plasma with a projector in eco mode. When I switch the Sony to high lamp mode which is approximately 1800 lumens with a new bulb under game setting, the screen looks just like a plasma. I sincerely think your best bet would be to pair a Pulsar screen with the Epson 3700 projector.

The black levels on that projector are acceptable and it is a true light cannon. Pair that with the Pulsar and I think you would have a reasonably solid image with the blinds open and shut during most times of the day and a superb image at night with indoor lighting on.

The Pulsar screen is by far the best screen I've owned. The only thing holding this screen back is today's limited projector technology.


----------



## Ftoast

There's a lot of bright daylight coming from near the seats (almost behind the projector) in xbladr's room with the blinds open over the doors and that window. A brighter projector can muscle through that a little better than a dimmer projector, but don't expect a big black-level improvement from a different ALR screen against the sunlight coming from places near the projector. A higher-gain screen will brighten the image, but it'll also boost the sunlight hitting the screen coming in over your shoulder.
The ability to fight off-axis light can become even better though, like lumenlover mentioned.


----------



## xbladr

Thx for the input guys maybe it is really time for the projector upgrade. Put the abyss to the test and see if it will workout for me. Instead of going for a screen upgrade. The extra gain would help brightness but like ftoast mentioned it may also increase the washout from the light coming into the room. Thx for the input guys.

If I could find someone looking for a 120 abyss and not lose my shirt on it then it may be good to upgrade. Until then the search for projector is back on. I need a 4k equivalent to the 3700. 

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## LumensLover

xbladr said:


> Thx for the input guys maybe it is really time for the projector upgrade. Put the abyss to the test and see if it will workout for me. Instead of going for a screen upgrade. The extra gain would help brightness but like ftoast mentioned it may also increase the washout from the light coming into the room. Thx for the input guys.
> 
> If I could find someone looking for a 120 abyss and not lose my shirt on it then it may be good to upgrade. Until then the search for projector is back on. I need a 4k equivalent to the 3700.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


4K eshift equivalent to the Epson 3700 would be the Epson 4000.


----------



## strafejumper

humbland said:


> Stattico said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe just a delay leading into the weekend? I am super interested in this scenario as well. Did you ask about the rollable screens they fused theirs too? What was the best base layer? Any thoughts on how they held up over time?
> 
> "I'm Stephen McGuire with Dark Energy Screens and we greatly appreciate your interest in our advanced ALR projection systems. Unfortunately we do not offer a roll down version at this time, but we can laminate our material onto an existing one. However, since it's not our screen.. I can't make any gaurantess nor can I warranty it either. If you are still interested, I would be happy to do that for you. Some customers in the past have purchased a tab-tension screen and had it shipped directly to us where we would resurface it with our material. Then we would simpl ship it to you through whatever shipping means is necessary. The outbound shipping of such a big box can be quite expensive though. Just let us know if this is something you would be interested in persuing and we will gladly work out the details. Until then, thank you for your interest in DES and we look foward to your reply."
> 
> Above is the email I received four days ago. I asked for further details and a rough estimate on modifying a 110" diagonal Elite Cinetension2 electric drop screen.
> 
> Perhaps I will hear back this week sometime. I'll post back if I hear something.
> 
> 
> 
> for my situation a roll-down screen is very important and is the reason why I'm considering a projector over for example a large OLED TV
> I don't think TVs can roll out of the way the way a projector screen can
> If they ever came up with a Roll up Pulsar I would be pretty interested
Click to expand...


----------



## xbladr

LumensLover said:


> 4K eshift equivalent to the Epson 3700 would be the Epson 4000.


Not enough lumen output and everything I have read has been pretty mediocre on the 4000

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ftoast

xbladr said:


> If I could find someone looking for a 120 abyss and not lose my shirt on it..


You might try contacting Stephen77/DarkEnergyScreens to see if they're willing to do anything like a trade-in toward the Pulsar...can't hurt to try.


----------



## humbland

strafejumper said:


> humbland said:
> 
> 
> 
> for my situation a roll-down screen is very important and is the reason why I'm considering a projector over for example a large OLED TV
> I don't think TVs can roll out of the way the way a projector screen can
> If they ever came up with a Roll up Pulsar I would be pretty interested
> 
> 
> 
> +1 on the roll down requirement. In our situation, it is a must have...
> I never heard anything back re a cost estimate or references. My guess is that it's a little "out of the box".There are other good electric drop options and probably more coming.
> I the past, we have had pretty good results with Elite. If you need an ALR electric drop, then I would call Elite CS.
Click to expand...


----------



## LumensLover

xbladr said:


> Not enough lumen output and everything I have read has been pretty mediocre on the 4000
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


It's light output is only 10% lower than the 5040ub. And the 5040ub is known as a fairly bright projector. Other than that there is no 4K projector that will put out close to 2000 lumens in best picture mode. It simply does not exist at this time.


----------



## xbladr

LumensLover said:


> It's light output is only 10% lower than the 5040ub. And the 5040ub is known as a fairly bright projector. Other than that there is no 4K projector that will put out close to 2000 lumens in best picture mode. It simply does not exist at this time.


The 747 from what I have read although early on has a good mode right around 2000 then has its super bright mode at 3200 for when you need the absolute most light. I haven't seen any us reviews though. I'm waiting to see the tk800 from benq too. 

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## LumensLover

xbladr said:


> The 747 from what I have read although early on has a good mode right around 2000 then has its super bright mode at 3200 for when you need the absolute most light. I haven't seen any us reviews though. I'm waiting to see the tk800 from benq too.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


Never heard of either of the aforementioned models. Not sure who even makes the 747? At this point, I'm pretty much done with BenQ. All of their projectors have abysmal black levels which they've been unable to improve over the last 5 years or more. 

Picking the right projector for ALR screen is a constant balancing act. If you get a projector with too low contrast, blacks will appear gray and somewhat washed out even with the best ALR screen. However if you get a projector with not enough lumens, the image will always appear dim under any lighting condition. So I know it's not easy.

That is why I settled on the Sony for now because it is in between. It has good black levels but not the best. It also has above-average brightness in color accurate modes though there are others that are much brighter. I plan on selling the Sony at the end of this year if a decent replacement comes out. 

It seems that the projector market is stuck in 1980s technology. There's no way we should still be using bulb based projectors nearing the year 2020. I don't see why it is so hard to produce a laser projector with 2000 lumens in best color mode along with a native contrast of at least 10,000:1. That should be very doable with today's technology.


----------



## xbladr

LumensLover said:


> Never heard of either of the aforementioned models. Not sure who even makes the 747? At this point, I'm pretty much done with BenQ. All of their projectors have abysmal black levels which they've been unable to improve over the last 5 years or more.
> 
> Picking the right projector for ALR screen is a constant balancing act. If you get a projector with too low contrast, blacks will appear gray and somewhat washed out even with the best ALR screen. However if you get a projector with not enough lumens, the image will always appear dim under any lighting condition. So I know it's not easy.
> 
> That is why I settled on the Sony for now because it is in between. It has good black levels but not the best. It also has above-average brightness in color accurate modes though there are others that are much brighter. I plan on selling the Sony at the end of this year if a decent replacement comes out.
> 
> It seems that the projector market is stuck in 1980s technology. There's no way we should still be using bulb based projectors nearing the year 2020. I don't see why it is so hard to produce a laser projector with 2000 lumens in best color mode along with a native contrast of at least 10,000:1. That should be very doable with today's technology.


I fully agree. It's crazy that we are still using bulb based that require replacements. The px747‑4k is from viewsonic. They just got rave reviews on their px727 from projector central and a couple foreign reviewers. 

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## FamMann81

nissand said:


> This review has been helpful, along w all the pictures. I contacted them before this was posted but, unfortunately, they weren't able to accommodate bc I'm looking for a 150" 16:9 screen. Their response was very helpful and comprehensive though, so I wouldn't question their integrity or passion for the product.
> 
> However, I can't stand when vendors don't want to be transparent in their pricing. Forums are probably the last remaining places where vendors play these "PM me for pricing" antics. It is detrimental to the experience and adds unnecessary friction, even for serious buyers. There's a reason why Amazon pushes so hard to make purchasing frictionless -- it's a better customer experience. I understand if it's for products that require MRP but, otherwise, what's the point?
> 
> Anyway, their 120" 16:9 Infinity SS screen quotes at $1,900 shipped.


Mine was right inline with yours.

130" 2.35:1 (51" x 120") DE Pulsar 1.4 Infinity Edge SS $2,099 shipped.

Should be shipping this week.


----------



## fender0577

Thanks for such an in-depth review LumensLover.I ordered the DEA 120 inch 2:35.1, Abyss.It should be shipping this week.Im hopping it's as good as the pulsar after your glowing review.This is my first projector set up. I'm pairing it with the Epson 5040ube.Ill post pics of the final set up.


----------



## LumensLover

fender0577 said:


> Thanks for such an in-depth review LumensLover.I ordered the DEA 120 inch 2:35.1, Abyss.It should be shipping this week.Im hopping it's as good as the pulsar after your glowing review.This is my first projector set up. I'm pairing it with the Epson 5040ube.Ill post pics of the final set up.


The Epson 5040 is one of the brightest home theater projectors that I've seen. It also has solid black levels. It should make a fantastic combination when paired with your Dark Energy Screens Abyss screen. Congratulations and I hope you thoroughly enjoy the new setup.


----------



## LumensLover

The Pulsar screen saved me from making a $3,000 colossal mistake. Here is a pic with me standing 15 ft back from the Samsung MU8000 82 inch TV which I was going to purchase if my final experiment with Dark Energy Screens did not work out. It seems so small when viewed from 15 feet away.

And the second picture is me standing 15ft back from my Pulsar screen while watching cartoons during the daytime with my nephew. I've had a large TV in my loft before which was practically unwatchable during certain times of the day due to heavy glare. Yet, the Pulsar screen is able to give me a solid image during the day with my drapes open. I can not state enough how much I love this screen. It is amazing.


----------



## maglito

*Pulsar vs Stardust and the other new ALR materials*



LumensLover said:


> It depends on what your priorities are. The 2.0 gain screen will most likely give you a brighter more vivid image. However it will be at the expense of lighter black levels. If you have a dedicated room where ambient light is not an issue for you I would recommend the 2.0 Stardust material.
> 
> If you are coming from an HP high gain screen, that might be less of a drop in brightness for you.


Lumenslover, thanks for the great thread! I do plan to buy an ALR screen this year, I want a larger 165-175" 16:9 screen though so unless DEA offers larger sizes I won't be able to buy one of these models (in the spirit of full disclosure).

With that said, I've followed most of your recent threads on ALR screens and believe you are by far the single end user with the most experience with ALR screens and with you this excited about a product, I take notice!

My last screen was a 133" DaLite HiPower I bought in 2003 and am selling with my last house this spring. I also love high gain screens and really took note a few months back when you stated you were done with dark gray based (usually negative gain) screens. Since then I have been searching for good options too.

I am most excited and leaning heavily towards the Elunevision Aurora ALR in nanoedge.
http://elunevision.com/materials/aurora-4k-ambient-light-rejection/
pro: only 1.2 image widths required, larger sizes available
con: only 1.3 gain

Another option is Draper Techvision
either 1.2 ALR or 1.8 gain:
http://residentialtechnology.draperinc.com/tecvision-projection-screen-surface/
pro: larger sizes available 
cons: less gain or no ALR, 1.7 to 1.8 image widths required

The reason I bring up the Draper Techvision stuff is because the 1.2 ALR and the 1.8 seem to have the same gain coating but just have a different base (gray vs white).

Finally to my question: have you seen the 2.0 gain DEA Stardust and do you think it is the same as the Pulsar with just a lighter colored base? If you have seen it, please tell us how it compares with the Pulsar. While not stated explicitly in this thread, you did state "most likely" when describing the Stardust, so I assume you haven't seen it. It is curious as the guy with the name "lumenslover" and the high gain guy above both end up with the Pulsar over the Stardust. It seems the owner of DEA is much more into recommending the Pulsar over his own Stardust material. After reading this thread though, it sure does seem like he's found the secret sauce with this material!

I am so glad you found something great, after all the searching it is so wonderful to read about how happy you are with the fruits of your labor! But, for science, would you be willing to take pictures with a 2.0 Stardust sample, along with the three materials I posted about above (Elunevision Aurora and Draper Techvision 1.2ALR and 1.8) in front of your Pulsar? I would be torn between the Stardust and the Pulsar if their screen sizes were bigger. As it is now, for anyone who asks me what to get and wants an ALR 16:9 screen


----------



## LumensLover

maglito said:


> Lumenslover, thanks for the great thread! I do plan to buy an ALR screen this year, I want a larger 165-175" 16:9 screen though so unless DEA offers larger sizes I won't be able to buy one of these models (in the spirit of full disclosure).
> 
> With that said, I've followed most of your recent threads on ALR screens and believe you are by far the single end user with the most experience with ALR screens and with you this excited about a product, I take notice!
> 
> My last screen was a 133" DaLite HiPower I bought in 2003 and am selling with my last house this spring. I also love high gain screens and really took note a few months back when you stated you were done with dark gray based (usually negative gain) screens. Since then I have been searching for good options too.
> 
> I am most excited and leaning heavily towards the Elunevision Aurora ALR in nanoedge.
> http://elunevision.com/materials/aurora-4k-ambient-light-rejection/
> pro: only 1.2 image widths required, larger sizes available
> con: only 1.3 gain
> 
> Another option is Draper Techvision
> either 1.2 ALR or 1.8 gain:
> http://residentialtechnology.draperinc.com/tecvision-projection-screen-surface/
> pro: larger sizes available
> cons: less gain or no ALR, 1.7 to 1.8 image widths required
> 
> The reason I bring up the Draper Techvision stuff is because the 1.2 ALR and the 1.8 seem to have the same gain coating but just have a different base (gray vs white).
> 
> Finally to my question: have you seen the 2.0 gain DEA Stardust and do you think it is the same as the Pulsar with just a lighter colored base? If you have seen it, please tell us how it compares with the Pulsar. While not stated explicitly in this thread, you did state "most likely" when describing the Stardust, so I assume you haven't seen it. It is curious as the guy with the name "lumenslover" and the high gain guy above both end up with the Pulsar over the Stardust. It seems the owner of DEA is much more into recommending the Pulsar over his own Stardust material. After reading this thread though, it sure does seem like he's found the secret sauce with this material!
> 
> I am so glad you found something great, after all the searching it is so wonderful to read about how happy you are with the fruits of your labor! But, for science, would you be willing to take pictures with a 2.0 Stardust sample, along with the three materials I posted about above (Elunevision Aurora and Draper Techvision 1.2ALR and 1.8) in front of your Pulsar? I would be torn between the Stardust and the Pulsar if their screen sizes were bigger. As it is now, for anyone who asks me what to get and wants an ALR 16:9 screen


----------



## LumensLover

Well my impatience got the better of me again. I can't wait until the end of the year for new projectors to be released from Epson and Sony. So, I decided I'm going to purchase the Epson 5040 today. I love the Sony and have no complaints about its image quality, however its current level of brightness is the lowest I will tolerate. 

And I know I'm due for some additional bulb dimming within the first 500 hours. I can't deal with that.

As soon as I receive the Epson 5040, I will get some new pictures up so at least people can have an idea of how the Pulsar screen performs with a brighter projector.


----------



## xbladr

Can't wait to see pics of the 5040 on the Pulsar. The combination of the two of them is going to be incredibly bright!


----------



## guitarchitect

LumensLover said:


> Well my impatience got the better of me again. I can't wait until the end of the year for new projectors to be released from Epson and Sony. So, I decided I'm going to purchase the Epson 5040 today. I love the Sony and have no complaints about its image quality, however its current level of brightness is the lowest I will tolerate.
> 
> And I know I'm due for some additional bulb dimming within the first 500 hours. I can't deal with that.
> 
> As soon as I receive the Epson 5040, I will get some new pictures up so at least people can have an idea of how the Pulsar screen performs with a brighter projector.


oh dear


----------



## LumensLover

guitarchitect said:


> oh dear


Oh yes.


----------



## Ftoast

LumensLover said:


> Well my impatience got the better of me again. I can't wait until the end of the year for new projectors to be released from Epson and Sony. So, I decided I'm going to purchase the Epson 5040 today. I love the Sony and have no complaints about its image quality, however its current level of brightness is the lowest I will tolerate.
> And I know I'm due for some additional bulb dimming within the first 500 hours. I can't deal with that.
> As soon as I receive the Epson 5040, I will get some new pictures up so at least people can have an idea of how the Pulsar screen performs with a brighter projector.


Why did you get rid of your first Epson 5040 earlier?


----------



## LumensLover

Ftoast said:


> Why did you get rid of your first Epson 5040 earlier?


It's black levels were discernibly inferior to the JVC X550R I had at that time.


----------



## LumensLover

Purchased the Epson 5040 today from a local dealer. Funtime is about to start in about 6 hours. Will post pics tonight with the Pulsar paired with this brighter projector under moderate levels of ambient light from the lamps in my loft.

Will also post pics tomorrow when it is brighter during the day to show all the Pulsar fares against sunlight with a brighter projector.


