# Da-lite Hi Power New or Old what did you get?



## airscapes


I start my story with the decisions to purchase a HP screen after reading Tryg's review thread. I had already called Da-lite to request a sample pack aned it had been about 10 days and still no samples. I figured I needed a Christmas present and my current screen was old and used so why not? The Picture King Tripod comes in High Power and the link goes the the same place as what Tryg is reviewing in the big fixed screens.

I call AVS and ordered, It was drop shipped via UPS in 3 business days. The image was retro-reflective but the surface texture and color did not match the sample which showed up 3 days later. We watch and loved the image it was brighter than the old junker and I was happy. Then one night I hung the sample of the HP fabric on the screen and got really unhappy. The sample was way brighter than the screen!







So I do a little more poking around including looking at the surface with a microscope and taking some photos of the surface. This was sent to Jason at AVS and to a Da-lite customer service reap whom I had contacted prior.


Eventually the rep responded with this statement
_"Hi Doug,


This is what I has been explained to me - Da-Lite has two versions of

High Power fabric. We can replace your screen with the sample material

that you have. The new screen will be "just like" that sample you

recieved. I was not given the insights of the fabric issue due to being

company information. I appreciate asking about your screen issues.


Thank You"



-----Original Message-----

From: Douglas Probst

Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 8:54 AM

To: Joe Pawlosky

Subject: Re: DA-Lite Pickture King Replacement_



The new screen was sent by a freight company not UPS and required me to schedule a delivery time. All in all fairly quick. The new screen was as expected this time and I took a few pics.


I call DA-lite the other day and asked to speak to the CEO but got the manager of Sales, Damien Brunetto

He gave the same story that Tryg said.. better more reliable consistency in the product and yes a lower gain.

I think you will like the new product, it is not bad. The issue I have is the fact they send out samples of one thing and sell you something else that is completely different. I understand "Specifications subject to change without notice" but that is after you buy the product not before you buy it. When it happens before, it is call False Advertising!!







I was also told that some screens may be made with old and some with new depending on the size of the order..



I am keeping the screen with the old fabric it is far brighter and my wife said if I try and send it back she will buy it and we will have both. So the new fabric will be sent back. I will be packing it up tomorrow so if there are photos that someone wants of the new fabric and I can oblige let me know now.


Here is a link to a bunch of photos, there are descriptions under each of photos.

 

http://misc.airscapesart.com/dalitehp/ 

Thanks, for looking!

Doug


----------



## smokey8

Lihnk doesn't work


----------



## thrang




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/17854754
> 
> 
> I start my story with the decisions to purchase a HP screen after reading Tryg's review thread. I had already called Da-lite to request a sample pack aned it had been about 10 days and still no samples. I figured I needed a Christmas present and my current screen was old and used so why not? The Picture King Tripod comes in High Power and the link goes the the same place as what Tryg is reviewing in the big fixed screens.
> 
> I call AVS and ordered, It was drop shipped via UPS in 3 business days. The image was retro-reflective but the surface texture and color did not match the sample which showed up 3 days later. We watch and loved the image it was brighter than the old junker and I was happy. Then one night I hung the sample of the HP fabric on the screen and got really unhappy. The sample was way brighter than the screen!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I do a little more poking around including looking at the surface with a microscope and taking some photos of the surface. This was sent to Jason at AVS and to a Da-lite customer service reap whom I had contacted prior.
> 
> 
> Eventually the rep responded with this statement
> _"Hi Doug,
> 
> 
> This is what I has been explained to me - Da-Lite has two versions of
> 
> High Power fabric. We can replace your screen with the sample material
> 
> that you have. The new screen will be "just like" that sample you
> 
> recieved. I was not given the insights of the fabric issue due to being
> 
> company information. I appreciate asking about your screen issues.
> 
> 
> Thank You"
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> 
> From: Douglas Probst
> 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 8:54 AM
> 
> To: Joe Pawlosky
> 
> Subject: Re: DA-Lite Pickture King Replacement
> _
> 
> 
> The new screen was sent by a freight company not UPS and required me to schedule a delivery time. All in all fairly quick. The new screen was as expected this time and I took a few pics.
> 
> 
> I call DA-lite the other day and asked to speak to the CEO but got the manager of Sales, Damien Brunetto
> 
> He gave the same story that Tryg said.. better more reliable consistency in the product and yes a lower gain.
> 
> I think you will like the new product, it is not bad. The issue I have is the fact they send out samples of one thing and sell you something else that is completely different. I understand "Specifications subject to change without notice" but that is after you buy the product not before you buy it. When it happens before, it is call False Advertising!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was also told that some screens may be made with old and some with new depending on the size of the order..
> 
> 
> 
> I am keeping the screen with the old fabric it is far brighter and my wife said if I try and send it back she will buy it and we will have both. So the new fabric will be sent back. I will be packing it up tomorrow so if there are photos that someone wants of the new fabric and I can oblige let me know now.
> 
> 
> Here is a link to a bunch of photos, there are descriptions under each of photos.
> Old vs New HP fabric
> 
> Thanks, for looking!
> 
> Doug



I'm being told the change affects the material used for _manual_ screens, not fixed screens. Fixed screens have the same formulation. I'm asking for more detail, but so far have not heard any more.


Perhaps they were having a problem with the original coating flaking off the roller screens?


----------



## tigerfan33

Thanks for posting.


I do believe I will be rethinking getting an HP. It will be interesting to know the gain on the new HP. I am looking at a manual as well so if this change has to do with manual screens, I will pass.


----------



## Jay Taylor

Great investigative work Doug. The shot on your web site of the birthday cake is very revealing.


5 weeks ago I purchased a Da-Lite 133" diagonal Contour Electrol HP screen. It is the new HP fabric. With the Panasonic 4000 it provides a beautiful image. I sit 11' from the screen and the projector is 14' 8" from the screen. The projector is 58" high and the center of screen is 53" high. The viewer's eyes are at 40" with the two viewers 12" to each side of center. From FLBoys All Screen Gain Calculator the center screen gain for my setup with the old fabric should be 1.95. The screen gain with the new fabric is unknown to me at this time.

*Edit by Jay:* After further investigation we've determined that I have the Old 2.8 gain fabric: Da-Lite Contour Electrol 133" HP Screen 


So the question is, would I be better off with the old fabric or the new?


In previous conversations with Doug he mentioned that the old fabric has a higher gain with a narrower viewing cone and the new fabric has a lower gain, wider viewing cone, better blacks & detail.


When my Panny 4000 is set to Normal, the image in bright scenes to me is too bright for my setup. In Color 1 or Cinema 1 mode the image brightness is usually just right, but the bulb is new. I can't help but think that once the bulb gets older, the image in Color 1 or Cinema 1 mode may be too dim.


So to answer my own question, with my setup I believe that I am better off with the new fabric when the bulb is new, and the old fabric when the bulb is old and therefore dimmer. Given this new information revealed by Doug, if I were buying a screen today I would still go with the High Power screen. My wife and I love it.


----------



## tigerfan33

What a snafu by DaLite. They should have updated the website and retailers before shipping the new.


A thought also. Da-Lite is at CES this week so they may be showing the new material there.


----------



## noah katz

Yikes.


"I'm being told the change affects the material used for manual screens, not fixed screens."


What about electrics?


They're an in-between case; while they do roll up and down, the only force is gravity as opposed to that needed to pull down the manual.


----------



## Jay Taylor

Noah, the Contour Electrol that I mentioned above is an electric screen. The 133" that I ordered is the new fabric.

*Edit by Jay:* After further investigation we've determined that I have the Old 2.8 gain fabric: Da-Lite Contour Electrol 133" HP Screen 


It's difficult for me to complain about the change when everyone viewing it including myself is smiling ear to ear. To us, the new HP fabric is absolutely beautiful and I can't think of a similarly priced screen that I would prefer to the new HP fabric.


----------



## noah katz

Right, thanks.


My concern is that I have a 133" in the old version, and it's barely bright enough as it is.


However, w/my ceiling mount I'm getting 1.6 gain, so it's conceiveable I'd be better off w/the new lower gain fabric.


airscapes, can you say if the lower gain is accompanied by less rejection of off-axis ambient light?


Seems like it would have to be.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/17855945
> 
> 
> Right, thanks.
> 
> 
> My concern is that I have a 133" in the old version, and it's barely bright enough as it is.
> 
> 
> However, w/my ceiling mount I'm getting 1.6 gain, so it's conceiveable I'd be better off w/the new lower gain fabric.
> 
> 
> airscapes, can you say if the lower gain is accompanied by less rejection of off-axis ambient light?
> 
> 
> Seems like it would have to be.



I am no expert but if you look at the microscopic photos you will see more white area and less and smaller beads.. this would make it less retro reflective giving less rejections to ambient light and I did observer this.

I would have been very happy with the new stuff if I had not received the old sample. The site is a redirect to a non standard port so it may not be accessible from inside corporate sites.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/17854754
> 
> 
> I will be packing it up tomorrow so if there are photos that someone wants of the new fabric and I can oblige let me know now.



Doug, Great shots! If possible, I would be interested in comparison photos of the brightness of the two screens at 10, 20 and 30 degrees off axis w/r to the PJ line of sight. It would be interesting to see at what point (if any) the new screen becomes brighter than the old. TIA.

Lou


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/17856099
> 
> 
> Doug, Great shots! If possible, I would be interested in comparison photos of the brightness of the two screens at 10, 20 and 30 degrees off axis w/r to the PJ line of sight. It would be interesting to see at what point (if any) the new screen becomes brighter than the old. TIA.
> 
> Lou



Would love to but don't really have the room. When I sit at the far side of the room against the wall the new stuff is slightly brighter but not much. I think the PQ is a bit finer since the beads are smaller and there is more flat surface area that does not have beads. If this is what they will be selling from now on, I think there needs to be a professional evaluation using high quality instrumentation. I am new to this and as I said, If I had not hung that sample up there would be none of this. It just pissed me off that the 2 things did not match and no body knew anything till I shoved pictures in their face.

My own opinion is that the new fabric is cheaper to make and probably easier to control quality. It looks as if the beads are deep in the emulsion/paint solution so shoot and go.. no idea how the old bigger beads were affixed.

Just a real bad job of rolling out a new product and and an obsessive twit like me got the miss match sample and screen.


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jay Taylor* /forum/post/17855419
> 
> 
> Great investigative work Doug. The shot on your web site of the birthday cake is very revealing.
> 
> 
> 5 weeks ago I purchased a Da-Lite 133" diagonal Contour Electrol HP screen. It is the new HP fabric. With the Panasonic 4000 it provides a beautiful image. I sit 11' from the screen and the projector is 14' 8" from the screen. The projector is 58" high and the center of screen is 53" high. The viewer's eyes are at 40" with the two viewers 12" to each side of center. From FLBoys All Screen Gain Calculator the center screen gain for my setup with the old fabric should be 1.95. The screen gain with the new fabric is unknown to me at this time.
> 
> 
> So the question is, would I be better off with the old fabric or the new?
> 
> 
> In previous conversations with Doug he mentioned that the old fabric has a higher gain with a narrower viewing cone and the new fabric has a lower gain, wider viewing cone, better blacks & detail.
> 
> 
> When my Panny 4000 is set to Normal, the image in bright scenes to me is too bright for my setup. In Color 1 or Cinema 1 mode the image brightness is usually just right, but the bulb is new. I can't help but think that once the bulb gets older, the image in Color 1 or Cinema 1 mode may be too dim.
> 
> 
> So to answer my own question, with my setup I believe that I am better off with the new fabric when the bulb is new, and the old fabric when the bulb is old and therefore dimmer. Given this new information revealed by Doug, if I were buying a screen today I would still go with the High Power screen. My wife and I love it.



That is great news. Is your lamp on normal or low? If it is on low, then you have your bulb age answer. If it is on normal, then I hope it is so bright now that as it ages it still has enough ft.L that your eye will adjust and it will look the same.


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/17856027
> 
> 
> I am no expert but if you look at the microscopic photos you will see more white area and less and smaller beads.. this would make it less retro reflective giving less rejections to ambient light and I did observer this.



WOW, that is interesting. The old one seems to have larger and more uniform beads, while the newer one has both smaller and randomly sized beads. I wonder if the randomness in some way makes it more uniform looking. That's kind of counterintuitive.


----------



## JHouse

And remember guys, screen shot of patches are extremely misleading a lot of the time. Your eye will decide how much light to let in based on the average level, so any small patch will be screwed up because your eye isn't adjusted for that little spot. You really can't draw any conclusions from that about contrast or saturation type issues.