----------



## siuengr

LumensLover said:


> Well my impatience got the better of me again. I can't wait until the end of the year for new projectors to be released from Epson and Sony. So, I decided I'm going to purchase the Epson 5040 today. I love the Sony and have no complaints about its image quality, however its current level of brightness is the lowest I will tolerate.
> 
> And I know I'm due for some additional bulb dimming within the first 500 hours. I can't deal with that.
> 
> As soon as I receive the Epson 5040, I will get some new pictures up so at least people can have an idea of how the Pulsar screen performs with a brighter projector.


Can't wait to see the pics. My DEA screen is still in progress, still a couple weeks to go. I went with the DEA Abyss since I am in a bat cave with no windows with the 5040. It will be a good comparison to see the Pulsar with a 5040 in a lighted room.


----------



## LumensLover

Pics from a Screen Innovations short-throw alr screen. The performance is nowhere as good as the Pulsar material. I was floored when I first saw the Screen Innovations short throw alr screen and I liked it as much as my Black Diamond screens from the past. 

However, now that I've seen what the D.E.S Pulsar is capable of, the materials from Screen Innovations do not hold a candle to the performance of the Dark Energy Screens Pulsar material.


----------



## ruggercb

Looks great! I’ve been really happy with the Abyss and Epson combo. I know everything is a compromise, but I don’t feel I’m giving up much. Just as long as the 5040 doesn’t break again. 


Edit - spoke too soon. I look forward to seeing the pulsar Epson combo.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## xbladr

Can't wait to see this. 

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 68


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 69


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 70


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 71


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 72


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 73


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 74


----------



## xbladr

What color modes do you have it on? That way I can also get an idea of lumen output on the projector. Looks good though. How are you liking it in comparison to the sony

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 75


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 76


----------



## LumensLover

xbladr said:


> What color modes do you have it on? That way I can also get an idea of lumen output on the projector. Looks good though. How are you liking it in comparison to the sony
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


Pics 68 was taken in dynamic mode, high lamp. All all other pics were taken in Bright Cinema mode, eco lamp. Here are my thoughts on using the Sony 45es versus the Epson 5040ub with the Pulsar screen:

Epson Pros:
It's brightness using bright Cinema setting in eco mode is equal to the Sony using game mode with high lamp.

It's image is sharper than the Sony when 4K enhancement is used.

Blacks appear deeper than Sony when iris is used, or when brightness is turned down, or when gamma is dropped down to -1 or when super white setting is turned on.

Once a few adjustments are made, black levels are extremely solid. Black levels also hold up well under some daylight and moderate amounts of ambient light from room lighting.

Cons
Whites are blown out when you receive projector out of box. Whites must be dialed back in order for black levels to be equal to the Sony 45es. It's native contrast is not as good as the Sony native contrast.

Color accuracy is decent, however it is not 95% calibrated out of the box like the Sony was.

Image can appear overprocessed if enhancement tools are not used correctly.

Blacks can appear crushed on certain scenes when iris is in use.

Sony 45es

Pros

Superior native contrast

Superior Color accuracy out of the box

Natural looking image

Strong black levels even with some ambient light or daylight present

Motion handling superior to the Epson

Superior shadow detail

Cons

Lumens take a major hit when using eco mode.

Image can appear too soft when viewing certain content.

In conclusion, I actually prefer the more natural-looking image and native contrast of the Sony 45es. However thes Sony 45es in eco mode with a brand new bulb gave me the bare minimum brightness that I would accept. 

So I knew it would only be downhill from there. Also, I thought about running it and high lamp mode permanently, however I have fears of panel degradation from having the panels deal with that much heat on a day-to-day basis. This led me to go with us Epson 5040ub.


When everything is dialed in, it can show a superior image to the Sony 45es. But it has so many options and it's easy to mess up the picture. I almost wish it had less options when it comes to sharpness, image enhancement Etc.because they're just what you need. The Epson 3700 is brighter than the Epson 5040 in all modes. I highly suggest the Epson 3700 to all dark energy screens Abyss owners.


----------



## tigerfan33

Have you tried any 4k HDR?
Seems it could be similar viewing to an OLED with highlights really popping against the blacks.


----------



## LumensLover

tigerfan33 said:


> Have you tried any 4k HDR?
> Seems it could be similar viewing to an OLED with highlights really popping against the blacks.


I have not yet. I only have one 4K UHD disc at this time.


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 76 all lights on in the loft.


----------



## weboperations

When watching a scope movie that is letterboxed, how do the bars look in a dark room?

Are they completely black or do you see a little bit of gray?


----------



## LumensLover

weboperations said:


> When watching a scope movie that is letterboxed, how do the bars look in a dark room?
> 
> Are they completely black or do you see a little bit of gray?


Bars appear completely black.


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 77 projector is in bright Cinema mode, Eco lamp, with Iris set to normal. Drapes are open, and window blinds are open.


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 78


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 79


----------



## LumensLover

*Pics 80*

Pics 80


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 81


----------



## MississippiMan

The daylight shots with unrestricted bright Sunlight are excellent "worst case" examples. (Sunlight on a Screen is a lot worse than Artificial.....) Ambient Incandescent shots are still managing to be pure eye candy.

When the size of the Pulsar is compared to the much smaller SI below....










......and one notices how pains were taken to keep the overhead "spots" off the SI screen, it makes such honestly presented examples as LumensLover's all the more valid and informative.


----------



## Ftoast

Spoiler






MississippiMan said:


> The daylight shots with unrestricted bright Sunlight are excellent "worst case" examples. (Sunlight on a Screen is a lot worse than Artificial.....) Ambient Incandescent shots are still managing to be pure eye candy.
> 
> When the size of the Pulsar is compared to the much smaller SI below....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ......and one notices how pains were taken to keep the overhead "spots" off the SI screen, it makes such honestly presented examples as LumensLover's all the more valid and informative.





To be fair, overheads can washout the Pulsar pretty badly as well:









But The DE Pulsar does hold up fantastically against farther off-axis light.


----------



## xbladr

Ftoast said:


> To be fair, overheads can washout the Pulsar pretty badly as well:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But The DE Pulsar does hold up fantastically against farther off-axis light.


How noticeable is that with the projector on? I'd just be curious to see. Did you get a pulsar ftoast? 

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## LumensLover

xbladr said:


> How noticeable is that with the projector on? I'd just be curious to see. Did you get a pulsar ftoast?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


No, those pics are from Fam Man's Pulsar thread.


----------



## xbladr

LumensLover said:


> No, those pics are from Fam Man's Pulsar thread.


Ok I'll have to check out that thread

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## MississippiMan

Ftoast said:


> To be fair, overheads can washout the Pulsar pretty badly as well:
> 
> But The DE Pulsar does hold up fantastically against farther off-axis light.





xbladr said:


> How noticeable is that with the projector on? I'd just be curious to see. Did you get a pulsar ftoast?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk





LumensLover said:


> No, those pics are from Fam Man's Pulsar thread.


:Chuckle:

Pretty silly stuff there. The lights shown on FamMann81's screen are strictly and *ONLY* for "screen-off cosmetics" and essentially are being used in the above 1st quoted post to make a wholly erroneous statement.

1st off, no one....nobody in their right mind or with any common sense would expect any screen to accept directed Spots onto it's surface while it's attempting to present a watchable image.

2ndly....there is no image to even base such a comment on....the statement made is just a reaction to a comment made by me about a promotional shot where the focused spots were obviously directed "off the screen" and on the wall behind a well known ALR Screen so as to give an advantage to the screen shown....not work against it..

"To be fair" there would have to be an exact duplication of the lighting's exposure....the use of identical PJ's and content...the same Camera / setting....etc. And under such "fair" conditions I'm almost assuredly positive the Pulsar would excel over the SI screen. Just as I'm certain the SI screen would give up the ghost if the lights shown in it's photo were hitting it square on.

But even that is problematical statement ecause ain't no way anyone who owns a SI -BD (...let alone SI themselves....) is ever gonna publish such a shot anyway....but something tells me we might see something akin to that provided by FamMann81.....if indeed just for poops & guffaws.

But that is actually going to be impossible in this case because there is almost no space between the top of FamMann's screen and the Ceiling. The Spots cannot be redirected above this screen so as to make a effective tit-for-tat comparison. Only straight downward.

So all that can be done is to subject the Pulsar to a torturous example of gross directed light that would never happen in any realistic setting. Will that be done on a whim? Who can tell?

Some thought should have been made before posting the first quoted comment above.
.................but then that would have eliminated the chance to see another one of those "opportunities that abound"....eh?


----------



## Ftoast

xbladr said:


> How noticeable is that with the projector on? I'd just be curious to see.


This is the gentleman/thread you'll want to ask for that;
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/23-sc...stance-x-screen-size-standards-smpte-thx.html
But I believe Mississippi is correct about that lighting being decorative, and I doubt any light-fighting screen would perform noticeably better against overhead lighting from that angle (except perhaps a lenticular ALR screen with a table-mounted UST).


Although the Pulsar is lighting up noticeably from those overhead lights, they appear to be hitting the screen from a position farther back in the room (roughly over the seats rather than close/over the screen) which means they're too close to the projector's incoming angle for practically any light-fighting screen to reject effectively without also fighting the projected image.
On the negative side, what's the most likely light you'll naturally want to use inside a hometheater?..the lighting over or beside the seats. 
On the positive side, "controlling" seat-lights by dimming a little and either blocking their path to the screen or using narrower-beam lights aimed away from the screen can overcome this kind of washout incredibly well.


----------



## MississippiMan

Ftoast said:


> Although the Pulsar is lighting up noticeably from those overhead lights, they appear to be hitting the screen from a position farther back in the room (roughly over the seats rather than close/over the screen) which means they're too close to the projector's incoming angle for practically any light-fighting screen to reject effectively without also fighting the projected image.
> On the negative side, what's the most likely light you'll naturally want to use inside a hometheater?..the lighting over or beside the seats.


Cannot you understand that the lights in question are ONLY for Decor purpose.....not illuminating the seating area? As such, dimming isn't the answer.....when a movie is on.....they would be "off". Now only LumensLover can validate that premise so from here on I'll let him do so. 


It is my opinion (... and one of most everybody else I would think, ) that the primary way to judge any ALR screen is based on it's ambient light performance in indirect light, (normal and extremely high) since that's what the name pertains to. Examples that show directed indoor lighting (...and specifically Sunlight) are really an ineffectual way to determine the performance of such screens under normal viewing conditions. No one would ever set up a viewing situation under those conditions....so why bother to show such?

Even when a Mfg or individual does show an extreme example of "side or above" lighting, it is always coming from a non direct source....not a focused beam.

Now certainly, and of course if any screen can perform admirably under worst-case scenarios, then obviously its performance envelope can easily encompass normal situations. And all the same, if a end user sees that happening and wants to show off such unusually different ability, then they should be able to do so without fearing recriminatory responses.

What is objectionable is when people start using extremely adverse examples to dismiss or discredit any particular application by any particular manufacturer or do-it-yourself method, \without including an explanation and or a qualification of why such an example is being represented.

In the case of the Pulsar, the excitement surrounding such a application, combined with it's comparative affordability, absolutely seems destined to stir up the feelings of those who posses one. And we've seen those expressed feelings stir up those who just cannot fathom anything might hold such promise, coming as it does from a AVS "home brew" source.

What I'd dearly love to see happen going forward is enough "actual Members" either validate (...or refute...) DES's efforts based on actual experience with the product, and then let any / all expressions by those who do not have such an opportunity be based on believing that a Member has nothing to lose....or gain by relating a happy experience and great results.

Fortunately it seems to now be heading that direction...and I for one am excited at the prospect that many members with potentially difficult decisions to make will find a easier and less expensive option that doesn't suffer any lessor performance for afford-ability's sake.


----------



## Ftoast

MississippiMan said:


> Cannot you understand that the lights in question are ONLY for Decor purpose.....not illuminating the seating area? As such, dimming isn't the answer.....when a movie is on.....they would be "off". Now only LumensLover can validate that premise so from here on I'll let him do so.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> It is my opinion (... and one of most everybody else I would think, ) that the primary way to judge any ALR screen is based on it's ambient light performance in indirect light, (normal and extremely high) since that's what the name pertains to. Examples that show directed indoor lighting (...and specifically Sunlight) are really an ineffectual way to determine the performance of such screens under normal viewing conditions. No one would ever set up a viewing situation under those conditions....so why bother to show such?
> 
> Even when a Mfg or individual does show an extreme example of "side or above" lighting, it is always coming from a non direct source....not a focused beam.
> 
> Now certainly, and of course if any screen can perform admirably under worst-case scenarios, then obviously its performance envelope can easily encompass normal situations. And all the same, if a end user sees that happening and wants to show off such unusually different ability, then they should be able to do so without fearing recriminatory responses.
> 
> What is objectionable is when people start using extremely adverse examples to dismiss or discredit any particular application by any particular manufacturer or do-it-yourself method, \without including an explanation and or a qualification of why such an example is being represented.
> 
> In the case of the Pulsar, the excitement surrounding such a application, combined with it's comparative affordability, absolutely seems destined to stir up the feelings of those who posses one. And we've seen those expressed feelings stir up those who just cannot fathom anything might hold such promise, coming as it does from a AVS "home brew" source.
> 
> What I'd dearly love to see happen going forward is enough "actual Members" either validate (...or refute...) DES's efforts based on actual experience with the product, and then let any / all expressions by those who do not have such an opportunity be based on believing that a Member has nothing to lose....or gain by relating a happy experience and great results.
> 
> Fortunately it seems to now be heading that direction...and I for one am excited at the prospect that many members with potentially difficult decisions to make will find a easier and less expensive option that doesn't suffer any lessor performance for afford-ability's sake.



It looks like you might've missed this part from the beginning of my earlier post:


Ftoast said:


> But I believe Mississippi is correct about that lighting being decorative, and I doubt any light-fighting screen would perform noticeably better against overhead lighting from that angle (except perhaps a lenticular ALR screen with a table-mounted UST).





MississippiMan said:


> It is my opinion (... and one of most everybody else I would think, ) that the primary way to judge any ALR screen is based on it's ambient light performance in indirect light, (normal and extremely high) since that's what the name pertains to. Examples that show directed indoor lighting (...and specifically Sunlight) are really an ineffectual way to determine the performance of such screens under normal viewing conditions. No one would ever set up a viewing situation under those conditions....so why bother to show such?


You'd have to ask FamMann what his intentions were I guess. I doubt it was anything negative.


----------



## Ftoast

xbladr said:


> Ok I'll have to check out that thread


Interesting. The site somehow opened a different thread when I was copy/pasting fammanns link and I just now realized it.
Just in case you didn't already see his thread; http://www.avsforum.com/forum/23-screens/2966072-des-pulsar-1-4-solid-surface-order.html


----------



## bud16415

This whole premise of what is ambient light is ridicules to say the least. MM contends it would be absurd to have two bright lights on just In front of the screen and pointing at it. He on the other hand seems to think the examples posted in this thread at least 200 times now where the light source is crammed into a corner beside the screen and then a window placed all the way to the back wall and left open to sunlight is somehow a normal everyday occurrence in home theaters. 

Quite often I see people wishing to have a screen placed where there is a wall of windows to one side. I would think that would be an extreme example and worth of seeing the results. No one wants bright lights in their field of view. So really how many people want to see 200 examples of that. Most people ether have light they don’t want but can’t extinguish or they want to add a little over their heads so they can eat pizza and drink beer without making a mess. That’s why commercial theaters sell popcorn and not soup. 

Of course showing extreme light from the front would never be the norm. We only do such as a form of benchmarking an application. 

I have said the same thing for many years about how SI demos their screens as well.

Turn on the ceiling fan lights and take a pic. No one expects it to look good. After all this is a review not an advertisement correct?


----------



## xbladr

Ftoast said:


> Interesting. The site somehow opened a different thread when I was copy/pasting fammanns link and I just now realized it.
> Just in case you didn't already see his thread; http://www.avsforum.com/forum/23-screens/2966072-des-pulsar-1-4-solid-surface-order.html


Yep I found it. Thx though ftoast

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## xbladr

bud16415 said:


> This whole premise of what is ambient light is ridicules to say the least. MM contends it would be absurd to have two bright lights on just In front of the screen and pointing at it. He on the other hand seems to think the examples posted in this thread at least 200 times now where the light source is crammed into a corner beside the screen and then a window placed all the way to the back wall and left open to sunlight is somehow a normal everyday occurrence in home theaters.
> 
> Quite often I see people wishing to have a screen placed where there is a wall of windows to one side. I would think that would be an extreme example and worth of seeing the results. No one wants bright lights in their field of view. So really how many people want to see 200 examples of that. Most people ether have light they don’t want but can’t extinguish or they want to add a little over their heads so they can eat pizza and drink beer without making a mess. That’s why commercial theaters sell popcorn and not soup.
> 
> Of course showing extreme light from the front would never be the norm. We only do such as a form of benchmarking an application.
> 
> I have said the same thing for many years about how SI demos their screens as well.
> 
> Turn on the ceiling fan lights and take a pic. No one expects it to look good. After all this is a review not an advertisement correct?


I have the abyss and not pulsar but if you want to see anything in particular let me know. I may have one of the more extreme examples of straight up ambient light from windows that I can also block for testing purposes.

I do not want to steal lumens thread so I can either create a new one and we can discuss stuff there or you can pm me. 

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## unretarded

I though the entire premis of a ALR was when people cant or do not want to block ambient light such as windows and room lights ?


Why would anyone spend that kind of money for blacked out light controlled room?