----------



## rgathright

Just to make sure is the sample I received (dark backing) the old version? The sample seemed extremely bright.


----------



## Jay Taylor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JHouse* /forum/post/17856419
> 
> 
> That is great news. Is your lamp on normal or low? If it is on low, then you have your bulb age answer. If it is on normal, then I hope it is so bright now that as it ages it still has enough ft.L that your eye will adjust and it will look the same.



I usually keep the lamp power in Eco-Mode when the room is totally dark and set it to Normal when it's not. I usually set the Picture Mode to Cinema 1 or Color 1. However, when giving demos I like to dazzle them with the lamp on Normal and select Normal Picture Mode.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgathright* /forum/post/17856537
> 
> 
> Just to make sure is the sample I received (dark backing) the old version? The sample seemed extremely bright.



they are both black backed but if you shine a light along the front like in my photo you will see little squares if it is the new and smooth surface if it is the old If you ordered in December you probably have the old, they are just now fixing that issue. Truth be told the little squares don't tell you much of anything. Looking at the square of old on new it looks washed out but the complete screen of the old looks great.. When there is nothing to compare either one will look good. Just felt cheated when I got something unknown when my screen arrived as would any of you had this happened to you.
http://misc.airscapesart.com/dalitehp/ 


Look folks I am not knocking the new stuff, it is just not the same as what we have all been reading about and calculating on etc. Difference is slight but enough that my wife who doesn't really care one way or another and my 82 year old mother both sitting to the sides of the projector, I am in the middle with the unit in front of us, all say, "Old is brighter and better". I had the screens set up side by side to night to see if the new was brighter off to the side but could not really detect a enough of a difference to say one way or the other cause I ran into the wall


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/17857562
> 
> 
> I had the screens set up side by side to night to see if the new was brighter off to the side but could not really detect a enough of a difference to say one way or the other cause I ran into the wall



Are they still set up? You don't need a wide room to compare them at a wide viewing angle. All you need to do is get closer to the screens as far to one side as the width you have. You should easily be able to do 30 degrees from the center. Please, please, please?


----------



## Hughmc

Count me as disappointed. I was really getting into the hype of getting the 2.8 gain in pull down. I live alone and watch most movies, tv and do gaming alone, so for me the cone was/is favored.


Airscapes, the older screen simply looks better or has better PQ in your opinion?


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17857733
> 
> 
> Count me as disappointed. I was really getting into the hype of getting the 2.8 gain in pull down. I live alone and watch most movies, tv and do gaming alone, so for me the cone was/is favored.
> 
> 
> Airscapes, the older screen simply looks better or has better PQ in your opinion?



It is brighter. I loved the first screen with the new material just was freaked when I put the sample on and it was so much brighter. When I get a new house and can by a big screen it will be the HP and probably the new stuff..


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/17857801
> 
> 
> It is brighter. I loved the first screen with the new material just was freaked when I put the sample on and it was so much brighter. When I get a new house and can by a big screen it will be the HP and probably the new stuff..



And for me and my setup, the new will probably be fine. My room is 18x13 and I am going with a 110" diagonal screen, Panny 4000 15 ft away and seating position 11ft. I am sure it will be more than bright enough, just like you said though once you see one compared to the other, it is hard not to be cynical and want what we want.


----------



## RodK

Do you think it will still resist waves as well as the old. I want a high power, but I want THE high power I heard all the great things about. One of the places I have been keeping an eye on here in Canada just upped the price on the screen I want, but is it the screen I want now ???


----------



## Pedro2

yikes, just ordered a large model C HP screen today thinking the material would be the same as my old (much smaller) HP screen material. I'm already worried the screen won't be bright enough, now I'm doubly worried. Not sure what to do...


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RodK* /forum/post/17858249
> 
> 
> Is the new material as thick as the old? Do you think it will still resist waves as well as the old. I want a high power, but I want THE high power I heard all the great things about. One of the places I have been keeping an eye on here in Canada just upped the price on the screen I want, but is it the screen I want now ???



Yeah several of us feel the same. We don't want the "bait and switch" version.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RodK* /forum/post/17858249
> 
> 
> Is the new material as thick as the old? Do you think it will still resist waves as well as the old. I want a high power, but I want THE high power I heard all the great things about. One of the places I have been keeping an eye on here in Canada just upped the price on the screen I want, but is it the screen I want now ???



check the link at that top. there are pics of the thickness being measured and no I think the new wrinkles more at list in the picture king


----------



## Pedro2

The link at the top showing old and new HP is not encouraging. Sigh.


And I do now wonder if the negative ProjectorCentral review of the HP is actually the new material...


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pedro2* /forum/post/17858364
> 
> 
> The link at the top showing old and new HP is not encouraging. Sigh.
> 
> 
> And I do now wonder if the negative ProjectorCentral review of the HP is actually the new material...




They tested it and the article review claims it is the 2.8 gain HP. If the newer material is 2.4 as is being suggested I think they tested the old screen material.


After reading the review and what some replied to it and taking into account what is being said overall, I think the newer screen at 2.4 will be fine and maybe better for more HT enthusiasts than less. We'll see.


----------



## rgathright

Being this info is just now coming out the stock in most of the stores surely would have the old material.


May have to order quickly!


----------



## nirvy111

I purchased an 8 foot square pull down HP about 8months ago and noticed that the fabric above the join was noticeably less bright than below the join. Some had mentioned that it was a quality control issue but maybe it is infact two different fabrics, it's hard to say. I never use that part of the screen so it was never an issue anyway, I was just curious.


I might add that I think the HP is a better screen when it's used at a lower gain, say for example mouting the projector at 2-3 feet above your head rather than 1 foot. This is something I've just recently done and I prefer the overall look of the image right now. I feel the HP at close to full gain has a slightly unnatural glare about it, which effects colours and some perceived detail, a bit like when you crank up the contrast setting too high and whites get blown out. It's subtle but noticeable in my experience. My thinking is that a lower HP screen is perhaps better way to go.


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pedro2* /forum/post/17858255
> 
> 
> yikes, just ordered a large model C HP screen today thinking the material would be the same as my old (much smaller) HP screen material. I'm already worried the screen won't be bright enough, now I'm doubly worried. Not sure what to do...