I think real world of these screens is being presented.........Me myself, I would leave most of the windows out of a house if it was not fire code to have them. I hate windows...burgulary entry points...massive heating and cooling losses, bugs come in them, they add costs to construction, they let light in and then require blinds and curtains....I pretty much hate every thing about windows to be honest. They are a huge money pit once you figure in what costs they add to a home.



But some love their huge windows and the light they let in.


----------



## xbladr

unretarded said:


> I though the entire premis of a ALR was when people cant or do not want to block ambient light such as windows and room lights ?
> 
> 
> Why would anyone spend that kind of money for blacked out light controlled room?
> 
> 
> I think real world of these screens is being presented.........Me myself, I would leave most of the windows out of a house if it was not fire code to have them. I hate windows...burgulary entry points...massive heating and cooling losses, bugs come in them, they add costs to construction, they let light in and then require blinds and curtains....I pretty much hate every thing about windows to be honest. They are a huge money pit once you figure in what costs they add to a home.
> 
> 
> 
> But some love their huge windows and the light they let in.


Haha I fully agree... Except my wife would have a house full of glass if she could. Happy wife happy life

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## LumensLover

xbladr said:


> I have the abyss and not pulsar but if you want to see anything in particular let me know. I may have one of the more extreme examples of straight up ambient light from windows that I can also block for testing purposes.
> 
> I do not want to steal lumens thread so I can either create a new one and we can discuss stuff there or you can pm me.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


Try as you might you will not be able to help him in any way. He only comes to ALR threads to play the contrarian. He has no intention to learn anything, spread any knowledge, or gather any first-hand experience. His experience will always be limited to a $5 can of paint and the cheapest possible DLP projector he can find. Rinse and repeat every 5 years.


----------



## LumensLover

unretarded said:


> I though the entire premis of a ALR was when people cant or do not want to block ambient light such as windows and room lights ?
> 
> 
> Why would anyone spend that kind of money for blacked out light controlled room?
> 
> 
> I think real world of these screens is being presented.........Me myself, I would leave most of the windows out of a house if it was not fire code to have them. I hate windows...burgulary entry points...massive heating and cooling losses, bugs come in them, they add costs to construction, they let light in and then require blinds and curtains....I pretty much hate every thing about windows to be honest. They are a huge money pit once you figure in what costs they add to a home.
> 
> 
> 
> But some love their huge windows and the light they let in.


I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. However as we all know women are the polar opposite. The more light, the better for them. They want 15 ft walls of glass in grand rooms. Glare and central cooling/ heating bill be damned.


----------



## MississippiMan

Just so no one lets Bud's post confuse the issue, I'm not advocating the removal of normal lighting, nor the arbitrary blacking out of windows.

I'm clearly stating that results from directing bright lights, especially Spots, directly onto a screen are just nothing even remotely close to being a correct evaluation. Now if a Poster / Owner does such and then qualifies the action by saying, "See...even under extreme duress the Screen is doing better than expected!", well then that is something entirely different.

All the examples shown on here and elsewhere by DES owners do that, little is being shown that amounts to favoring their screens with ideal lighting so they are not in question. Open Windows off to one side. Lights off to one side or in the rear....or even on the Ceiling but not washing the screen wall....all are to be considered normal reasons why a ALR application can find worthiness. I myself have posted hundreds of such examples. Strange how those famous for criticizing those efforts of mine...calling them worthless for evaluation of performance are now defending their use while trying to infer that I don't approve of them.


----------



## LumensLover

MississippiMan said:


> Just so no one lets Bud's post confuse the issue, I'm not advocating the removal of normal lighting, nor the arbitrary blacking out of windows.
> 
> I'm clearly stating that results from directing bright lights, especially Spots, directly onto a screen are just nothing even remotely close to being a correct evaluation. Now if a Poster / Owner does such and then qualifies the action by saying, "See...even under extreme duress the Screen is doing better than expected!", well then that is something entirely different.
> 
> All the examples shown on here and elsewhere by DES owners do that, little is being shown that amounts to favoring their screens with ideal lighting so they are not in question. Open Windows off to one side. Lights off to one side or in the rear....or even on the Ceiling but not washing the screen wall....all are to be considered normal reasons why a ALR application can find worthiness. I myself have posted hundreds of such examples. Strange how those famous for criticizing those efforts of mine...calling them worthless for evaluation of performance are now defending their use while trying to infer that I don't approve of them.


He just loves to play the contrarian role no matter what. I posted pics of the Pulsar screen with all the lights on in my room. That included lights from every corner of the room, not just one light crammed into a corner. 

The only light I did not put on was the ceiling fan light because I openly stated this material excels at rejecting off-axis light. The only alr material I've ever suggested for overhead light is the Elite Prime Vision Darkstar material which gives excellent performance under overhead can lights or an overhead ceiling fan light.

As always he ignores what he wants to ignore when it doesn't meet his opinion. And he presses on with whatever loopholes he feels that he can find. I've already showed pics of what this material can do in the presence of some daylight and with lights on around the room. I've done everything in my power to show the Pulsar's performance in a variety of ambient light scenarios.

He is someone who has no first-hand experience, will not gather any first-hand experience, and will not purchase any material. He will sit idly by and play the contrarian role while other people experiment and enjoy new products. He's done this from the minute that I first logged on AVS.

I've observed his posts for over 10 years on this website. And nothing about the way he presents himself on AVS has changed. It's the same contrarian style with no no first-hand experience on the variety of products he loves to question and speculate on.


----------



## FamMann81

I’d like to openly invite anyone who can make it to Indy to come by and watch their favorite movie with my family and I. 

My Rookie may have been showing with the overhead placement, however as a whole home and can lights in the rest of the basement there is no way the boss would have signed off on not having matching lighting in that area. They may be on during game day or when there’s a party, Maybe I’ll find a different solution to lighting the area, but honestly even with all the lights on i couldn’t be happier. I know that doesn’t mean much, with my lack of experience, but I really do wish someone with experience could come and tell me what they think of my setup in person.

Posted more pics on my thread, still with the iPhone, I’ll have the Nikon out soon.


----------



## LumensLover

FamMann81 said:


> I’d like to openly invite anyone who can make it to Indy to come by and watch their favorite movie with my family and I.
> 
> My Rookie may have been showing with the overhead placement, however as a whole home and can lights in the rest of the basement there is no way the boss would have signed off on not having matching lighting in that area. They may be on during game day or when there’s a party, Maybe I’ll find a different solution to lighting the area, but honestly even with all the lights on i couldn’t be happier. I know that doesn’t mean much, with my lack of experience, but I really do wish someone with experience could come and tell me what they think of my setup in person.
> 
> Posted more pics on my thread, still with the iPhone, I’ll have the Nikon out soon.


The screen images shown in your thread look very good. The Pulsar material retained deeper black levels under my ceiling fan light than the Black Diamond did. Though I did not care to comment on the Pulsar materials ability to reject overhead light, it did outperform the black diamond in that area from my experience. 

If someone is looking for an ALR screen to reject overhead light, I'm always going to suggest the Elite Prime Vision Darkstar material. It is listed as rejecting 95% of overhead light, and it definitely did that in spades from my personal experience with it. 

Overhead can lights and a overhead ceiling fan light had little to no effect on the Dark Star material when I owned it. The DNP 08 material also retained relatively solid black levels 

In my opinion, the strongest front projection setup for overhead light would be a short throw projector combined with a short throw alr screen.


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 82


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 83


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 84


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 85


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 86 all lights on in the room including the ceiling fan light.


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 87


----------



## LumensLover

Pics 88. Only ceiling fan light on in room.


----------



## Ftoast

LumensLover said:


> Pics 88. Only ceiling fan light on in room.


Thanks for adding image's with the overhead/fan light. 
Although you already warned folks how that light's position affects the screen (because its angle attacking the screen is fairly similar to the angle the projected image is also coming from), I'm sure there are several folks who learn better by seeing it. Sometimes it's helpful to show essentially 'what not to do' so anyone with less experience can see why it's a good idea to avoid some situations if at all possible.


----------



## Luminated67

Here's a question for you guys that have your ALR screens. Are these screens as good as a regular white screen in a light controlled room?

I suppose I'm really meaning to get the ability to watch the screen in daylight compromise their quality when viewed in the dark.


----------



## FamMann81

Ftoast said:


> LumensLover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pics 88. Only ceiling fan light on in room.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for adding image's with the overhead/fan light.
> Although you already warned folks how that light's position affects the screen (because its angle attacking the screen is fairly similar to the angle the projected image is also coming from), I'm sure there are several folks who learn better by seeing it. Sometimes it's helpful to show essentially 'what not to do' so anyone with less experience can see why it's a good idea to avoid some situations if at all possible.
Click to expand...

Agreed, in my situation even had I seen these pics I still would have had to place the cans up there, and I Still would have bought the Pulsar. The amount of money I saved vs the SI DB to get equal or better performance, with a Solid Surface just makes my smile every time I think about it. Understanding the limitations of the screen by having the visuals does help. As LL, MM, and You have said I would have the same problem with those cans lights if I have used just about any other screen (the Elite Prime Vision Darkstar sounds like the exception). But again for me even with them on I still love the results that I’m getting. My friends and family are still wowed by the image. Yesterday with Harry Potter my daughter actually asked me to turn the lights back on because mom was braiding her hair and she said she could see great with the lights. Having learned this lesson and a lot of others from the forum in the short time I’ve been here maybe I could have done things differently, but I have absolutely no regrets.


----------



## bud16415

LumensLover said:


> He just loves to play the contrarian role no matter what. I posted pics of the Pulsar screen with all the lights on in my room. That included lights from every corner of the room, not just one light crammed into a corner.
> 
> The only light I did not put on was the ceiling fan light because I openly stated this material excels at rejecting off-axis light. The only alr material I've ever suggested for overhead light is the Elite Prime Vision Darkstar material which gives excellent performance under overhead can lights or an overhead ceiling fan light.
> 
> As always he ignores what he wants to ignore when it doesn't meet his opinion. And he presses on with whatever loopholes he feels that he can find. I've already showed pics of what this material can do in the presence of some daylight and with lights on around the room. I've done everything in my power to show the Pulsar's performance in a variety of ambient light scenarios.
> 
> He is someone who has no first-hand experience, will not gather any first-hand experience, and will not purchase any material. He will sit idly by and play the contrarian role while other people experiment and enjoy new products. He's done this from the minute that I first logged on AVS.
> 
> I've observed his posts for over 10 years on this website. And nothing about the way he presents himself on AVS has changed. It's the same contrarian style with no no first-hand experience on the variety of products he loves to question and speculate on.


Pics 86
Looks great. Truly amazing properties. With this excellent of PQ with direct assault of ambient light coming from the direction of the projector, I think the world will be beating a path to get their hands on this screen. 

AVS mods. and admins. If you are reading this I think you should conceder showcasing this product along with these photos on the front page of the forum with the new products features. 

To the OP please be careful when assuming another members motives and dismissing their contributions based on what you think they can afford. This forum is not the special place for elitists who can buy a dozen projectors and screens each year. It is a place for all HT enthusiasts new members and old to openly express their ideas. You are correct I will never buy this screen most likely because I have none of the issues it overcomes. Just because I don’t need it doesn’t mean I’m not interested in it and if I could get a sample wouldn’t like to test it. You have no idea about me and my motives anymore than I do yours. You joined on Oct 2016 but you have been following my comments for the last 13 years, but you seem to think the 6,000 posts I have made have all been to disparage one particular type of screen. 

If you want I welcome the Mods to start reading my posts and see if that is the case and if I have an ulterior motive. If they find one I hope they address it with me. That is their job to decide about you and I. Not our job.


----------



## LumensLover

Luminated67 said:


> Here's a question for you guys that have your ALR screens. Are these screens as good as a regular white screen in a light controlled room?
> 
> I suppose I'm really meaning to get the ability to watch the screen in daylight compromise their quality when viewed in the dark.


There is only one alr screen I've owned where the image is better under low amounts of ambient light vs a completely dark room. And that is the Screen Innovations Black Diamond material. It was the top all around performing alr material I've owned before the Pulsar. 

However I noticed that the Black Diamond's image in a dark room was not as good has other alr screens that I've tried. I also noticed that the image was discernibly inferior in comparison to the cheaper Slate material in a dark room. I believe this is because the Screen Innovations Black Diamond screen clips the whites to a level where the image appears dim with crushed whites when all the lights are off.

The Pulsar material image is just as vivid and clean in a dark room as it is in a room with moderate to low levels of ambient light. The Screen Innovation Slate shows a brilliant image in a dark room. The Dalite Parallax and the DNP 08 material show ISF certified, artifact free images as good as any white screen that I've ever owned including my Stewart Studiotek 130 screen in a dark room.


----------



## bud16415

Luminated67 said:


> Here's a question for you guys that have your ALR screens. Are these screens as good as a regular white screen in a light controlled room?
> 
> I suppose I'm really meaning to get the ability to watch the screen in daylight compromise their quality when viewed in the dark.


That is the $64,000 question. 

All screen surfaces are based around the reference point of a 1.0 gain white Lambertian reflective surface. (Google Lambertian light reflectance for more details.) That is the universally acknowledged standard for reflectance of light within the human spectrum. 

It is perfect only in theory or in real world terms perfect in a theater that is perfect in controlling all light coming in and all projected light being reflected off the room and back at the screen. In theory the closer the room is to perfect the better that reference white screen will be. Nothing is perfect so in theory all rooms would benefit from some slight ALR property. It is important to remember all screens are trying to maintain the greatest amount of “perfect” they can where perfect is what’s coming out of the projector. So with a white screen perfect room the result might be 100% and a white screen lousy room the result might be 50% going to an ALR screen might bring the result up for the viewers location to 80%. So there is an improvement of 30% but still a loss of 20% over perfection. 

I use a Lambertian reflective surface that is gray and has a negative gain. I of course have to supply more lumens to the screen to make up the negative gain. Other screens like this one have a gray color and then sacrifice the Lambertian reflective surface in favor of angular gain enhancements. 

The claims made are that the ALR qualities in no way effect the overall outcome based around 100% being the benchmark. What they say is it works every bit as good as a white screen in a perfect room when all lights are off and with lights on it is far superior. I don’t deny with the lights on part and in theory sitting in the perfect center seat it could be scientifically possible to see the same image. The makers and users in threads like this often claim this and also there is no loss in PQ off angle as well. This is where the claims often exceed science IMHO. 

The properties that make a screen ALR also have to affect the projector light, as light is light. Because the projector fires light out from a focal point in the lens system shaped like a cone the light around the edges of the screen strikes the screen at a different angle than the light hitting the center of the screen. In a Lambertian reflective surface all light is diffused in all directions and an angular gain surface ALR follows different rules. This is what causes warm spots and even hot spots in the image. All this is well documented science of screens. So at the very best there has to be some difference between the two, again IMHO. Those making these screens and those testing say no.


----------



## bud16415

LumensLover said:


> The Pulsar material image is just as vivid and clean in a dark room as it is in a room with moderate to low levels of ambient light.


Here is what you told the member asking the simple question. So we have to assume there is no down side to the Pulsar. Buy it for a lights out bat cave theater and it will work perfect, and then turn up the lights or open some windows and get the benefit of its ALR abilities.


----------



## Luminated67

LumensLover said:


> There is only one alr screen I've owned where the image is better under low amounts of ambient light vs a completely dark room. And that is the Screen Innovations Black Diamond material. It was the top all around performing alr material I've owned before the Pulsar.
> 
> However I noticed that the Black Diamond's image in a dark room was not as good has other alr screens that I've tried. I also noticed that the image was discernibly inferior in comparison to the cheaper Slate material in a dark room. I believe this is because the Screen Innovations Black Diamond screen clips the whites to a level where the image appears dim with crushed whites when all the lights are off.
> 
> The Pulsar material image is just as vivid and clean in a dark room as it is in a room with moderate to low levels of ambient light. The Screen Innovation Slate shows a brilliant image in a dark room. The Dalite Parallax and the DNP 08 material show ISF certified, artifact free images as good as any white screen that I've ever owned including my Stewart Studiotek 130 screen in a dark room.


Thanks for this, my new white screen is arriving any day now though there’s a bit of me that wishes I could watch a movie/sports event in my movie room with the black curtains open but as I’m sure like many I wondered if achieving this ability to be viewed in daylight had a negative effected of its darkroom viewing.

When funds allow I will probably change the material to one of the above and then a whole new viewing experience will open up to me.


----------



## LumensLover

Luminated67 said:


> Thanks for this, my new white screen is arriving any day now though there’s a bit of me that wishes I could watch a movie/sports event in my movie room with the black curtains open but as I’m sure like many I wondered if achieving this ability to be viewed in daylight had a negative effected of its darkroom viewing.
> 
> When funds allow I will probably change the material to one of the above and then a whole new viewing experience will open up to me.


 Take things slow and see how you enjoy the white screen first. If you choose to want to see a good image in a variety of light situations then you can research on the possible trade-offs that come with an alr screen before any future purchase.


----------



## tigerfan33

Does anyone have an instrument to measure the true screen gain?
Center and off center.


----------



## LumensLover

There were certain imperfections in my screen due to the screen builder cutting corners when building my screen. I was trying to save money but it is another hard lesson learned. So I sold my screen on friday, and I ordered an 114" Infinity Edge screen from Dark Energy Screens today. It should be here within about a month. I will take additional pictures when I receive it.