You are in the perfect position to tell us the difference. Please keep it that long.


----------



## Pedro2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgathright* /forum/post/17858690
> 
> 
> Being this info is just now coming out the stock in most of the stores surely would have the old material.
> 
> 
> May have to order quickly!



Many (most?) places do not keep stock but order from Dalite as orders come in...I'd be curious to know if anyone has "old stock" of HP screens in some warehouse.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pedro2* /forum/post/17858778
> 
> 
> Many (most?) places do not keep stock but order from Dalite as orders come in...I'd be curious to know if anyone has "old stock" of HP screens in some warehouse.



My new screen (first one with the new fabric) was drop shipped from Da-lite. after some emails and pictures AVS told them to replace the screen and I was told the new one would be the same as the sample. They still have some stock and they make the screens to order apparently.


----------



## Fabricator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/17858935
> 
> 
> My new screen (first one with the new fabric) was drop shipped from Da-lite.



how long did it take to get it ?


----------



## Murilo

Well im going to have to check my screen now. It came from da-lite, but it seemed as bright as my samples. I have no idea how to tell if its 2.8 or not, what if my samples are the new material?


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/17859042
> 
> 
> Well im going to have to check my screen now. It came from da-lite, but it seemed as bright as my samples. I have no idea how to tell if its 2.8 or not, what if my samples are the new material?



shine a flash light across the surface. If it is smooth it is the old stuff if you see squares it is the new stuff.. see pics I posted on my website up top in the tread this is the link
http://misc.airscapesart.com/dalitehp/


----------



## Murilo

Jesus i have the new material. At first i was furious, but now it appears the new material is actually brighter when slightly off axis. My seating cant be perfectly on axis, so im not sure what i should.


----------



## Murilo

Well looking at it closer, moving slightly off axis the new material actually stays brighter, while the old material gets darker. If your perfectly on axis like the pictures then the old material is definatly brighter. I am usually never sitting perfectly on axis, sometimes slightly off and the new material stays brighter. I moved seating positions slightly to the left and right, and suddenly the old material was darker.


I think im going to stick with the new material, still this is absurd, da-lite should be ashamed with this, they cant send out samples, then send out different material, when people are purchasing based on the sample.


----------



## Murilo

Yea after putting up some contrast and white patterns on my projector, the old stuff looses gain incredibly quick, slightly off axis makes the image darker then my current material. Unless your seating is nearly perfectly on axis i dont think i would switch.


I am just slightly to the left of the projector, not off axis much, and it was instantly darker then my newer highpower.


----------



## Pedro2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/17859196
> 
> 
> I think im going to stick with the new material, still this is absurd, da-lite should be ashamed with this, they cant send out samples, then send out different material, when people are purchasing based on the sample.



Dalite also should at least change the gain claims for high power on their website...


----------



## Murilo

Yea i think if you want the new version or old version will depend on your application.


Mine is ceiling mounted, and 20 inches above my head. I found this to be as bright as i wanted it, and this would also explain why i found a very small gain lowering it anymore.


My seating is also around the projector, and moving slightly off axis where we sit the old stuff actually appeared darker.


If you have it shelf mounted or very close to eye level, and you have few seats, or they are all very close to on axis, then i would go with the older.


Im even more baffled, da-lite should be marketing these differently. Its actually quite amazing now that i see it, how well the new highpower works for those of us who need a more versatile environment.


If you dont have perfect conditions, like a shelf mount, or perfect center seating the new stuff is actually quite extraordinary.


If i had airscape setup, looks like his projector is on a table right beside him, i would no doubt want the old stuff, and probably would have noticed a difference in my sample compared to the screen that i received. But since i need a much more versatile setup, it would probably explain why i thought the screen i received was actually brighter then the sample.


----------



## xb1032

This is very disappointing. I have a 106" HP screen now and love it but have been considering getting a 2.35:1 manual screen sometime down the road but I need the extra brightness with my Pioneer FPJ1.


----------



## Darth Indy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RodK* /forum/post/17858249
> 
> 
> Do you think it will still resist waves as well as the old. I want a high power, but I want THE high power I heard all the great things about. One of the places I have been keeping an eye on here in Canada just upped the price on the screen I want, but is it the screen I want now ???



+1. I just started looking into the HP for my living room as I've been told it is best for when watching with light coming in. I want the old material I keep hearing so much about, not less gain and less reflective for light.









I wonder if we call up the dealers to order if we can specify to make sure and get older material?


----------



## Darth Indy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/17859275
> 
> 
> Yea i think if you want the new version or old version will depend on your application.
> 
> 
> Mine is ceiling mounted, and 20 inches above my head. I found this to be as bright as i wanted it, and this would also explain why i found a very small gain lowering it anymore.
> 
> 
> My seating is also around the projector, and moving slightly off axis where we sit the old stuff actually appeared darker.
> 
> 
> If you have it shelf mounted or very close to eye level, and you have few seats, or they are all very close to on axis, then i would go with the older.
> 
> 
> Im even more baffled, da-lite should be marketing these differently. Its actually quite amazing now that i see it, how well the new highpower works for those of us who need a more versatile environment.
> 
> 
> If you dont have perfect conditions, like a shelf mount, or perfect center seating the new stuff is actually quite extraordinary.
> 
> 
> If i had airscape setup, looks like his projector is on a table right beside him, i would no doubt want the old stuff, and probably would have noticed a difference in my sample compared to the screen that i received. But since i need a much more versatile setup, it would probably explain why i thought the screen i received was actually brighter then the sample.



Hmmmm, well this is interesting. My projector would be ceiling mounted so it seems I'd be better off with the new material? I'm really concerned about waves though as I'd be getting motorized or manual and have heard the old material showed no waves at all.


----------



## Murilo

I have not noticed any waves with the new material, mine was a manual but installed into an electric motor by my installer.


In comparison i noticed waves on my glass beaded.


----------



## Murilo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Darth Indy* /forum/post/17859773
> 
> 
> Hmmmm, well this is interesting. My projector would be ceiling mounted so it seems I'd be better off with the new material? I'm really concerned about waves though as I'd be getting motorized or manual and have heard the old material showed no waves at all.



Ceiling mounted, and nearly perfectly on axis, the old stuff is still brighter. New material if its ceiling mounted and viewing at times might be a bit off axis the new material retains brightness from my tests tonight.


Its a very fine line with the old material, i moved an inch or two to the left and suddenly the old screen was dimmer, move an inch or to so your very close to the center of the projector, and the old material becomes brighter. Ceiling mounted though, the old material again has a very small and fine line you can view off axis. It became instantly dimmer even moving slightly to much to the side.


----------



## Murilo

Edit, i will do more viewing tonight.


----------



## Murilo

Ugh after extensive testing, the old stuff is generally brighter. You have to be around 3 feet to notice the reverse gain. Also i noticed if your closer to the screen the old stuff looses some gain, still overall the old stuff is generally brighter, and now im going to see what I can have done about this, it has truely became a nightmare now.


----------



## Murilo

Im still not sure what i want to do, again old stuff still generally brighter, if you get a bit to far off axis it becomes darker.


My heads spinning because im trying to decipher with my new seating if we will ever be to much off axis, or not. Again it makes it harder because their is literally a line where if you cross the old stuff becomes dimmer, generally 3 and half feet left or right of the projector lens. But then really there are times when company wont be sitting 3 and half feet to far from axis or projector lens, while other times if we have more company, i would feel very sorry for those few people who have to sit slightly further then that to the side, the old stuff seems to work in reverse becoming very dark instantly.


I wish da-lite would maybe send me a replacement and let me decide.


If only the old stuff could handle angles as well as the new it would be perfect.


----------



## Murilo

More specific measurements for me, when viewing right near the projector itself, 46 inches from the projector lens, yeilded old stuff still brighter. Moving slightly further to the left or right to 48 to 49 inches off to the side of the projector lens, the old stuff becomes darker and the new screen becomes brighter.


So basically i have to decide. The projector height actually seems to affect the samples fairly evenly. So its more a question of how off axis will some viewers be.


This is a tough one, because if you do have a spot to far off axis, say close to 4 feet off to the side, your pretty much screwed viewing the old stuff, as it becomes darker, and i mean noticeably darker. It turns a white pattern grey, so the backlash is quite harsh.


What to do, what to do.


----------



## Murilo

I think i keep prefering the sample old stuff over my new screen stuff, it generally all around provides a brighter picture unless you have fairly large off axis viewing. I hope da-lite or the guy i purchase this from, will rectify the situation. I ordered based on these samples!!! Yet I did not receive that fabric!


I new right when i received the screen the material i got seemed lighter and more flimsy then the sample i got.


----------



## rgathright

Some of the new material samples need to get sent to "umr" for his calculations he has been running.


My sample piece is the "old" material.


----------



## Murilo

Ugh i am actually going back and forth now. This is so tough, i also want to mention in applications where the projector is behind you, old samples seem to become more dim, the closer you get to the screen. When I moved closer to the screen at about 10 feet away, and with the projector 3 feet behind me, viewing angles of the old stuff became smaller.


The picture taker of this thread i noticed is right beside his projector, which again also favors the old samples. Many like me will have their projector mounted behind them. The old material looses gain the closer you get to the screen, when I began to sit 10 feet from the screen with the projector 3 and half feet behind me, viewing angles dropped off to just under 3 feet, where you start getting negative gain. Ceiling vs floor mounted did not seem to make a difference like how close you are to screen, and how far the projector is behind you.


When I was beside the projector i was nearly 4 feet off axis, and it still looked brighter, slightly over 4 feet and it became dimmer. However I also walked forward, infront of my projector and also noticed the old stuff lost gain, moving forward you could no longer see brightness over the new stuff, and the old stuff became darker. Walking backward again the old stuff picked up gain. It appears the closer you are to the screen in comparison to the projector will also be a huge factor. When I was at 10 feet, you could barely be much more then 2 feet from the side, before the old stuff gain dropped off.


I actually at one point was perfectly on axis and walked right up to the screen and stopped an inch or two infront and the old sample was dimmer. Again showing that if you sit closer to the screen, the old samples are less versatile. In my seating at 10 feet from the screen, if i moved about 2 and half feet to the side of the projector the gain began to drop. If you sit back further near the projector angles increase and you can be over 3 and half feet off axis while still being as bright or slightly brighter then the new. If you sit closer to the screen gain falls off in my application if you are even slightly over 2 and half feet to the side of the projector, and the new stuff stays brighter.


Also black level and uniformity on the new screen just seems better.


Im still not sure what i should. I was just checking bright scenes, then i popped in star trek, and noticed the deep black space on the new stuff, became very hazy with the old.


Im hoping da-lite would send me the old fabric and let me decide.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/17860482
> 
> 
> Ugh i am actually going back and forth now. This is so tough, i also want to mention in applications where the projector is behind you, old samples seem to become more dim, the closer you get to the screen. When I moved closer to the screen at about 10 feet away, and with the projector 3 feet behind me, viewing angles of the old stuff became smaller.
> 
> 
> The picture taker of this thread i noticed is right beside his projector, which again also favors the old samples. Many like me will have their projector mounted behind them. The old material looses gain the closer you get to the screen, when I began to sit 10 feet from the screen with the projector 3 and half feet behind me, viewing angles dropped off to just under 3 feet, where you start getting negative gain. Ceiling vs floor mounted did not seem to make a difference like how close you are to screen, and how far the projector is behind you
> 
> 
> When I was beside the projector i was nearly 4 feet off axis, and it still looked brighter, slightly over 4 feet and it became dimmer. However I also walked forward, infront of my projector and also noticed the old stuff lost gain, moving forward you could no longer see brightness over the new stuff, and the old stuff became darker. Walking backward again the old stuff picked up gain. It appears the closer you are to the screen in comparison to the projector will also be a huge factor. When I was at 10 feet, you could barely be much more then 2 feet from the side, before the old stuff gain dropped off.
> 
> 
> I actually at one point was perfectly on axis and walked right up to the screen and stopped an inch or two infront and the old sample was dimmer. Again showing that if you sit closer to the screen, the old samples are less versatile. In my seating at 10 feet from the screen, if i moved about 2 and half feet to the side of the projector the gain began to drop. If you sit back further near the projector angles increase and you can be over 3 and half feet off axis while still being as bright or slightly brighter then the new. If you sit closer to the screen gain falls off in my application if you are even slightly over 2 and half feet to the side of the projector, and the new stuff stays brighter.
> 
> 
> Also black level and uniformity on the new screen just seems better.
> 
> 
> Im still not sure what i should. I was just checking bright scenes, then i popped in star trek, and noticed the deep black space on the new stuff, became very hazy with the old.
> 
> 
> Im hoping da-lite would send me the old fabric and let me decide.