Going back to using a projector on the wall is definitely depressing. The gap in performance is huge. I've gotten so used to using alr screens that I forgot what it's like to use an ordinary white wall. Definitely will be suffering until I get my Infinity Edge screen.

I will be slowing down with the constant flipping. It's been fun over the years, but it does cost money. Also, it appears that I've lost the neighbor lottery. My latest crop of neighbors are terrible and now I have to concentrate my efforts on saving more money and getting another house.

I am enjoying the Epson 5040. It is capable of showing a superior image over the Sony 45ES. However, it is difficult to dial in. With the Sony, I did not have to touch it at all. It's settings were perfect out of the box.

I am torn on if I am going to keep the 5040. However, I need a bright projector since I only use alr screens and this is the only one with 1500 lumens or better in a relatively accurate picture mode. The Epson 5040 replacement will most likely be at the $3,000 mark, which I am not willing to pay for a Epson projector which is not comprised of high-quality parts.


----------



## Ftoast

LumensLover said:


> It should be here within about a month.
> Going back to using a projector on the wall is definitely depressing. The gap in performance is huge. I've gotten so used to using alr screens that I forgot what it's like to use an ordinary white wall. Definitely will be suffering until I get my Infinity Edge screen.


I think you mentioned having tried a painted screen which you didn't care for at some point earlier (sorry if I'm thinking of a different person), but would you be willing to go through the painting hassles again to have a temporary ~1.4gain "black" screen for your month long waiting period? 
..something on the wall where you could just roll some white paint over when you're done with it, or hang the new screen directly over it.


----------



## LumensLover

Ftoast said:


> I think you mentioned having tried a painted screen which you didn't care for at some point earlier (sorry if I'm thinking of a different person), but would you be willing to go through the painting hassles again to have a temporary ~1.4gain "black" screen for your month long waiting period?
> ..something on the wall where you could just roll some white paint over when you're done with it, or hang the new screen directly over it.


Thank you for the suggestion F toast. However, I've had horrible experiences with painted screens in the past. So I will just forgo doing anything and wait until the new screen is assembled. This time, I will keep all packing materials since I plan to hopefully be out of this house within a year or less.


----------



## karlsch

LumensLover said:


> There were certain imperfections in my screen due to the screen builder cutting corners when building my screen. I was trying to save money but it is another hard lesson learned. So I sold my screen on friday, and I ordered an 114" Infinity Edge screen from Dark Energy Screens today. ..................................


Is this defective screen the one you reviewed in the first post in this thread??


----------



## LumensLover

karlsch said:


> Is this defective screen the one you reviewed in the first post in this thread??


Yes sir. It was a good-looking screen. The imperfections were minor but someone who with my obsessive, compulsive demeanor could not handle the minor imperfections over time. My eyes were drawn to them on bright images during certain content.


----------



## bud16415

Let me try and get this straight. You just sold your screen because of “imperfections in your screen because of the screen builder cutting corners” and now you are replacing it with a different screen from the same screen builder? In the interim period you are using a white wall because you sold the screen before your new one arrived. 

Sorry to hear about the neighbors. I have had great neighbors and ok neighbors and some I didn’t really care for. Never had any bad enough to sell my house though. Sounds like Jesse Pinkman moved in next door.


----------



## Ftoast

His old screen used a DIY frame from a more local builder, paired with the bare Pulsar screen-material (I believe)..the new screen will be the whole package "frame+material" all-in-one both from DarkEnergyScreens, except it'll be their one-piece solid screen rather than a separate frame+screen. More like FamMann's screen, I think.


----------



## LumensLover

Ftoast said:


> His old screen used a DIY frame from a more local builder, paired with the bare Pulsar screen-material (I believe)..the new screen will be the whole package "frame+material" all-in-one both from DarkEnergyScreens, except it'll be their one-piece solid screen rather than a separate frame+screen. More like FamMann's screen, I think.


Yes sir that is exactly right. I curse myself for going with a local builder when I should have just ordered everything from Dark Energy Screens from the start. And I would have been done now. 

Putting my trust in people and always trying to find a cheaper way to do things is not always the most cost effective way to go about things. I'm learning that as I go in life.


----------



## MississippiMan

LumensLover said:


> Putting my trust in people and always trying to find a cheaper way to do things is not always the most cost effective way to go about things. I'm learning that as I go in life.


One very good reason having a Wife cost more than being Single. Usually. There are exceptions. 

The Infinity Edge version will be incredible.


----------



## tigerfan33

I’m a little confused what type of screen this is. I’ve read comparison to the 1.4 Black Diamond. Some have said the Black Diamond is angular reflective where the projector needs to be placed close to the top of the screen to get max brightness. I have seen some say the same about DEA .9.
I know Lumen said he has his projector placed pretty close to eye level but can you can more brightness by raising your projector to level of top of screen?
Is this screen angular or retroflective?


----------



## Ftoast

I believe the Pulsar is angular reflective (the images really look like it, and I think it follows many of the Abyss' manufacturing process+parts).

An angular-reflective screen CAN give its brightest image several different ways, including with the projector nearer eye-level as long as the screen is a little lower on the wall or the seats/viewer a bit higher (where eye-level is just a bit below the screen's center) so the incident angle lines up nicely...though I'm not sure if this is Lumenlovers situation or not.
This eye-level and projector near screen center-height configuration is also a cool way to compare brightness between Angular and Retro screens much more fairly.


----------



## jbnpaul

Ftoast said:


> An angular-reflective screen can give its brightest image with the projector nearer eye-level instead of level with the screen's top as long as the screen is a little lower on the wall or the seats/viewer a bit higher (where eye-level is just a bit below the screen's center) so the incident angle lines up nicely












Where does the recommendation on eye-level vs top of the screen come from? The DES website recommends only ceiling installation. Also I am not sure how eye level install can really work since for the reflected angle from the middle of the screen in this scenario both the projector and eye needs to be at the same location which is not possible.

The only recommendation I see is either mountings the top of the screen or if that doesn't work then table mount near the bottom of the screen.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MississippiMan

*A answer...and then some.*



tigerfan33 said:


> I’m a little confused what type of screen this is. I’ve read comparison to the 1.4 Black Diamond. Some have said the Black Diamond is angular reflective where the projector needs to be placed close to the top of the screen to get max brightness. I have seen some say the same about DEA .9.
> I know Lumen said he has his projector placed pretty close to eye level but can you can more brightness by raising your projector to level of top of screen?
> Is this screen angular or retroflective?


DEA is Angular Reflective......less than most, but still angular in nature

Angular Reflection is increased or decreased dependent upon the screen's surface / construction properties and....you guessed it....the angle of incidence of the projected image. Lens position for optimal reflected brightness is variable to the extent of correlating viewing position with the height of the center of the image as relates to the angle of the projected image as it hits the screen.

For most "Retros", ideal performance is achieved by placing the PJ's Lens at the top of the Image because Screen height is "_usually_" tied to Viewing height. Some PJs can have a significantly higher degree of Image offset and/or a too short Throw that make them wholly inappropriate for normal use concerning ALR Screens viewed in normal seating locations. The reverse applies if the PJ has no image offset but can be placed slightly higher from Screen center, at a appropriate Throw, Titled, and then Keystone corrected. Optimal Brightness for a given situation....except for the possibility of colliding with a low hung PJ. 

Speaking of Keystone......the longer the Throw involved, the less "Tilt" is required, and the less angle of incidence of the projected image....the smaller incremental Keystone adjustment are needed. Even better still. Lens Shift = No Keystone needed. 

Then there is setting up to avoid any hot spotting often caused with a 1.4 gain surface. Using a PJ more ideally suited to the task 
(ideal Image Offset or Lens Shift - longer variable Throw) will certainly provide optimal results. Anything less...less so.
With these DEA Screens, the added light diffusion characteristics due to the multiple layers, combined with only a minimal but necessary PJ positional consideration (Top of Screen _and _1.5 Throw Ratio -distance- ) provides a unique blending of "acceptable" conditions. Even so stated....the DES screens will always do their best under ideally suited positioning.



hold the phone: 
I just got a notice of Ftoast's post above.....saying essentially the same (...in less words ) except for lacking some definite s. Here are the answers to the "might be / maybes".



Pulsar......is Angular Reflective. All DEA Screens are to varying degrees.
PJ placement is tied to Top of the Screen placement, Screen size, and seating placement. Nothing new there..
Even the slight difference in angle between a PJ at a specific Height but placed at different Throw distances matters.

Pretty much all such aspects of a given are discussed "before" any talk of placement of any DEA screen. Ya know....years back with the Black Diamond.....no one ever received a BD screen without first having a consultation with a Dealer that explained the Pros & Cons, and then....if a bad "Consumer" decision was made, there were seldom exceptions to the rule. No Exchanges. Seeing that we all are human, and can make wrong decisions, a lot of people got PO'd. That had to and did change.....mostly...but all the same reasons for full disclosure before placement still apply.

If your room design isn't planned around a ideally suited installation, your results will vary. Maybe not all that mu ch from "ideal"......maybe too much. Solution? Knowledge-Decision-Application...in that order.

Oh yeah.....the very real "need" for ALR is lurking in there too. Many prior aggressive ALR Screen owners simply grabbed for a solution for their own adverse circumstances....based on crazy photograpic Advertising images, but couldn't adequately meet the needed installation criteria. The result....poor performance. (never mind Color Shifts - Artifacts-etc) Bluntly put....the more you need ALR, the more you cannot fudge on installation consideration. And NEVER accept any less Screen clarity than what YOU think is acceptable. 

I've never advocated "Patch Jobs" or "Make Do's to a Member. Too much potential for Blow back. And when People actually know what / how things work, knowing as much as possible going in almost always means sacrificing less coming out.

A person is best served by knowing his Limitations and planning accordingly, not hoping for / spending into what he hopes is a instant panacea that completely negates all existing concerns and consideration, or worse, spending less for something that can't hope to meet expectations.

Gaaaa !! Now *jbnpaul* is making all my typing moot! My Coffee got cold for no reason!

Not really though as my post does address his own "Eye Level as relates to PJ / angle of incidence" question. 

You can drop or raise the PJ into a ideal position as relates to the viewing location, but for most applications, 6" to"8 above the top of the Screen is ideal. Really, very few can eliminate the Angular Reflective aspect by placing the PJ's Lens "Null" point dead center within the Screen without creating a hot spot. PJs' with a fixed Image Offset and no H&V Lens shift are further compromised by demanding unusual PJ placement.

I'm repeating myself.


----------



## tigerfan33

Ftoast said:


> I believe the Pulsar is angular reflective (the images really look like it, and I think it follows many of the Abyss' manufacturing process+parts).
> 
> 
> 
> An angular-reflective screen can give its brightest image with the projector nearer eye-level instead of level with the screen's top as long as the screen is a little lower on the wall or the seats/viewer a bit higher (where eye-level is just a bit below the screen's center) so the incident angle lines up nicely...though I'm not sure if this is Lumenlovers situation or not.
> 
> This eye-level and projector near screen center-height configuration is also a cool way to compare brightness between Angular and Retro screens much more fairly.




I thought angular reflective screens were opposite what you say here. 
Retro like the Dalite HP need projector placed eye level for max brightness?

BTW. I was told projector placement at center of screen will work just fine.


----------



## MississippiMan

tigerfan33 said:


> I thought angular reflective screens were opposite what you say here.
> Retro like the Dalite HP need projector placed eye level for max brightness?


They do. If the PJ is placed too Low/High as relates to Eye level, the image will look significantly dimmer. BTW, Retro Reflective screens have less of a fudge factor since the light wants to reflect directly back to the source. A small difference out from optimal positoning results in a large drop in brightness....both Vertical_ and _Horizontal.



> BTW. I was told projector placement at center of screen will work just fine.


That pretty much holds true across all PJ/Screen choice parameters except those involving PJ's with a large Fixed Image Offset.


----------



## Dave in Green

It's easier to understand angular reflective vs. retroreflective from viewing a simple image. Mentally rotate the image 90 degrees and consider the now vertical flat plane as the screen, the light in as the image coming from the projector and the light out being the projected image to viewer eyes. Consider the optimum location of the projector in relation to viewer eyes to provide the brightest reflected image off the screen.








Retroreflective is simple because the brightest image is reflected right back at the projector lens it came from, so sitting with eyes even with and as close to the projector as possible provides the brightest viewing image. Angular reflective takes more effort to find the optimum viewing location based on the angle the image is being sent to the screen and the angle of the image off the screen into the viewing area.


----------



## Ftoast

tigerfan33 said:


> I thought angular reflective screens were opposite what you say here.
> Retro like the Dalite HP need projector placed eye level for max brightness?
> 
> BTW. I was told projector placement at center of screen will work just fine.


You're right..I think I worded things confusingly. Let's see if I can word this better.

A retro-reflective screen NEEDS the projector height to be near eye-level to give its brightest image.

An angular-reflective screen needs the projector+screen heights coordinated so the incident angle aims for eye-level...which can happen with the projector mounted near the screen's top and the screen mounted high enough that eye-level is near the screen's bottom (or screen-height can be a ways lower with a close seating-distance and far throw-distance), OR it can happen with the projector mounted near eye-level with the screen mounted at a height where the projector and eye-level are near the screen's center (typically with the projector a little above-center and the viewer a little below-center).
In my explanation above I meant that an angular screen could potentially show its brightest image in either situation, not just one or the other..sorry for the confusion.

LumenLover's seating-distance is pretty far back (I think roughly equally with his throw-distance), so he could likely mount both the screen and projector fairly low before running into the problem of someone's head making a shadow on the image's bottom.


----------



## MississippiMan

Gosh...I mean... all this explained 3xover? How many times must the same thing be explained....consecutively? At least 6, that's the number of posts behind this one. 


adjective: *redundant*
not or no longer needed


----------



## BeMurda

Hello, given my bright room I am now looking at DES. I've reached out over email. Just wondering which material you think I should go for and any other feedback you have. 

I am still finalizing my decision about aspect ratios, I currently have an Epson 2100 which I have 90 days to return but am considering a 4000 or 5040UB ideally for long term use.

With a 120” 21:9 screen I would max out at a throw ratio of 1.436. For 16:9 content on that screen the throw ratio would be 1.88. If I got a 110” 16:9 screen instead the throw ratio would be 1.645. Is there a significant problem with the 21:9 since it’s less than 1.5?

Additionally I will have one row of seating, a sectional about 10 feet from the display. The sectional will be about 150 inches wide so a bit wider than the screen. The angle at the edge of the couch, which is further than anyone will typically sit, will be 58 degrees off centre. Will the viewing angles be a big problem? Again not sure how this affects material choice.

Also does anyone have experience with customs to Canada? I think there would be fees at the border.


----------



## LumensLover

Well I'm still waiting for my Infinity Edge screen to be finished. It should be done in approximately two to three weeks. In the meantime I had my Epson 5040 calibrated.

Image quality was much improved post calibration. However, if I'm being honest I'm just not impressed with Epson color accuracy. Even when dialed in, Epson's colors never seem as accurate as Sony.

I admit I was seduced by the vibrant, vivid image of the Epson 5040. However just like the 60-40 I owned previously, the more time I spent with it,the more the less-than-ideal colors began bothering me while watching various movie scenes.

At this point of my ht journey, I've seen almost every high end projector below $30,000 and I've owned many mid tier projectors below $5,000. 

I like JVC's deep blacks and high native contrast however their colors seem undersaturated and flat at times. I like the high brightness from Epson but their color accuracy is not acceptable to me long term. I also dont like the pixel fill from lcd projectors. They do not have film like quality to them.

Sometimes watching movies with the Epson 5040 looks like a big tv. Which is cool for shows and sports. However I never get a cinematic feel when watching movies on a lcd projector.

And I love the film like look of dlp projectors from Benq however their lack of contrast during dark scenes is distracting.

So at the end of the day I've come to accept the fact that I prefer the image quality of Sony. Colors are normally 90% calibrated out of the box, Shadow detail is great, and reality creation processing is very good. I aleo have grown to like the contrast enhancer feature.


----------



## xbladr

So lumens what are you doing with your current screen? 

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ftoast

Do you have enough space (and budget) to use an hw45 at night and the brighter Epson during the daylight hours?
Or do you find yourself still wishing for maximum brightness even when the room is less lit, and wishing for more accuracy from the Epson even during content you tend to watch with daylight/bright-lights?


----------



## LumensLover

xbladr said:


> So lumens what are you doing with your current screen?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


I'm putting nails in it. Lol. Currently using the wall at this time. Sold my screen about 3 weeks ago. So I've been without a screen since then. Patiently waiting on the Infinity Edge 16 by 9 aspect Pulsar screen to be finished and shipped to me.


----------



## xbladr

LumensLover said:


> I'm putting nails in it. Lol. Currently using the wall at this time. Sold my screen about 3 weeks ago. So I've been without a screen since then. Patiently waiting on the Infinity Edge 16 by 9 aspect Pulsar screen to be finished and shipped to me.


Awesome I should have someone picking up.my abyss this weekend so I can order the pulsar

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## LumensLover

Ftoast said:


> Do you have enough space (and budget) to use an hw45 at night and the brighter Epson during the daylight hours?
> Or do you find yourself still wishing for maximum brightness even when the room is less lit, and wishing for more accuracy from the Epson even during content you tend to watch with daylight/bright-lights?