The reason the new sample looks brighter off axis is because it has smaller beads with white paint under them and around them so it acts like a white screen with Gain. It is kind of cool really and the blacks are better because the light your projector is producing when black is no longer magnified.

As to walking to the screen you are leaving the cone. walk up to the screen and them move so you are in line with the projected image it will be very bright. I am sorry to cause your so much pain but I thought it was wrong of Da-lite to change the product and ship without any announcement. I went with HP cause it fit my setup and there would be no having to figure out what is better and then look what happened... Since it is just me and the wife and once in a while another couple, I am sticking with the old. In my next house when I build a room where I can have 4 seats wide and 2 rows will still use HP. Yes, I think they should keep both products since they are no the same.


----------



## tigerfan33

Does the new wash out with lights on??

I can put my fp in living room mode on my matte screen and watch with a light or two on but it washes out the blacks and I want closer to accurate color too with lights on.


----------



## airscapes

From what I can tell the properties of the new and old are not that different. If you sit in the cone and the lights are not behind the projector you get a very bright image. The screen will only be a back as it is dark in the room in areas that are black. Read the review on the HP fabric the new stuff is just not so bright.


----------



## giggles7502

I have a Model C 119" on order and should be shipping to my house in Canada within the next few days. My biggest concern (next to the drop in gain) is learning about the non-uniform glass bead sizes on the new screen. Is it more susceptible to hot-spotting? It will be my first screen and matching it with an Epson 8100, I can't believe Da-lite would do such a thing without any notification on their website. Murilo can you provide feed back on hot spotting and measurements of your viewing parameters (projector distance from screen and horizontal/vertical distance your eye is from the projector lens)?


Thanks in advance,

Mike


----------



## Murilo

I dont notice any hot spotting, but i cant say for sure, I really have only had it up for 2 weeks.


Projector distance from the screen is about 13-14 feet. Projector is is around 22 inches above eye level.


I have just been looking at the samples.


What is really weird, and airscape you mentioned this, but when i walked right up to the sample which is in the middle of the screen, and in line with the projector lens, the sample of the old stuff was darker. Hence my finding about how close you are to screen. I dont know if you can try this since you have an entire screen.



Im waiting to hear back, I am curious where other canadians odered theirs from?


I would like da-lite to offer to send me an old version as well, and let me decide which one i want.


Im actually about to order another screen, was going to today, but until da-lite rectifies this, they wont be getting a cent, im more pissed off at their lack of honesty. I move to da-lite not just because i liked their screen, but also because i thought they were a much more respectable company, with a strong brand value. This is fading quickly in my eyes. You just dont switch screens on someone without notifying them! I wonder if the new material costs less, and then they decided to swap them, and figured nobody would notice. Very disrespectful.


----------



## tigerfan33

I called Da-Lite and asked how do I tell the difference of the old and the new on a sample. She said it will say on the sample. From what you guys are saying, that is not the case. Also told me that the fixed will stay 2.8 and electric, manual, and tripod will be 2.4.


Can 2.4 and 2.8 be that big of a difference??


From the pictures it does look like it. I also remember reading (correct me if I am wrong) that the 2.8 material was actually a higher gain than as the advertised 2.8.


If so, maybe the 2.4 is correct but the 2.8 was even higher than 2.8.


----------



## Murilo

Anyway, the more baffling thing is this should be marketed as a different material! For those who wanted better viewing angles and less gain from a highpower this would be the answer. The black levels are definately better as well, those who felt the black levels of the highpower were poor are also much better on the new material. I love brightness, but comparing the black level to samples, the sample or old stuff might be to bright for me, and raise black levels to much, but then again if i had an entire screen of the old to compare, i might feel like doug and like the old material.


I really would like for them to offer a full screen of the old stuff so i can do head to head comparisons. Since not all of us have the same setup as thread starter, many also have ceiling mounts and also sit infront of their projector. Who knows what will happen, the person i ordered from will get back to me and we will see what happens.


----------



## Murilo

Well i contacted the person i ordered it from, hd.ca they have been great, the guy i go through cameron wright is isf certified and i believe a da-lite sales person maybe? He puts the orders together for me for my da-lite orders. He is contacting da-lite about this, and it sounded like Wes who i speak to at hd.ca is naturally a little annoyed that they as dealers have not been informed at all about this change.


They are going to contact me when they hear back from da-lite.


----------



## Pedro2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tigerfan33* /forum/post/17861343
> 
> 
> Can 2.4 and 2.8 be that big of a difference??



Well, doing the numbers, to get the same brightness with 2.4 gain as with 2.8 gain one would need to go from a 144" diagonal screen to a 133" diagonal screen. For some this is a big difference, especially if the seating is on axis.


I also called Dalite, and the rep told me one can still request 2.8 in the order, at least for now. I hope that's true, and continues for a while. Frankly, what they should do is keep both materials on a regular basis and simply keep 2.4 and 2.8 as options to choose from.


----------



## Murilo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tigerfan33* /forum/post/17861343
> 
> 
> I called Da-Lite and asked how do I tell the difference of the old and the new on a sample. She said it will say on the sample. From what you guys are saying, that is not the case. Also told me that the fixed will stay 2.8 and electric, manual, and tripod will be 2.4.
> 
> 
> Can 2.4 and 2.8 be that big of a difference??
> 
> 
> From the pictures it does look like it. I also remember reading (correct me if I am wrong) that the 2.8 material was actually a higher gain than as the advertised 2.8.
> 
> 
> If so, maybe the 2.4 is correct but the 2.8 was even higher than 2.8.




I dont know, i threw the sheet out when it came in october, it did say 2.8 highpower material thats all i remember seeing. We all thought da-lite highpowers were only in 2.8. You cant change the gain but not change the name of it. They are using entirely different fabric, they need to change the name, you cant just use the same name for two completely different fabrics.


----------



## SkunkWorkz

I didn't read the whole thread but here are the changes...



"The High Power fabric we use on our manual, tripod, and electric screens will have a 2.4 gain now. We've found that we're able to provide more consistant quality on those screens with the new 2.4 gain material. On our fixed frame screens we will still be using our 2.8 gain High Power that we were using before."


Is the old material still available?


"Yes, they can request the old 2.8 gain material. You'd have to note that on your order to make sure that is what you get. Otherwise the 2.4 gain is going to be the standard on nontensioned screens."


Still Available?


"We will still be making the fixed frame screens with the 2.8 gain material, so it does not seem likely that we would be discontinuing the 2.8 material altogether. I have not been made aware of any plans to phase that out. We just switched it on the manual, electric, and tripod screens because we are able to get more consistant quality and are able to make 8' high seamless (the 2.8 gain is only seamless up to 78") screens with the 2.4 on those."


I say Da-lite has made a big OOOPPSSS!!!!


----------



## Murilo

This would be great even if they do offer to send a replacement, but what about the other 100 dollars i paid to have it professionally installed, based on the assumption he was hanging the screen i viewed samples of?


If i do end up getting an old fabric, then I just wasted over a 100 dollars because of dalite.


----------



## rgathright

Being it will not be any advantage of ordering my screen earlier I will wait to see how this all shakes out.


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/17859196
> 
> 
> Well looking at it closer, moving slightly off axis the new material actually stays brighter, while the old material gets darker. If your perfectly on axis like the pictures then the old material is definatly brighter. I am usually never sitting perfectly on axis, sometimes slightly off and the new material stays brighter. I moved seating positions slightly to the left and right, and suddenly the old material was darker.
> 
> 
> I think im going to stick with the new material, still this is absurd, da-lite should be ashamed with this, they cant send out samples, then send out different material, when people are purchasing based on the sample.



They probably figured that the gain in the sweet spot was close enough that no one would complain or notice (as it is still at 2.4 brighter than anything else available) and that since it was a wider cone it would receive fewer complaints.


I think I might need one now.


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/17861293
> 
> 
> I dont notice any hot spotting, but i cant say for sure, I really have only had it up for 2 weeks.



Hotspotting is not something you have to learn to see. It sticks out. If you move around a little, the big bright center will move with you/in your direction of movement on the screen. And if you are sitting still, the periphery is obviously darker than the center. THAT is hotspotting.


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/17860366
> 
> 
> Im still not sure what i want to do, again old stuff still generally brighter, if you get a bit to far off axis it becomes darker.
> 
> 
> My heads spinning because im trying to decipher with my new seating if we will ever be to much off axis, or not. Again it makes it harder because their is literally a line where if you cross the old stuff becomes dimmer, generally 3 and half feet left or right of the projector lens.
> 
> 
> If only the old stuff could handle angles as well as the new it would be perfect.



RELAX. In reading your posts you seem to be panicking, and this probably isn't a very big deal. First, swatches are treacherous to judge from. Once your eyes are adjusted on one screen, you probably won't even notice 2.4 vs 2.8. And you have much better seating flexibility. Didn't you already say it looked great? And there ain't no free lunch, you get gain or wider cone. One or the other. The screen doesn't produce light, it only reflects what is shined on it.


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/17861493
> 
> 
> I dont know, i threw the sheet out when it came in october, it did say 2.8 highpower material thats all i remember seeing. We all thought da-lite highpowers were only in 2.8. You cant change the gain but not change the name of it. They are using entirely different fabric, they need to change the name, you cant just use the same name for two completely different fabrics.



It ought to be High Power vs. High Power Wide


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tigerfan33* /forum/post/17861343
> 
> 
> I called Da-Lite and asked how do I tell the difference of the old and the new on a sample. She said it will say on the sample. From what you guys are saying, that is not the case. Also told me that the fixed will stay 2.8 and electric, manual, and tripod will be 2.4.
> 
> 
> Can 2.4 and 2.8 be that big of a difference??
> 
> 
> From the pictures it does look like it. I also remember reading (correct me if I am wrong) that the 2.8 material was actually a higher gain than as the advertised 2.8.
> 
> 
> If so, maybe the 2.4 is correct but the 2.8 was even higher than 2.8.



Yes, a "Dan" measured 3.1 at the very sweetest spot. But there's only enough room for one face right there.


----------



## airscapes

Plain and simple Da-lite misled everyone. I called and asked if picture king HP was the same as fixed and electric the answer was "Yes" we only have one HP fabric. I requested samples, I ordered the screen with HP. Specs says 2.8 customer rep says 2.8, screen comes and is not 2.8, not the same fabric and after much email and phone calls and public forum thread they admit they changed it without telling anyone including their internal customer service people. So where does that leave the customers who received a different product than they ordered? I got them to send me what I had asked for but how about the rest of you. I guess if you are happy with the new fabric no harm done it just seems shady to me. .. Put the cheap **** in no one will know.. maybe I am making a mountain out of a mole hill... or maybe this is what makes the internet a good thing.


----------



## Jay Taylor

I couldn't detect any hot spotting on my new HP fabric 133" screen. I was however amazed at how consistent and beautiful the screen was across its entire surface.

*Edit by Jay:* After further investigation we've determined that I have the Old 2.8 gain fabric: Da-Lite Contour Electrol 133" HP Screen 



I watch a lot of sci-fi movies with dark space scenes. I wasn't expecting the space shots to be as black as they are although most of that can be atributed to the Panny 4000. I'm not going to give up my new HP screen even if Da-Lite offers to replace it with the old.


I agree with others that Da-Lite should market these two excellent products separately. Joe's suggestion for High Power & High Power Wide screens is an excellent idea. We should be given the choice rather than Da-Lite switching the fabric without telling us.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jay Taylor* /forum/post/17862659
> 
> 
> I couldn't detect any hot spotting on my new HP fabric 133" screen. I was however amazed at how consistent and beautiful the screen was across its entire surface.
> 
> 
> I watch a lot of sci-fi movies with dark space scenes. I wasn't expecting the space shots to be as black as they are although most of that can be atributed to the Panny 4000. I'm not going to give up my new HP screen even if Da-Lite offers to replace it with the old.
> 
> 
> I agree with others that Da-Lite should market these two excellent products separately. Joe's suggestion for High Power & High Power Wide screens is an excellent idea. We should be given the choice rather than Da-Lite switching the fabric without telling us.



Jay I am glad you like your screen and thanks for the help researching this with me. It will be interesting how things turn out.