I thought about that. Also thought about stacking two Sony 45 projectors for a brighter, punchier image without giving up contrast. But before I went down that road, I wanted to try one more projector. It was a projector that my gut feeling told me would be perfect for me but I went by what everyone said here and shunned it for a while. That projector is the Sony 65ES. Going by the specs and what people say here, it is supposed to be the exact same as the 45ES plus an iris.

However I found this not to be the case. I'm not sure if they use the same panels in the 65ES as they do in the 45ES. In my opinion the 65es appears aproximately 15% brighter than the 45ES in all color modes.

I would also say the contrast on the 65ES appears 10% better than the 45ES in my opinion. The only drawback is the 65ES seems to use an older version of reality creation which is not quite as sharp as the version I had on my new 45ES.

I'm happier than a pig rolling in slop right now. I even prefer the overall image quality of the 65ES over the JVC X550R I previously owned. Color accuracy and shadow detail are excellent with Sony projectors in my opinion. I've also come to realize that my main priority is color accuracy with my second priority being contrast. Resolution is a distant third for me. 

So 4K upscaling and 4K content don't mean much to me. I also don't like motorized zoom because I fell it is clumsy in my opinion.

The Sony 65ES has no problems when I play it during the daytime with my blinds closed. I would also say that the 45es did not have problems while playing it during the daytime either. There was only one time where I felt the image was somewhat too dim and that's when I had sunlight pouring in around noon and it was bleeding directly on the screen heavily. 

It's rare but the sun was bleeding through the blinds heavily that day and hitting the screen at just the right angle to dim the color a bit. I plan to keep the 65es until I can get a laser projector in 2 years or less. I will most likely buy another bulb for it in the meantime.

I am totally ecstatic with this purchase and it's perfect for me at this time. I much prefer the image quality of of the 65ES over the Epson 5040 and the JVC X550R.


----------



## LumensLover

xbladr said:


> Awesome I should have someone picking up.my abyss this weekend so I can order the pulsar
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


Good to hear.


----------



## tylerweitzman

LumensLover said:


> Pics 12



I too, use Gomorrah for my tests


----------



## LumensLover

tylerweitzman said:


> I too, use Gomorrah for my tests


Oh yes. Green never looked so good.


----------



## FNwoz

LumensLover said:


> Well I'm still waiting for my Infinity Edge screen to be finished. It should be done in approximately two to three weeks. In the meantime I had my Epson 5040 calibrated.
> 
> Image quality was much improved post calibration. However, if I'm being honest I'm just not impressed with Epson color accuracy. Even when dialed in, Epson's colors never seem as accurate as Sony.
> 
> I admit I was seduced by the vibrant, vivid image of the Epson 5040. However just like the 60-40 I owned previously, the more time I spent with it,the more the less-than-ideal colors began bothering me while watching various movie scenes.
> 
> At this point of my ht journey, I've seen almost every high end projector below $30,000 and I've owned many mid tier projectors below $5,000.
> 
> I like JVC's deep blacks and high native contrast however their colors seem undersaturated and flat at times. I like the high brightness from Epson but their color accuracy is not acceptable to me long term. I also dont like the pixel fill from lcd projectors. They do not have film like quality to them.
> 
> Sometimes watching movies with the Epson 5040 looks like a big tv. Which is cool for shows and sports. However I never get a cinematic feel when watching movies on a lcd projector.
> 
> And I love the film like look of dlp projectors from Benq however their lack of contrast during dark scenes is distracting.
> 
> So at the end of the day I've come to accept the fact that I prefer the image quality of Sony. Colors are normally 90% calibrated out of the box, Shadow detail is great, and reality creation processing is very good. I aleo have grown to like the contrast enhancer feature.


I have my infinity edge DE Abyss screen together now for a few months. I will warn you the frame leaves a little bit to be desired. I am ultra impressed with the screen material itself however I am still working all the “ribs” out of mine as well as some small circular pockets that were in the screen material itself. It seems like that is fairly common with theater screens as I found a tutorial on silver tickets website going over the same issues. I have taken the screen down twice now to tighten the zip ties and hair dryer the back of it and need to do it one more time. Overall the performance of the screen itself is incredible. I saw an SI screen when I was passing through Best Buy and honestly I didnt think it looked half as good. I think if I was going to do it again, I might build my own frame or buy a very reasonable one and just order the material.


----------



## LumensLover

FNwoz said:


> I have my infinity edge DE Abyss screen together now for a few months. I will warn you the frame leaves a little bit to be desired. I am ultra impressed with the screen material itself however I am still working all the “ribs” out of mine as well as some small circular pockets that were in the screen material itself. It seems like that is fairly common with theater screens as I found a tutorial on silver tickets website going over the same issues. I have taken the screen down twice now to tighten the zip ties and hair dryer the back of it and need to do it one more time. Overall the performance of the screen itself is incredible. I saw an SI screen when I was passing through Best Buy and honestly I didnt think it looked half as good. I think if I was going to do it again, I might build my own frame or buy a very reasonable one and just order the material.


I think you are describing the fixed frame version. No offense intended but I hate fixed frames screens at this point and I would never buy one again. I bought the Infinity SS screen which comes pre-assembled.


----------



## FNwoz

LumensLover said:


> I think you are describing the fixed frame version. No offense intended but I hate fixed frames screens at this point and I would never buy one again. I bought the Infinity SS screen which comes pre-assembled.


You are correct. My mistake. I think that was a good move and if I could do it again, I would have ordered it preassembled. I will be interested to hear your thoughts on the assembled screen.


----------



## FamMann81

Solid Surface for the win!!!


----------



## beastaudio

sub'd. Looking forward to seeing your new screen LL... I actually have a little cutout of some of the DES stuff but I can't get it to lay flat after it got warped in the shipping tube. I'll maybe try and spray adhesive it on to some sintra and see how that works.


----------



## MississippiMan

beastaudio said:


> sub'd. Looking forward to seeing your new screen LL... I actually have a little cutout of some of the DES stuff but I can't get it to lay flat after it got warped in the shipping tube. I'll maybe try and spray adhesive it on to some sintra and see how that works.


Is your sample DEA .8 or DE-Pulsar?


----------



## beastaudio

MississippiMan said:


> Is your sample DEA .8 or DE-Pulsar?


I have so many samples now I could swim in them. I'll have to double check this evening but I know I have Pulsar, I just cant remember if the other sample is DEA .8 or .9.


----------



## Stattico

FNwoz said:


> You are correct. My mistake. I think that was a good move and if I could do it again, I would have ordered it preassembled. I will be interested to hear your thoughts on the assembled screen.


I just got mine today, assembled and a fighting the same issue (Pulsar 1.4, fix frame). Lots of weird lines or ripples that I don't see at all until a light / white image is projected and then it pops them out.

On darker images or parts of the screen that don't have this, the image is BEAUTIFUL. Also thinking right now that I made a mistake and should have gotten the solid surface. 

FNwoz did you ever figure anything out that helped? Before I take my down and cut all the zip ties, wondering if you have any tips?


----------



## FNwoz

Stattico said:


> I just got mine today, assembled and a fighting the same issue (Pulsar 1.4, fix frame). Lots of weird lines or ripples that I don't see at all until a light / white image is projected and then it pops them out.
> 
> On darker images or parts of the screen that don't have this, the image is BEAUTIFUL. Also thinking right now that I made a mistake and should have gotten the solid surface.
> 
> FNwoz did you ever figure anything out that helped? Before I take my down and cut all the zip ties, wondering if you have any tips?


I took mine down twice and am waiting for help do to it one more time. My suggestion would be to zip tie around the 80/20 rather then using those nylon circles. Also get the hair dryer out and blow dry the back of the screen on the warmest setting. Don’t get too crazy with it but get it warmed up as that is when the material will allow you to stretch it the best. Also for 10 bucks, I picked up one of these and this was great with getting good tension without destroying your fingertips. I can tell you that mine was much worse and now is a lot better however it isn’t perfect that is why the screen is coming down again. Overall disappointed with the frame but the material is amazing. We watched a movie last night and I have to say it is impressive. Just hoping to get all of the “ribs” out of it. I also have some of the frame sort of creating a border around the screen that is the other reason I am pulling it down again. 

https://www.amazon.com/HS-Tensionin...648&sr=8-17-spons&keywords=Zip+tie+tool&psc=1


----------



## Stattico

FNwoz said:


> I took mine down twice and am waiting for help do to it one more time. My suggestion would be to zip tie around the 80/20 rather then using those nylon circles. Also get the hair dryer out and blow dry the back of the screen on the warmest setting. Don’t get too crazy with it but get it warmed up as that is when the material will allow you to stretch it the best. Also for 10 bucks, I picked up one of these and this was great with getting good tension without destroying your fingertips. I can tell you that mine was much worse and now is a lot better however it isn’t perfect that is why the screen is coming down again. Overall disappointed with the frame but the material is amazing. We watched a movie last night and I have to say it is impressive. Just hoping to get all of the “ribs” out of it. I also have some of the frame sort of creating a border around the screen that is the other reason I am pulling it down again.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/HS-Tensionin...648&sr=8-17-spons&keywords=Zip+tie+tool&psc=1


Not sure what "zip tie around the 80/20" means? What is 80/20 referring in this context?


----------



## MississippiMan

Stattico said:


> Not sure what "zip tie around the 80/20" means? What is 80/20 referring in this context?



It's the designated name for Extruded Aluminum Frame.


Ergo: "zip tie around the 80/20" means "zip tie around the outside edges of the Aluminum Frame."


----------



## FNwoz

MississippiMan said:


> It's the designated name for Extruded Aluminum Frame.
> 
> 
> Ergo: "zip tie around the 80/20" means "zip tie around the outside edges of the Aluminum Frame."


MississippiMan is correct. Basically the metal bar that he uses. Just zip directly around those. I found it help the screen adjust easier and held it tighter. Not really sure what the goal was with those nylon circles he provided after going that route. I had a hard time keeping those above the 80/20 on some parts of the frame.


----------



## karlsch

They use 80/20 extruded aluminum for their frame material?? It didn't look that way when I was in the market for a new alr screen and I perused their Web site.


----------



## vingmedia

I just ordered my 120" DE Abyss .9 Infinity Edge SS. I will be paring it with the Best Buy Epson 3700 discounted to $999!! Hopefully I will have everything in place by July 4th!!!!


----------



## xbladr

vingmedia said:


> I just ordered my 120" DE Abyss .9 Infinity Edge SS. I will be paring it with the Best Buy Epson 3700 discounted to $999!! Hopefully I will have everything in place by July 4th!!!!


Congrats. That should be an absolutely amazing setup

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## FamMann81

vingmedia said:


> I just ordered my 120" DE Abyss .9 Infinity Edge SS. I will be paring it with the Best Buy Epson 3700 discounted to $999!! Hopefully I will have everything in place by July 4th!!!!


Congrats! Love my SS! Can’t wait to see some pics of yours up! Did you go 16:9?


----------



## vingmedia

FamMann81 said:


> Congrats! Love my SS! Can’t wait to see some pics of yours up! Did you go 16:9?


yes I did go with the 16:9. I hope I remember to post picts if I have time. But I have so many forums to keep up with....


----------



## LumensLover

vingmedia said:


> yes I did go with the 16:9. I hope I remember to post picts if I have time. But I have so many forums to keep up with....


So many forums so little time. Sounds like my life.


----------



## LumensLover

Those of you who have followed my posts over the last few years have heard me talk a lot about my previous alr screens. I was going through my Google profile and found pictures a few of my previous screens when I was living in a condo. So I figured I would post pictures of those screens here. Please keep in mind this is not an apples to apples comparison. This is purely just for fun purposes.


----------



## LumensLover

First generation Black Diamond .8


----------



## LumensLover

100" DNP Supernova with JVC X500R. It had the best fidelity out of any alr screen I've ever owned. It showed a crisp, vibrant image with no signs of the artifacts that are common with most alr screens.


----------



## LumensLover

Elite screens Aeon screen where I was the first to report the sharp edge issue which was later addressed by Elite Screens.


----------



## LumensLover

100" G3 Black Diamond 1.4 Zero Edge with Sony VW365ES.


----------



## LumensLover

100" DNP Blade with Sony HW55ES.


----------



## LumensLover

120" G2 Black Diamond with Sony HW40ES.


----------



## LumensLover

110" Stewart Firehawk


----------



## LumensLover

84" Sony ambient light rejecting screen with LG PF1500.


----------



## MississippiMan

*LumensLover*,


Those are in no particular order...either time acquired or preference? (...I've always scratched my head at your determination...and budget...)



Interesting that the DNP SN didn't stand the test of time. That screen has always been my reference to judge image quality by in my DIY ALR screens, and one reason why virtually all others (DIY & Mfg) have failed to measure up.


In that respect, Stephen also took up that reference, and that drive toward being "as good or better than" is why DES is the performer it is today.


All those others need not apply.


----------



## LumensLover

MississippiMan said:


> *LumensLover*,
> 
> 
> Those are in no particular order...either time acquired or preference? (...I've always scratched my head at your determination...and budget...)
> 
> 
> Interesting that the DNP SN didn't stand the test of time. That screen has always been my reference to judge image quality by in my DIY ALR screens, and one reason why virtually all others (DIY & Mfg) have failed to measure up.
> 
> 
> In that respect, Stephen also took up that reference, and that drive toward being "as good or better than" is why DES is the performer it is today.
> 
> 
> All those others need not apply.


 No particular order. My budget to be honest is unlimited. I save my money wisely and I have small side businesses which bring in additional income.

To keep it simple, I've always had curiosity on trying out different products before I set on any one product. I do that for any thing I'm purchasing when it comes to blenders, tvs,bodybuilding equipment, electronics, etc. The DNP screen was a very good screen. However at the time I had it back in 2013 projector tech was still lagging behind and most high contrast projectors did not have the lumens to properly light up my DNP 08 screen. Also it did not reject light off axis as well as I wanted it to. It was great at rejecting overhead light but everywhere I've lived I've had to use lamps to the left and right of the screen. Overhead lighting bothers my eyes.


----------



## MississippiMan

*LumensLover,*

I understand about the 0.8's need for lumen output to really perform up to expectations. At least when enough of those lumen s are doled out, the DNP SN can hardly dissapoint. The 1st Demo of one I ever saw was a 120"er few years back at InfoComm with a 4500 lumen Digtal Projection PJ lighting it up. Once the lumen received with the PJ's output reaches a parity Lux-wise with the Room's lighting , there pretty much ceases to be any loss of ambient light resistance from any direction..... That is the 0.8 talkin' there. Blacks were great and shadow detail being exquisite...and Whites extremely correct...and all that with literally many 1000s of watts pouring from multiple Array overhead HPS Lights. (Convention Center Lighting)

A certain "Gem" of a screen had a fully tented display, the PJ shooting 3500 lumen, with them also using just 84" screens. VuTec....they were using 5500 Lumen DLPs, also on 84" screens, no tenting. None...not a one was remotely in the same league as the 0.8. One was Brighter...yeah, but came with ferocious Hot Spotting (guess who) DNPs image quality in adverse lighting was both exemplary and unassailable.



Of course a qualifier is due. InfoCom is much more about Digital Signage than Consumer HT, so as opposed to the normally used 42" Monitors, 84" seemed a big step up in 2010. I was there comparing "somebody else's" screen samples against all of them (...couldn't have gotten away with that at CEDIA !!! ) and the DNP was the World Beater, and so it also became a benchmark for development. All or Nothin'....there is no "Try"...only "Do".


----------



## LumensLover

110" Silver Ticket silver alr material with LG PF1500.


----------



## LumensLover

135" Slate 1.2 with Epson 1985. Wonderful brightness for daytime scenes however it's lack of contrast during dark scenes was distractingly bad.


----------



## LumensLover

Benq W8000 with 110" Stewart Firehawk.


----------



## Stattico

FNwoz said:


> MississippiMan is correct. Basically the metal bar that he uses. Just zip directly around those. I found it help the screen adjust easier and held it tighter. Not really sure what the goal was with those nylon circles he provided after going that route. I had a hard time keeping those above the 80/20 on some parts of the frame.


Ahh thanks for the reply both FNwoz and MississippiMan, that is actually what I had been doing all along. I was able to get out some of the vertical lines but not all. I've also been dealing with an issue where the carabiner pull system didnt work for me from day 1 - just pulled out the grommets. Stephen so far has been awesome to work with offering tips and tricks at all hours, etc.. However for me at this point I am asking for a return or to swap out to solid surface since the material is great from an ALR / color perspective.. 

Pictures attached showing the lines I can't seem to get out and the grommet pulling issue. For folks just starting with their's I would HIGHLY recommend having a second person to pull tension / close the tie. Also be super careful if using the carabiner. We had better luck when pulling by my fingertips then having my wife ziptie. You can see below thought that still resulted in the grommet issue.


----------



## xbladr

Stattico said:


> Ahh thanks for the reply both FNwoz and MississippiMan, that is actually what I had been doing all along. I was able to get out some of the vertical lines but not all. I've also been dealing with an issue where the carabiner pull system didnt work for me from day 1 - just pulled out the grommets. Stephen so far has been awesome to work with offering tips and tricks at all hours, etc.. However for me at this point I am asking for a return or to swap out to solid surface since the material is great from an ALR / color perspective..
> 
> Pictures attached showing the lines I can't seem to get out and the grommet pulling issue. For folks just starting with their's I would HIGHLY recommend having a second person to pull tension / close the tie. Also be super careful if using the carabiner. We had better luck when pulling by my fingertips then having my wife ziptie. You can see below thought that still resulted in the grommet issue.


Oh wow yea that's a lot of lines and creases. My diy material comes tomorrow and can't wait. 

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## riddle

xbladr said:


> Oh wow yea that's a lot of lines and creases. My diy material comes tomorrow and can't wait.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk



Hi, plz make some pictures if there are some issues like have Stattico..


thanks


----------



## xbladr

riddle said:


> Hi, plz make some pictures if there are some issues like have Stattico..
> 
> 
> thanks


Got it in the mail yesterday. I have yet to even open it up. I picked up the lumber and will be building my screen later today. I will have plenty of pictures once I get it built. I will also have pictures with my new PX747-4k projector projecting to it. I took some pictures of the projector on a wall today. In the dark though. I will get some pics on the Wall tomorrow with typical ambient light and then same conditions with screen up.


----------



## humbland

LumensLover said:


> 135" Slate 1.2 with Epson 1985. Wonderful brightness for daytime scenes however it's lack of contrast during dark scenes was distractingly bad.


I've been following this thread with interest. 
Hoping to find a replacement for our DaLite HP 2.8 that is getting long in the tooth.
In our set up, it needs to be an electric drop. 
LumensLover, with all of your vast experience, I want to ask your opinion. Can any of the models that you have seen compare to the DaLite HP screens? If so, are they available in electric drop?
Thanks in advance


----------



## biliam1982

humbland said:


> I've been following this thread with interest.
> Hoping to find a replacement for our DaLite HP 2.8 that is getting long in the tooth.
> In our set up, it needs to be an electric drop.
> LumensLover, with all of your vast experience, I want to ask your opinion. Can any of the models that you have seen compare to the DaLite HP screens? If so, are they available in electric drop?
> Thanks in advance



Eric! Long time no talk. How's things in the PNW?


I've been researching this same issue lately too. My HP screen is starting to get old. In-between places right now but will likely need something when I settle down again. 



I remember yours is hanging from the rafters and you need that electric drop down. But I don't have that problem... at least yet. So that opens up a lot more options for me.


But the only one I've seen that may work for you and have similar gain as the HP is from Severtson. The have Residential versions of their electric drop down screens and a tab-tensioned too. 



http://severtsonscreens.com/series/6/tension-deluxe-electric-motorized



Also, they recently released an update to their silver screen material, the SeVision 3D GX. It's now called the SeVision 3D GX-WA and is supposed to be much improved.


http://severtsonscreens.com/material/WA/66


A lot of forum members have been successful in getting large samples. I think I've seen them mention 2'x1' or something. Try giving them a call and ask about the new material, how it works compared to older stuff like hot-spotting and artifacts, pricing and sample availability. Let us know what they say!


http://severtsonscreens.com/our-team/


----------



## humbland

biliam1982 said:


> Eric! Long time no talk. How's things in the PNW?
> 
> 
> I've been researching this same issue lately too. My HP screen is starting to get old. In-between places right now but will likely need something when I settle down again.
> 
> 
> 
> I remember yours is hanging from the rafters and you need that electric drop down. But I don't have that problem... at least yet. So that opens up a lot more options for me.
> 
> 
> But the only one I've seen that may work for you and have similar gain as the HP is from Severtson. The have Residential versions of their electric drop down screens and a tab-tensioned too.
> 
> 
> 
> http://severtsonscreens.com/series/6/tension-deluxe-electric-motorized
> 
> 
> 
> Also, they recently released an update to their silver screen material, the SeVision 3D GX. It's now called the SeVision 3D GX-WA and is supposed to be much improved.
> 
> 
> http://severtsonscreens.com/material/WA/66
> 
> 
> A lot of forum members have been successful in getting large samples. I think I've seen them mention 2'x1' or something. Try giving them a call and ask about the new material, how it works compared to older stuff like hot-spotting and artifacts, pricing and sample availability. Let us know what they say!
> 
> 
> http://severtsonscreens.com/our-team/


Hi Bill,
Hope you are well.
It's all good in Duck Country
Thanks for the info.


----------



## FNwoz

Stattico said:


> Ahh thanks for the reply both FNwoz and MississippiMan, that is actually what I had been doing all along. I was able to get out some of the vertical lines but not all. I've also been dealing with an issue where the carabiner pull system didnt work for me from day 1 - just pulled out the grommets. Stephen so far has been awesome to work with offering tips and tricks at all hours, etc.. However for me at this point I am asking for a return or to swap out to solid surface since the material is great from an ALR / color perspective..
> 
> Pictures attached showing the lines I can't seem to get out and the grommet pulling issue. For folks just starting with their's I would HIGHLY recommend having a second person to pull tension / close the tie. Also be super careful if using the carabiner. We had better luck when pulling by my fingertips then having my wife ziptie. You can see below thought that still resulted in the grommet issue.


I would love to switch to a solid surface as well but I won’t be able to fit it in my basement if I went that route. I thought about calling Stephen and asking for an upgrade but after measuring, there is no way I can get a 120” screen down my stairs or through my window. Ultimately I am just going to keep working it till I am happy with it. At this point it is about 80% there. Hopefully another round with a hair dryer and adjust the brackets that actually hold the frame will get me to at least 95%. The screen performance is incredible. I would really like to see someone try and take pictures of the same setup with the Dark Abyss (the one I have) and the Pulsar. Just curious to see what the difference in gain actually looks like. My projector is on ECO and its plenty bright.


----------



## xbladr

FNwoz said:


> I would love to switch to a solid surface as well but I won’t be able to fit it in my basement if I went that route. I thought about calling Stephen and asking for an upgrade but after measuring, there is no way I can get a 120” screen down my stairs or through my window. Ultimately I am just going to keep working it till I am happy with it. At this point it is about 80% there. Hopefully another round with a hair dryer and adjust the brackets that actually hold the frame will get me to at least 95%. The screen performance is incredible. I would really like to see someone try and take pictures of the same setup with the Dark Abyss (the one I have) and the Pulsar. Just curious to see what the difference in gain actually looks like. My projector is on ECO and its plenty bright.


I can snag some pics later but as of now there is only 1 crease in mine and thats from me not pulling it right around the frame. It is in the very bottom right corner so I am not sweating it right now. I built a wood frame and pulled it around it like I did with my last one. I will be honest the Pulsar is definitely brighter. I did get a new projector at the same time which definitely has something to do with it but even on the dimmest mode with my px747 it is incredibly bright even with lots of ambient light. My real issue right now is the projector still trying to dial it in. It has an RGBW wheel and the whites are so insanely bright that they can definitely hot spot on the Pulsar. I am right at 15 feet away as that is as far as I can go. On my really light grey wall the whites on the standard mode were so bright they hurt with this projector. 

So far so good. I had picked up the projector after I sold my Abyss as I had intended to go with the Pulsar to open my options as to projectors. There were not many out there that offered high lumens to combat my ambient light. This combination is possibly too bright.


----------



## MississippiMan

FNwoz said:


> I would really like to see someone try and take pictures of the same setup with the Dark Abyss (the one I have) and the Pulsar. Just curious to see what the difference in gain actually looks like. My projector is on ECO and its plenty bright.



The biggest difference comes from the gain level, making the Pulsar more easily reactive to a lower lumen PJ.


The Abyss can still get to blazin' when adequate lumen s are applied. The difference between an additionally added 0.4 - 0.5 points of gain is really huge, especially when going from a sub 0.8 level to 1.3^


----------



## MississippiMan

xbladr said:


> My real issue right now is the projector still trying to dial it in. It has an RGBW wheel and the whites are so insanely bright that they can definitely hot spot on the Pulsar. I am right at 15 feet away as that is as far as I can go. On my really light grey wall the whites on the standard mode were so bright they hurt with this projector.
> 
> So far so good. I had picked up the projector after I sold my Abyss as I had intended to go with the Pulsar to open my options as to projectors. There were not many out there that offered high lumens to combat my ambient light. This combination is possibly too bright.



It is always possible to deal with excessive brightness (ND-Filter) but one cannot conjure up Lumen / Brightness / Foot Lambert s that do not exist. 

You will find your balance, I'm certain of that.


----------



## FNwoz

xbladr said:


> I can snag some pics later but as of now there is only 1 crease in mine and thats from me not pulling it right around the frame. It is in the very bottom right corner so I am not sweating it right now. I built a wood frame and pulled it around it like I did with my last one. I will be honest the Pulsar is definitely brighter. I did get a new projector at the same time which definitely has something to do with it but even on the dimmest mode with my px747 it is incredibly bright even with lots of ambient light. My real issue right now is the projector still trying to dial it in. It has an RGBW wheel and the whites are so insanely bright that they can definitely hot spot on the Pulsar. I am right at 15 feet away as that is as far as I can go. On my really light grey wall the whites on the standard mode were so bright they hurt with this projector.
> 
> So far so good. I had picked up the projector after I sold my Abyss as I had intended to go with the Pulsar to open my options as to projectors. There were not many out there that offered high lumens to combat my ambient light. This combination is possibly too bright.


Did you always plan on building your own frame or did you build one after trying Stephens first? As far as the gain goes, I have the Epson 2150 for now and am impressed with it. I am waiting to see what Epson comes out with to replace the 5040ub (projector I was going to go with) but my guess is it will be at least as bright as this hopefully brighter. After seeing some white screens in stores, I definitely don’t regret going with a ALR high contrast screen.


----------



## FamMann81

FNwoz said:


> Stattico said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh thanks for the reply both FNwoz and MississippiMan, that is actually what I had been doing all along. I was able to get out some of the vertical lines but not all. I've also been dealing with an issue where the carabiner pull system didnt work for me from day 1 - just pulled out the grommets. Stephen so far has been awesome to work with offering tips and tricks at all hours, etc.. However for me at this point I am asking for a return or to swap out to solid surface since the material is great from an ALR / color perspective..
> 
> Pictures attached showing the lines I can't seem to get out and the grommet pulling issue. For folks just starting with their's I would HIGHLY recommend having a second person to pull tension / close the tie. Also be super careful if using the carabiner. We had better luck when pulling by my fingertips then having my wife ziptie. You can see below thought that still resulted in the grommet issue.
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to switch to a solid surface as well but I won’t be able to fit it in my basement if I went that route. I thought about calling Stephen and asking for an upgrade but after measuring, there is no way I can get a 120” screen down my stairs or through my window. Ultimately I am just going to keep working it till I am happy with it. At this point it is about 80% there. Hopefully another round with a hair dryer and adjust the brackets that actually hold the frame will get me to at least 95%. The screen performance is incredible. I would really like to see someone try and take pictures of the same setup with the Dark Abyss (the one I have) and the Pulsar. Just curious to see what the difference in gain actually looks like. My projector is on ECO and its plenty bright.
Click to expand...

Not to sway you one way or another, but I got my 130” diagonal 2.35:1 (120” x 51”) solid surface downstairs and around a relativly tight corner into the basement. There’s is enough flex to the metal that you can bow it a bit, do no damage and negotiate the corners. I’ll post a pic of the stairs and corner up on my thread. Then again maybe you’re doing 16:9 and it just won’t fit like you said before.


----------



## xbladr

I decided to build it because when I got my first Abyss I was on a tight budget and couldn't afford the other options. The same thing happened this time. It's not easy and is time consuming. You will undoubtedly need 2 people to do it.

A couple pics. One is of my dad holding the frame we built yesterday. Another of BFG in 1080p. It's a dark scene with all 5 windows open in my room and the French doors to the sun room open. It actually looks much better in person my camera is dulling the image more. This is still impressive as this is with my px747 on standard mode nothing else adjusted.

The other two are from last night's celts game. In cinema mode on eco.


----------



## FNwoz

FamMann81 said:


> Not to sway you one way or another, but I got my 130” diagonal 2.35:1 (120” x 51”) solid surface downstairs and around a relativly tight corner into the basement. There’s is enough flex to the metal that you can bow it a bit, do no damage and negotiate the corners. I’ll post a pic of the stairs and corner up on my thread. Then again maybe you’re doing 16:9 and it just won’t fit like you said before.


If you could take a picture that would be great. I would like to stay with the 120” but am concerned I can make it past the landing of my basement stairs. I can send it through my window but the corner to corner dimensions are 53” and the vertical dimension of the screen is 59”. If I could go that route, that would be the easiest but we are talking 6” of flex here. Do you think thats possible? Picture of window is below. I am looking at a 16:9 screen as that is what I have from Stephen now.


----------



## unretarded

What I like best/find most interesting, Lumenslover, is the progression of the mains....



Much like my shorter journey, it takes large speakers to make large sounds is my end conclusion while smaller speakers can sound outstanding, they can never sound like large speakers...…….


----------



## LumensLover

unretarded said:


> What I like best/find most interesting, Lumenslover, is the progression of the mains....
> 
> 
> 
> Much like my shorter journey, it takes large speakers to make large sounds is my end conclusion while smaller speakers can sound outstanding, they can never sound like large speakers...…….


You are definitely a man after my own heart. Here are a few pics of my other speakers for your enjoyment. Though keep in mind that this is only a few speakers out of over 60 speakers that I've owned over the last 10 years.

Cerwin Vega CLS 215 7 Channel speaker system consisting of seven CLS 215 speakers being used as Mains and surrounds along with large 200 lb center speaker which contained two 10 inch woofers. 

So the entire system contain twelve 15 inch woofers, two 10 inch woofers and six 18" subwoofers. The heavens moved with that system.


----------



## LumensLover

Yorkville Unity 215 Mains


----------



## LumensLover

JBL 4722 containing two 15" woofers and large horn. My first 24" subwoofer is in the second pic as well.


----------



## LumensLover

Klipsch CF speakers containing two 12" woofers and large horn.


----------



## LumensLover

Dual 24" subs


----------



## FNwoz

xbladr said:


> I decided to build it because when I got my first Abyss I was on a tight budget and couldn't afford the other options. The same thing happened this time. It's not easy and is time consuming. You will undoubtedly need 2 people to do it.
> 
> A couple pics. One is of my dad holding the frame we built yesterday. Another of BFG in 1080p. It's a dark scene with all 5 windows open in my room and the French doors to the sun room open. It actually looks much better in person my camera is dulling the image more. This is still impressive as this is with my px747 on standard mode nothing else adjusted.
> 
> The other two are from last night's celts game. In cinema mode on eco.


For some reason your pictures won’t show up when they are clicked on. Regardless I reached out to Stephen and he is going to let me return my setup and go with something else. After doing some measuring, even if I went down to a 110” screen, the solid surface would be tough to get into my basement. With that being said, I think I am going to go with a standard fixed frame from Stephen. Since I am getting a new screen I asked him about going with the Pulsar instead of the Abyss and he was nice enough to send me a sample. Once it comes in, I am going to hang it in the center of my Abyss screen and watch for a few days. After reading this thread, there doesn’t appear to be any negatives to going with the Pulsar over the Abyss but I will definitely post some pictures once I have the sample. I am pleased with the performance of the Abyss so if Pulsar is somehow an improvement on that, that would be great. Stay tuned.


----------



## xbladr

FNwoz said:


> For some reason your pictures won’t show up when they are clicked on. Regardless I reached out to Stephen and he is going to let me return my setup and go with something else. After doing some measuring, even if I went down to a 110” screen, the solid surface would be tough to get into my basement. With that being said, I think I am going to go with a standard fixed frame from Stephen. Since I am getting a new screen I asked him about going with the Pulsar instead of the Abyss and he was nice enough to send me a sample. Once it comes in, I am going to hang it in the center of my Abyss screen and watch for a few days. After reading this thread, there doesn’t appear to be any negatives to going with the Pulsar over the Abyss but I will definitely post some pictures once I have the sample. I am pleased with the performance of the Abyss so if Pulsar is somehow an improvement on that, that would be great. Stay tuned.


Let's try again. I do notice some subtle hotspotting where the light hits the screen directly. With the abyss it wasn't noticeable. I am exactly 15ft away at 120". If I had more distance I'd probably go back another for or two but I'm maxed out









Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ftoast

FNwoz said:


> For some reason your pictures won’t show up when they are clicked on. Regardless I reached out to Stephen and he is going to let me return my setup and go with something else. After doing some measuring, even if I went down to a 110” screen, the solid surface would be tough to get into my basement. With that being said, I think I am going to go with a standard fixed frame from Stephen. Since I am getting a new screen I asked him about going with the Pulsar instead of the Abyss and he was nice enough to send me a sample. Once it comes in, I am going to hang it in the center of my Abyss screen and watch for a few days. After reading this thread, there doesn’t appear to be any negatives to going with the Pulsar over the Abyss but I will definitely post some pictures once I have the sample. I am pleased with the performance of the Abyss so if Pulsar is somehow an improvement on that, that would be great. Stay tuned.


I think the Pulsar might be less forgiving about a less ideal throw-ratio compared to the Abyss. I don't remember your throw-distance, but if you're unable to get the projector at least 1.5X your screen-width back away from the screen (or farther, ideally), you might get some uniformity issues which are more visible/bothersome from the Pulsar with an overly close throw-ratio.
You're probably fine, but if your PJ is closer than 14ft-15ft you might want to consider either moving it back farther or switching to the Abyss material if you notice problems with the Pulsar.

EDIT: just saw the post above once the page reloaded after posting. I didn't mean to copy it, but it's nice to hear the same thing I suspected from somebody with hands-on experience using both materials.


----------



## MississippiMan

The simple...and only correct answer...



The Pulsar works best at 1:8 Throw distance Ratio.


----------



## xbladr

MississippiMan said:


> The simple...and only correct answer...
> 
> 
> 
> The Pulsar works best at 1:8 Throw distance Ratio.


I would agree when I get rid of my 747 and get something to replace it I will be trying 110" at 15ft. Which is right in the 1.8 sweet spot. I'm thinking that will be key.

120" should be about 16ft away which puts me just shy of the sweet spot. 

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## FNwoz

xbladr said:


> I would agree when I get rid of my 747 and get something to replace it I will be trying 110" at 15ft. Which is right in the 1.8 sweet spot. I'm thinking that will be key.
> 
> 120" should be about 16ft away which puts me just shy of the sweet spot.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


This is great news because my projector is just over 16’ from the lens to the screen. I am concerned about hot spotting which is why I think hanging the sample in the middle of my screen would make the most sense. I appreciate the input as it sounds like my setup is pretty ideal for the Pulsar. What would be even better is if Epson unveils the specs for their replacement to the 5040UB as I am hoping that is my next projector to replace my Epson 2150. Just want to make sure it would play nice with this screen but I assume it shouldn’t be a problem.


----------



## megabadd

MississippiMan said:


> The simple...and only correct answer...
> 
> 
> 
> The Pulsar works best at 1:8 Throw distance Ratio.


Hmm, I was considering these screens (110" Pulsar) for an untreated room, but at 110" I'd be sitting about 11ft from the image and with no room to move back. Sounds like I'd be having hotspotting issues here?


----------



## xbladr

megabadd said:


> Hmm, I was considering these screens (110" Pulsar) for an untreated room, but at 110" I'd be sitting about 11ft from the image and with no room to move back. Sounds like I'd be having hotspotting issues here?


Go with the abyss then. That should work great

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## megabadd

xbladr said:


> Go with the abyss then. That should work great
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


Would that be bright enough for daytime viewing? Planning on using a JVC 570 which isn't super bright and was thinking a higher gain screen would be better.


----------



## MississippiMan

megabadd said:


> Hmm, I was considering these screens (110" Pulsar) for an untreated room, but at 110" I'd be sitting about 11ft from the image and with no room to move back. Sounds like I'd be having hotspotting issues here?



The Seating distance isn't the Factor...it's the Projector Throw distance that needs the 1:8 Ratio


A 96" wide screen would need to have the Projector at 14.5 '


----------



## megabadd

MississippiMan said:


> megabadd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, I was considering these screens (110" Pulsar) for an untreated room, but at 110" I'd be sitting about 11ft from the image and with no room to move back. Sounds like I'd be having hotspotting issues here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Seating distance isn't the Factor...it's the Projector Throw distance that needs the 1:8 Ratio
> 
> 
> A 96" wide screen would need to have the Projector at 14.5 '
Click to expand...

The projector would pretty much be throwing from the seating distance (11’3”).


----------



## MississippiMan

megabadd said:


> The projector would pretty much be throwing from the seating distance (11’3”).



Well that does present an ungovernable issue for the Pulsar,and really...possibly if not probably for the Abyss as well. The Abyss needs a 1.5-1.6 ratio, and 11'-3" is on the bloody side of 12' (1.5 ratio). I'd have to say it would be problematical at best....with the only thing really offsetting potential issues at 11'-3" being the sub 1.0 gain of the Abyss. I strongly suggest you let Stephen weigh in on the matter. 



No chance for a "Through the Wall" or "Partially Recessed" PJ installation?


----------



## MississippiMan

megabadd said:


> Would that be bright enough for daytime viewing? Planning on using a JVC 570 which isn't super bright and was thinking a higher gain screen would be better.



BTW...the x570r can easily ace out a splendid image the Abyss at 11'-3"...which is the absolute closest the x570r can be and manage 110" diagonal. (...and at 0.7 gain it still gives you 32 fl !!!!! )


----------



## megabadd

MississippiMan said:


> BTW...the x570r can easily ace out a splendid image the Abyss at 11'-3"...which is the absolute closest the x570r can be and manage 110" diagonal. (...and at 0.7 gain it still gives you 32 fl !!!!! )


Thanks for the responses! I'll reach out to Stephen and get his take on it. Unfortunately I can't do a recessed install or a through the wall install :-/


----------



## Ftoast

MississippiMan said:


> Well that does present an ungovernable issue for the Pulsar,and really...possibly if not probably for the Abyss as well. The Abyss needs a 1.5-1.6 ratio, and 11'-3" is on the bloody side of 12' (1.5 ratio). I'd have to say it would be problematical at best....with the only thing really offsetting potential issues at 11'-3" being the sub 1.0 gain of the Abyss.


I remember seeing the Abyss advertised as useable with ShortThrow projectors. I'm glad to see more accurate information getting around now.


----------



## xbladr

I even think directly on the website it says not for use with short throw


Ftoast said:


> I remember seeing the Abyss advertised as useable with ShortThrow projectors. I'm glad to see more accurate information getting around now.


Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## MississippiMan

Ftoast said:


> I remember seeing the Abyss advertised as useable with ShortThrow projectors. I'm glad to see more accurate information getting around now.





Initially, the needed Throw was determined by the degree of light dispersion from the Projector. A "normal Short Throw" PJ's light cone widens very quickly, and if light uniformity is good, it could indeed be serviceable on a DES Abyss if placed correctly.
Also, it was never a case that a truly Short Throw PJ (110" diag @ 3'-4' or less) was alluded to being serviceable. By Short Throw, it was inferred that DLPs such as the *BenQ w1080ST *(120" diag @ 6'-6") or the* Optoma GT-720* (120" diag @ 6'-1") could work with the Abyss 0.8



It quickly became apparent that the odds were stacked against that being the case the majority of the time, so it was decided to just retract that concept as being valid. Using PJs w/normal Throw range at the proper distance, light uniformity became almost a non-issue.


What you saw "advertised" had to be from just 1-2 posts almost 4 years ago, and since it hasn't been mentioned since, the "accurate" information has been around for a long, long time. Where have you been? Waiting toss in a hoary old, out of date Zinger?




xbladr said:


> I even think directly on the website it says not for use with short throw
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk



Yeah...it's pretty obviously displayed, 2x in fact on the Home Page.


----------



## Ftoast

MississippiMan said:


> Initially, the needed Throw was determined by the degree of light dispersion from the Projector. A "normal Short Throw" PJ's light cone widens very quickly, and if light uniformity is good, it could indeed be serviceable on a DES Abyss if placed correctly.
> Also, it was never a case that a truly Short Throw PJ (110" diag @ 3'-4' or less) was alluded to being serviceable. By Short Throw, it was inferred that DLPs such as the *BenQ w1080ST *(120" diag @ 6'-6") or the* Optoma GT-720* (120" diag @ 6'-1") could work with the Abyss 0.8


Is there any way a particular placement using a significantly longer (albeit still shorter than recommended) throw-ratio could be correctly used In a way that's helpful for xblader with the 747 and Pulsar or megabadd and the Abyss?



xbladr said:


> I even think directly on the website it says not for use with short throw.


 Sadly these screens were being advertised in the DIYscreen section for over a year before that website was setup.
I think once Stephan himself began actively posting (both in the website and on forum after a hiatus) most of the sillier exaggerations started getting corrected. He's mentioned a lot of his own experience with his screen involved a slightly shorter than recommended throw-ratio, and although he didn't recommend it, he was personally happy with the setup. He might have some helpful tips from his hands-on experience for this exact situation.


----------



## FamMann81

FNwoz said:


> FamMann81 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to sway you one way or another, but I got my 130” diagonal 2.35:1 (120” x 51”) solid surface downstairs and around a relativly tight corner into the basement. There’s is enough flex to the metal that you can bow it a bit, do no damage and negotiate the corners. I’ll post a pic of the stairs and corner up on my thread. Then again maybe you’re doing 16:9 and it just won’t fit like you said before.
> 
> 
> 
> If you could take a picture that would be great. I would like to stay with the 120” but am concerned I can make it past the landing of my basement stairs. I can send it through my window but the corner to corner dimensions are 53” and the vertical dimension of the screen is 59”. If I could go that route, that would be the easiest but we are talking 6” of flex here. Do you think thats possible? Picture of window is below. I am looking at a 16:9 screen as that is what I have from Stephen now.
Click to expand...

Sorry this took so long. I’m with you I wouldn’t risk it through the window though. 6” of flex to 59” of height seems like pushing the limit. I’d say we flexed our screen 6-9” along the 120” length of the screen, no problem at all. I think the safer bet would be the stairs, unless your landing is a 180 degree turn. What’s your landing look like?

OR switch to 2.35:1 go CIH and slide that puppy right though the window! I’m at 120” x 51”, 131” diagonal, easy peasy, Lol! 
You’d lose some height in 16:9, but more than make up for it in immersion with your movie’s. Depends on what your mission requirements are.

In my defense I did post these pics that day on my screen thread, just failed to put a link here.


----------



## MississippiMan

Ftoast said:


> Is there any way a particular placement using a significantly longer (albeit still shorter than recommended) throw-ratio could be correctly used In a way that's helpful for xblader with the 747 and Pulsar or megabadd and the Abyss?



The only "significantly longer" throw -ratio that would matter would be one that is within a foot of ideal for the Pulsar and 2 feet for the Abyss. Even then, one must take into consideration that the nature of the Screens themselves combined with the Projector's own performance tendencies is going to to vary to the point that no matter what else, Stephen is going to almost assuredly insist that the advised Throws be held to. 



Certainly some who really want a DES screen, and who must fudge on the required Throws a bit might willfully accept a bit of gain loss at the edges of such tremendously dark screens...but that possibility must be both known and accepted going in. Stephen himself does a fine job of expressing both the advantages and limitations BEFORE anyone plunks down cash. I really do not think it's conducive to keeping people satisfied by suggesting that people spend to test the limits of acceptability any more than it would be for people to purchase a DES screen, set it up wrong, then expect to return it when it doesn't do what they were hoping it might.







> I think once Stephan himself began actively posting (both in the website and on forum) most of the sillier exaggerations started getting corrected.



Care to explain what you deem to be "sillier exaggerations" and where they hailed from? I hope you can, otherwise it's becoming very old how you seem to always make such off-the-cuff remarks.


----------



## Ftoast

MississippiMan said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> The only "significantly longer" throw -ratio that would matter would be one that is within a foot of ideal for the Pulsar and 2 feet for the Abyss. Even then, one must take into consideration that the nature of the Screens themselves combined with the Projector's own performance tendencies is going to to vary to the point that no matter what else, Stephen is going to almost assuredly insist that the advised Throws be held to.
> 
> Certainly some who really want a DES screen, and who must fudge on the required Throws a bit might willfully accept a bit of gain loss at the edges of such tremendously dark screens...but that possibility must be both known and accepted going in. Stephen himself does a fine job of expressing both the advantages and limitations BEFORE anyone plunks down cash. I really do not think it's conducive to keeping people satisfied by suggesting that people spend to test the limits of acceptability any more than it would be for people to purchase a DES screen, set it up wrong, then expect to return it when it doesn't do what they were hoping it might.
> 
> 
> Care to explain what you deem to be "sillier exaggerations" and where they hailed from? I hope you can, otherwise it's becoming very old how you seem to always make such off-the-cuff remarks.


Would it be okay to explain in PrivateMessage form?


----------



## MississippiMan

Ftoast said:


> Would it be okay to explain in PrivateMessage form?



Certainly so.


----------



## FNwoz

MississippiMan said:


> The simple...and only correct answer...
> 
> 
> 
> The Pulsar works best at 1:8 Throw distance Ratio.


Just to make sure I understand this correctly. If my screen width is 104" (120" Diagonal Screen), my ideal distance from screen should be around 15.5' away. 104" x 1.8 =187. 187/12 = 15.6. Is that correct? If so, I should be plenty good since I am 16' 1" lens to screen now.


----------



## MississippiMan

FNwoz said:


> Just to make sure I understand this correctly. If my screen width is 104" (120" Diagonal Screen), my ideal distance from screen should be around 15.5' away. 104" x 1.8 =187. 187/12 = 15.6. Is that correct? If so, I should be plenty good since I am 16' 1" lens to screen now.



Yes...and the Lens should be as close to the Top edge of the Screen as possible.


----------



## ztsen

MississippiMan said:


> Yes...and the Lens should be as close to the Top edge of the Screen as possible.


Is there a comparison between pulsar and abyss? understand the pulsar have better light rejection. apart from that how about color, black and PQ if 2 of them are identical or pulsar just superior in all expect?


----------



## MississippiMan

ztsen said:


> Is there a comparison between pulsar and abyss? understand the pulsar have better light rejection. apart from that how about color, black and PQ if 2 of them are identical or pulsar just superior in all expect?


Perhaps someone has had the *Abyss 0.8* and then switched to the *Pulsar 1.4* who can make their own objective comment. As far as I can relate, the *Abyss 0.8 *does produce the absolute deepest Black....and has extremely good "Ambient Light Resistance" due to it's depth of Ultra Dark Gray shading and Angular Reflective-ness.

The *Pulsar 1.4* also produces almost Interstellar levels of Blacks, but because of it's higher gain it qualifies as being more inside the "Ambient Light Rejection" category... 

Image quality (Black & Shadow detail -Colors -low incident of Artifacts) is equally good with both Screens.

Both screens have a low incident of Angular Reflection...but enough to warrant the PJ's lens being placed at the correct height.

But perhaps the biggest advantage the *Pulsar 1.4* has over *Abyss 0.8 *is that it's gain allows for much improved viewing when 4K HDR content is being watched. (...as well as when the PJ itself has low lumen output...)

*Stardust 2.0* is the latest iteration, focusing on delivering fully *2.0 gain* while still maintaining a 50 degree Half Gain. Ideally suited for 3D enthusiasts, and those with 4K PJs whose HDR performance is very dim. It is not however as good at ALR performance as are the much darker *Abyss 0.8* and *Pulsar 1.4, *and it requires a Throw Ratio of 2.0


----------



## ztsen

MississippiMan said:


> Perhaps someone has had the *Abyss 0.8* and then switched to the *Pulsar 1.4* who can make their own objective comment. As far as I can relate, the *Abyss 0.8 *does produce the absolute deepest Black....and has extremely good "Ambient Light Resistance" due to it's depth of Ultra Dark Gray shading and Angular Reflective-ness.
> 
> The *Pulsar 1.4* also produces almost Interstellar levels of Blacks, but because of it's higher gain it qualifies as being more inside the "Ambient Light Rejection" category...
> 
> Image quality (Black & Shadow detail -Colors -low incident of Artifacts) is equally good with both Screens.
> 
> Both screens have a low incident of Angular Reflection...but enough to warrant the PJ's lens being placed at the correct height.
> 
> But perhaps the biggest advantage the *Pulsar 1.4* has over *Abyss 0.8 *is that it's gain allows for much improved viewing when 4K HDR content is being watched. (...as well as when the PJ itself has low lumen output...)
> 
> *Stardust 2.0* is the latest iteration, focusing on delivering fully *2.0 gain* while still maintaining a 50 degree Half Gain. Ideally suited for 3D enthusiasts, and those with 4K PJs whose HDR performance is very dim. It is not however as good at ALR performance as are the much darker *Abyss 0.8* and *Pulsar 1.4, *and it requires a Throw Ratio of 2.0


Thank you for the explaination, MississippiMan.
Any guideline, how many lumen shoud consider what gain of screen? 1500, 2000 or 3000 lumen like optoma UHZ65?


----------



## MississippiMan

Well....the size screen has much to do with any such recommendation. But using the UHZ65 & 120" diagonal as a guide post........:


120" diag. Abyss 0.8 w/188" Throw = 24 fl 

120" diag. Pulsar 1.4 w/188" Throw = 42 fl

Both have enough for good to fantastic HDR


If you went with the Abyss I would NOT suggest any lower Lumen output than 2000, unless it was a JVC DLA-x590r ^/up


----------



## Danonano

Does Dark Energy offer any screen samples? I looked but couldn't find any on the website.


----------



## nickoakdl

Danonano said:


> Does Dark Energy offer any screen samples? I looked but couldn't find any on the website.


I was told no.


----------



## xbladr

I have had both the abyss and now the pulsar. I will admit it would be impossible for me to compare the 2 seeing as I changed out projectors at the same time. I will state a couple things. I ran about 13ft with the abyss which seemed perfect at 120" I have 15ft now with the Pulsar and wish I had a little more throw. You do get some slight hotspotting just in the upper center directly where the projector light hits. 

The blacks are darker on the Pulsar but, that is due to the better projector. I would agree with mississipi I believe the Pulsar will give you similar blacks to the Abyss maybe just a hair less deep/dark. However, with that said the extra brightness is unreal! It feels night and day different to me. If I really needed to combat ambient light and had the throw distance then the Pulsar would be my go to. If I had better light control I would probably lean towards the Abyss. 

Again take this info with a grain of salt seeing as I made multiple changes simultaneously to my setup.


----------



## riddle

Looks thats this DEA Pulsar 1.4 is good choice at all...

But i am not sure if this will works in my setup and i have so many question... and more will come later 

-will this works at Epson 9300W/5040UBe with 19,68ft distance from the screen? I am kittke worryed by thats hotspotting.
-And how is going thats waves at white/bright scene? If i will take just DIY screen material?


----------



## MississippiMan

riddle said:


> Looks thats this DEA Pulsar 1.4 is good choice at all...
> 
> But i am not sure if this will works in my setup and i have so many question... and more will come later
> 
> -will this works at Epson 9300W/5040UBe with 19,68ft distance from the screen? I am kittke worryed by thats hotspotting.
> -And how is going thats waves at white/bright scene? If i will take just DIY screen material?



How large is the intended screen?


The throw distance you listed could service a Screen up to 10' wide. (120"x 50" 130" [email protected] 2.35:1)


It is a safe distance, and unless your watching 3D or HDR content, you can run the 5040ub in Economy Mode for all othrer applications


----------



## riddle

MississippiMan said:


> How large is the intended screen?
> 
> 
> The throw distance you listed could service a Screen up to 10' wide. (120"x 50" 130" [email protected] 2.35:1)
> 
> 
> It is a safe distance, and unless your watching 3D or HDR content, you can run the 5040ub in Economy Mode for all othrer applications





Hi, my max size of screen is 120" 16:9, thats is size what i use right now.

And yes some times i am watching 3D but most time i am using it for HDR content.


----------



## beastaudio

xbladr said:


> I have had both the abyss and now the pulsar. I will admit it would be impossible for me to compare the 2 seeing as I changed out projectors at the same time. I will state a couple things. I ran about 13ft with the abyss which seemed perfect at 120" I have 15ft now with the Pulsar and wish I had a little more throw. You do get some slight hotspotting just in the upper center directly where the projector light hits.


This is one slight road block of mine. It's not the end of the world for me to move the PJ shelf back another foot or two, but currently with a 120" wide screen, the PJ is the min. distance of 15ft from the top of the screen. Thanks for pointing out you get a little hot-spotting. I guess I could toss one up and see for myself. One of the few joys of a drop-ceiling I guess.....easy cable and PJ shelf management...


----------



## FNwoz

xbladr said:


> I have had both the abyss and now the pulsar. I will admit it would be impossible for me to compare the 2 seeing as I changed out projectors at the same time. I will state a couple things. I ran about 13ft with the abyss which seemed perfect at 120" I have 15ft now with the Pulsar and wish I had a little more throw. You do get some slight hotspotting just in the upper center directly where the projector light hits.
> 
> The blacks are darker on the Pulsar but, that is due to the better projector. I would agree with mississipi I believe the Pulsar will give you similar blacks to the Abyss maybe just a hair less deep/dark. However, with that said the extra brightness is unreal! It feels night and day different to me. If I really needed to combat ambient light and had the throw distance then the Pulsar would be my go to. If I had better light control I would probably lean towards the Abyss.
> 
> Again take this info with a grain of salt seeing as I made multiple changes simultaneously to my setup.


I recieved the sample on Saturday and was watching some content on it as much as I can over the weekend. I hung it from the top and middle of my screen to compare it directly to the Abyss. I was concerned blacks wouldn’t look as good either as I know my projector isn’t very good in that department (Epson 2150 just over 16’ away). I would say there is essentially no difference in black performance. If anything the blacks might look better because the colors and whites are brighter. I am going to try and take some better pictures with the DSLR but see the one attached from my iPhone.


----------



## ztsen

MississippiMan said:


> Well....the size screen has much to do with any such recommendation. But using the UHZ65 & 120" diagonal as a guide post........:
> 
> 
> 120" diag. Abyss 0.8 w/188" Throw = 24 fl
> 
> 120" diag. Pulsar 1.4 w/188" Throw = 42 fl
> 
> Both have enough for good to fantastic HDR
> 
> 
> If you went with the Abyss I would NOT suggest any lower Lumen output than 2000, unless it was a JVC DLA-x590r ^/up


how about 92" diag. Abyss 0.9 with Sony VW385ES but only lumen output 1500?


----------



## bud16415

Where the heck has @LumensLover been? He was posting 50 screen shots per day for a month. Has he moved on to a new and better screen and projector again?


----------



## xbladr

ztsen said:


> how about 92" diag. Abyss 0.9 with Sony VW385ES but only lumen output 1500?


What distance? 

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## ztsen

xbladr said:


> What distance?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


11ft


----------



## xbladr

ztsen said:


> 11ft


Yea you definitely can't do the pulsar at 11'

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## FamMann81

bud16415 said:


> Where the heck has @LumensLover been? He was posting 50 screen shots per day for a month. Has he moved on to a new and better screen and projector again? /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif


Bud, I was thinking the same thing the other day then saw this. Don’t know what happened...


----------



## ztsen

xbladr said:


> Yea you definitely can't do the pulsar at 11'
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


I am not asking pulsar.


----------



## PhilipLG

Hi Lumenslover, I read your review and the thread and really appreciate your inputs. I currently have a 82" Stewart Firehawk G2 screen with an Epson 5040. (The old Firehawk G2 has a 1.3 gain). I want to upgrade to the DE Abyss .9 or the Pulsar 1.4 but I am not quite sure which screen would be better for my setup.

I calculated that if you are using the Sony HW45ES to project onto your 110" screen, you should be getting approximately 25FL brightness.

My Epson 5040 projector is mounted 16.5ft from the screen, so I calculated I would get approximately 85FL brightness onto my 82" screen. Does this mean it would be better for me to take the DE Abyss .9? I am just a bit worried that it would not look as bright as my current old Firehawk G2 with the 1.3x gain, or what do you think? Is it fair to compare a Firehawk 1.3x gain to a DE Abyss .9 gain, or is it two completely different things?


----------



## Patrick G

How would the DES Pulsar match with the Optoma UHZ65?


----------



## MississippiMan

Patrick G said:


> How would the DES Pulsar match with the Optoma UHZ65?



Set up properly, it would be spectacular. OLED-like imagery....no foolin' !


Having said that....the one thing that could be a bit of a spoiler is the UHZ65's high Lumen output combined with a very low Brightness Uniformity (56%), unless you can do the opposite of what is usually the norm and set the PJ back at least 2/3rds of it's maximum Telephoto range for a given screen size. This is somewhat of an advantage with a Pulsar anyway, and of course you would be able to use the Cinema or Reference settings at one of the several lower Lamp outputs offered.


The lack of BluRay 3D support and no Lens Memory put's it as being low Man on the PJ Totem Pole for me personally, but for someone who wants to see 4K Movies and TV (...and still see deep Blacks w/detail) in a room where ambient light is just plain unavoidable, the combo of PJ / Screen as listed will certainly be more than impressive.


----------



## Sam Ash

Reading through this post has been fun and informative. 

LumensLover, loads of respect for you sir and thank you for your immense efforts and down-to-earth approach. Technical insights aside, you're probably the only person that has experienced nearly every ALR solution out there and that in my books translates to passion.

I love the concept of ALR screens. However, I am very sensitive and particular to image fidelity. The last time I saw an SI BD 1.4 in action, I noticed two things:-


1. The image was slightly soft even when the projector was focused correctly - this did not look entirely wrong but as I mentioned I'm really particular about an image. Maybe a slight sharpening overdose would have helped to fix the problem.

2. The image had a very fine texture to it - almost like the surface of the screen was made with crushed glass powder.

3. Subtle gradations are not as smooth - this could have been content related.


I do realise the fact that SI and other ALR screen makers keep improving the quality, have the first 2 issues been resolved or improved drastically ?

The DES Pulsar 1.4 and Abyss 0.8 seem to be nice products.


----------



## Sam Ash

MississippiMan said:


> Set up properly, it would be spectacular. OLED-like imagery....no foolin' !
> 
> 
> Having said that....the one thing that could be a bit of a spoiler is the UHZ65's high Lumen output combined with a very low Brightness Uniformity (56%), unless you can do the opposite of what is usually the norm and set the PJ back at least 2/3rds of it's maximum Telephoto range for a given screen size. This is somewhat of an advantage with a Pulsar anyway, and of course you would be able to use the Cinema or Reference settings at one of the several lower Lamp outputs offered.
> 
> 
> The lack of BluRay 3D support and no Lens Memory put's it as being low Man on the PJ Totem Pole for me personally, but for someone who wants to see 4K Movies and TV (...and still see deep Blacks w/detail) in a room where ambient light is just plain unavoidable, the combo of PJ / Screen as listed will certainly be more than impressive.


Have you had the privilege to see this combination in action ?


----------



## Sam Ash

LumensLover, is there anyway I can contact you? - Would like your assistance please.

If you don't mind me calling you or emailing you, then kindly share your contact details via a private message.


----------



## MississippiMan

Sam Ash said:


> Have you had the privilege to see this combination in action ?



That combo? No. I have seen it with 4K Sony and JVC projectors however. I can't really elaborate enough....and to even do so would be an exercise in excessive and profuse exclamatory discourse about the overwhelming image quality in both Darkness and Ambient light.


As for the UHZ65's performance, I stand by my ad hoc evaluation. I do not / cannot trust in the use of any PJ with under 60% Light uniformity on a 1.0 gain surface, let alone a higher Gain one.


It may well be not the issue I perceive it to be...but I'll not go so far as to suggest it on such a "maybe".


----------



## Cypres0099

A little over a year since the last reply on this thread. Any more disciples of DES? I'm about to get an Epson 5050ub and the ALR of these screens seems really interesting.

Anyone not happy with theirs?


----------



## xbladr

Cypres0099 said:


> A little over a year since the last reply on this thread. Any more disciples of DES? I'm about to get an Epson 5050ub and the ALR of these screens seems really interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone not happy with theirs?


I'm using it with my 5040 and still love it. Make sure you give it atleast 15ft though. The gain of the screen can produce Hotspotting if you are any closer

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk


----------



## vnshah

Cypres0099 said:


> A little over a year since the last reply on this thread. Any more disciples of DES? I'm about to get an Epson 5050ub and the ALR of these screens seems really interesting.
> 
> Anyone not happy with theirs?


I'm quite happy w mine. follow the throw ratios accordingly and you'll be a happy camper. 

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/23-screens/3100786-dark-energy-review-pulsar-1-4-a.html


----------



## Cypres0099

xbladr said:


> I'm using it with my 5040 and still love it. Make sure you give it atleast 15ft though. The gain of the screen can produce Hotspotting if you are any closer


Thanks! I have a range of 15-24ft that I can put the projector. The best placement as far as being out of the way would be approximately 20 feet. Is that in the sweet spot for a 110-120" on DES or is it getting a little far?



vnshah said:


> I'm quite happy w mine. follow the throw ratios accordingly and you'll be a happy camper.
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/23-screens/3100786-dark-energy-review-pulsar-1-4-a.html


I'm not totally familiar with throw ratios. It looks like the ratios for the two screens mostly talked about in this thread are:

Abyss Throw Ratio: 1.6+
Pulsar Throw Ratio: 1.8+

I used a throw calculator for the 5050ub at 120 inches diagonal to get some numbers here. *Image 1 is for the Abyss* and *image 2 is for the Pulsar.*

According to these calculations, the projector could be placed anywhere from 11'9" to 24'9" in its Zoom Range of 1.35 to 2.84. Is the Throw Ratio the same thing as the Zoom Range? Do I just use this calculator and set the zoom range to 1.6 for the Abyss and 1.8 for the Pulsar and it'll show me the minimal and optimal distance to screen?

Should I got Pular or Abyss?


----------



## xbladr

Cypres0099 said:


> Thanks! I have a range of 15-24ft that I can put the projector. The best placement as far as being out of the way would be approximately 20 feet. Is that in the sweet spot for a 110-120" on DES or is it getting a little far?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not totally familiar with throw ratios. It looks like the ratios for the two screens mostly talked about in this thread are:
> 
> 
> 
> Abyss Throw Ratio: 1.6+
> 
> Pulsar Throw Ratio: 1.8+
> 
> 
> 
> I used a throw calculator for the 5050ub at 120 inches diagonal to get some numbers here. *Image 1 is for the Abyss* and *image 2 is for the Pulsar.*
> 
> 
> 
> According to these calculations, the projector could be placed anywhere from 11'9" to 24'9" in its Zoom Range of 1.35 to 2.84. Is the Throw Ratio the same thing as the Zoom Range? Do I just use this calculator and set the zoom range to 1.6 for the Abyss and 1.8 for the Pulsar and it'll show me the minimal and optimal distance to screen?
> 
> 
> 
> Should I got Pular or Abyss?


Yea 20 ft for the pulsar at 120" is great. I'm terms of which you should get if fully dependent on you and your situstion. Reach out to DES on Facebook. He's an incredibly helpful guy and can help you determine which may be the best for your application. I went from the anyss to pulsar because my light control is poor in my living room and I love/wanted the extra brightness and punch from the extra gain

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk


----------



## FamMann81

I’m right at 15 ft. with my Sony 665ES and still loving it. It’s been awhile since I checked in, but still don’t have anything but praise for my Pulsar.

Here’s my most recent pic from thurs night football on Nov 21.


----------



## lessthanjoey2

I have a 120" Abyss mounted at roughly 16.5-17' distance (~200"). I initially tried a Pulsar but the hotspotting was too much and swapped to Abyss which is perfect. No more hotspotting and also a less sparkly image. I couldn't be happier.


----------



## xbladr

lessthanjoey2 said:


> I have a 120" Abyss mounted at roughly 16.5-17' distance (~200"). I initially tried a Pulsar but the hotspotting was too much and swapped to Abyss which is perfect. No more hotspotting and also a less sparkly image. I couldn't be happier.


Are you in a light controlled room? I definitely agree there is some hotspotting/sparkly due to the high gain but I have only found it to be an issue at night no lights and watching regular TV broadcast. 1080p blue rays and 4k content I haven't noticed it as much. If you don't need the gain and are in a light controlled room go for the abyss. I had the abyss first but my projector is in the living room and gets about 50/50 daytime night-time watching 

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk


----------



## lessthanjoey2

xbladr said:


> Are you in a light controlled room? I definitely agree there is some hotspotting/sparkly due to the high gain but I have only found it to be an issue at night no lights and watching regular TV broadcast. 1080p blue rays and 4k content I haven't noticed it as much. If you don't need the gain and are in a light controlled room go for the abyss. I had the abyss first but my projector is in the living room and gets about 50/50 daytime night-time watching
> 
> Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk


It's not a light-controlled room (white walls, have very large windows but with blackout cellular shades blocking them (some leakage around the border). The other side however is 50% open to the rest of the house and moderate light comes in from there. I have a 5040UB though, and that's plenty bright, even on the Abyss, even with some ambient light.


----------



## TTFORUM

Sadly it looks like Dark Energy Screens went out of business. I go to their facebook (Dark Energy Screens) and the last post is July 2019. Clicking on any link and you get redirected to some very shady looking sites. Looking at community gives this:


----------



## PouredOver

TTFORUM said:


> Sadly it looks like Dark Energy Screens went out of business. I go to their facebook (Dark Energy Screens) and the last post is July 2019. Clicking on any link and you get redirected to some very shady looking sites. Looking at community gives this:
> 
> View attachment 3057015


I was actually JUST looking into DES because I have an opportunity to buy a screen locally, but I haven't really seen too many reviews besides the ones by new accounts on here. So I am pretty sketched out with the business not responding to message or w.e. it seems like all communications stopped march 2020, which is when the owner's account last had activity on here. That being said, is this really a good screen? Anything I should watch out for when I buy, now that there isnt much support from the business?


----------



## beastaudio

If the screen is local then demo it out. The material is amazing for ALR, no question. But if the level of light you plan to fight with a projection system is really that high in a domestic setting, you should honestly start thinking about TV instead. Is it the best for ALR out there? IMO yea it's up there...but the material is super finicky and with you not having to have it shipped, if it's in good condition with no creases, you might have a winner on your hands.


----------



## xbladr

I have owned both the pulsar and the abyss. The screens are amazing. Some of the best alr I've ever seen. I reached out a while ago to check in and never heard back so I'm also assuming he is out of business. Definitely go check it out locally if you can 

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dennis Moore

xbladr said:


> I have owned both the pulsar and the abyss. The screens are amazing. Some of the best alr I've ever seen. I reached out a while ago to check in and never heard back so I'm also assuming he is out of business. Definitely go check it out locally if you can


Which one did you end up going with? I just got some Abyss material, but keep wondering if I should have gone with the Pulsar... my projector is a Runco q750i, so it's like maybe 600 lumens. I haven't seen the material yet.


----------



## xbladr

The pulsar is significantly brighter. However even at 15ft my 5040ub gets some hot spotting. The abyss never had that issue. With how dim your projector is it may have been better with pulsar. I'm in a very bright living room during the day so I needed the extra gain. 

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk


----------



## lessthanjoey2

FWIW I far preferred Abyss to Pulsar. The Pulsar had too much perceptible drop in brightness with angle as I moved around the room and it also sparkled noticeably. I was right on the border of their recommended throw ratio though. Abyss is just straight-up fantastic.


----------



## Analyzer52

I've read all these posts and now seems the company is out of business. Anything that compares to it?


----------



## MississippiMan

Analyzer52 said:


> I've read all these posts and now seems the company is out of business. Anything that compares to it?


As far as multi-layered laminated screens....nope. DES was a force to be reckoned with while it was in operation.

There are diy options that can come close though.....everything else "Mfg" that portends to work similarly cost much more and still falls short.


----------



## Analyzer52

MississippiMan said:


> As far as multi-layered laminated screens....nope. DES was a force to be reckoned with while it was in operation.
> 
> There are diy options that can come close though.....everything else "Mfg" that portends to work similarly cost much more and still falls short.


Sucks...guess the search continues.


----------