----------



## Jay Taylor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/17862865
> 
> 
> Jay I am glad you like your screen and thanks for the help researching this with me. It will be interesting how things turn out.



You're welcome Doug. You deserve a thank you from all of us as well as Da-Lite for all of your research and bringing this to light. The outcome may be for us to have two types of High Power screen to choose between to best match our specific application.


At this point my main concern with the new fabric is screen curling. Since the new fabric is thinner than the old it may be more susceptible to curling. I haven't noticed any yet but I've only had it installed for a few weeks.


My other concern is will I consider the screen to be too dim when the projector bulb gets old.


Time will tell on both of these issues.


----------



## Darth Indy

Will one of these work for me since my projector would be ceiling mounted?


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Darth Indy* /forum/post/17863279
> 
> 
> Will one of these work for me since my projector would be ceiling mounted?



you should go back and read the review of the HP located here
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=773065


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Darth Indy* /forum/post/17863279
> 
> 
> Will one of these work for me since my projector would be ceiling mounted?



Haven't seen the new stuff yet, but it sounds like it is better. It has the benefits of the High Power: makes wrinkles invisible, rejects ambient light from the sides, plenty of gain, plus the gain is still way up there, essentially making a 500 lumen pj look like a 1200 to most people (when you think about it what you are really doing is recovering the light that is lost by calibrating it to D6500K).


I had a 120" of the old stuff in a ceiling mounted set up and it was great, but it sounds like the new stuff will be even better. One factor I had going for me was I was shooting 2200 lumens instead of the 500 or so most of us have now. I think I blasted so much light to the screen that even the low gain cone was bright enough.


I'm starting to think that the 2.8/original material is best for lonely people.


----------



## Roger That

Based on the descriptions here, I think I may have gotten the newer stuff (screen bought just before Xmas). Personally, I still think it's awesome. Viewing angle is great and is plenty bright for me.


----------



## noah katz

Murilo


"This is a tough one, because if you do have a spot to far off axis, say close to 4 feet off to the side, your pretty much screwed viewing the old stuff, as it becomes darker, and i mean noticeably darker. It turns a white pattern grey, so the backlash is quite harsh."


I think you're being fooled by the way our eyes perceive contrast between adjacent areas - the new (or old) fabric only looks gray in comparison to what's right next to it.


This doesn't happen when you view just one at a time.


Also, I bet that if you stand in the cone, turn your ahead away from the screen, and then walk out of the cone and look back at the screen, that you'd be hard pressed to notice the brightness loss.


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/17863997
> 
> 
> Also, I bet that if you stand in the cone, turn your ahead away from the screen, and then walk out of the cone, that you'd be hard pressed to notice the brightness loss.



That is an excellent test, because it shows you that your eyes adjust automatically for best viewing, and that is a pretty broad range for the human eye.


----------



## noah katz

It's great that both versions will be available.


I'm going to get a sample of the 2.4 and see which one works better w/my high shelf mount.


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/17864861
> 
> 
> It's great that both versions will be available.
> 
> 
> I'm going to get a sample of the 2.4 and see which one works better w/my high shelf mount.



Let us know. I hope you are better a comparing screen samples than I am.


----------



## noah katz

"I hope you are better a comparing screen samples than I am."


All I want to do is see which one gives more gain at a few of my normal viewing positions.


----------



## 37fiat

I was just looking on Da-lite's website, and it would appear they've had something like this "new" fabric out for a while now, but only in their "deluxe insta-theater" line. http://www.da-lite.com/products/prod...?cID=19&pID=92 


They even call it Wide Power, but according to the specs it's at 2.2 gain but with a 45 degree viewing angle.


Is it possible they're using this material or something very close to it instead of the HP on most of the newer screens?


I sure like the idea of a 45 degree viewing angle, and with some of the newer projectors out there, I would think it would still be plenty bright with a 2.2 gain!


Might be a great compromise...


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/17865760
> 
> 
> "I hope you are better a comparing screen samples than I am."
> 
> 
> All I want to do is see which one gives more gain at a few of my normal viewing positions.



And that's the perfect use for a sample. Let us know.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/17862640
> 
> 
> Plain and simple Da-lite misled everyone. I called and asked if picture king HP was the same as fixed and electric the answer was "Yes" we only have one HP fabric. I requested samples, I ordered the screen with HP. Specs says 2.8 customer rep says 2.8, screen comes and is not 2.8, not the same fabric and after much email and phone calls and public forum thread they admit they changed it without telling anyone including their internal customer service people. So where does that leave the customers who received a different product than they ordered? I got them to send me what I had asked for but how about the rest of you. I guess if you are happy with the new fabric no harm done it just seems shady to me. .. Put the cheap **** in no one will know.. maybe I am making a mountain out of a mole hill... or maybe this is what makes the internet a good thing.




From your perspective I would be saying and doing the same thing.







You did get a bait and switch. From my perspective as someone who hasn't owned a screen before, I am not going to know any better, outside of what they did in your situation, and while I was getting into the hype of getting a 2.8 high power, I am sure I will be happy with 2.4. Like some said, it may be a better overall compromise.


I am a bit confused though. Are some saying the black levels are better or worse with the newer material or is it relative to sitting in the cone?


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *37fiat* /forum/post/17865934
> 
> 
> I was just looking on Da-lite's website, and it would appear they've had something like this "new" fabric out for a while now, but only in their "deluxe insta-theater" line. http://www.da-lite.com/products/prod...?cID=19&pID=92
> 
> 
> They even call it Wide Power, but according to the specs it's at 2.2 gain but with a 45 degree viewing angle.
> 
> 
> Is it possible they're using this material or something very close to it instead of the HP on most of the newer screens?
> 
> 
> I sure like the idea of a 45 degree viewing angle, and with some of the newer projectors out there, I would think it would still be plenty bright with a 2.2 gain!
> 
> 
> Might be a great compromise...



If you look at the website you will also see where the Picture King offers High Power fabric and links to the same specs as all the rest of the screens that offer High Power. The fact that they changed the product and did not change the specs is the issue. It is like buying a car with an advertised 5L engine and then after you receive the car find out it is a 4.5L and no one said beans ... This is my only issue. Make new products, change existing products, but do not sell them without the proper documentation prior to shipping otherwise you are committing false advertising.


----------



## JHouse

That black level isn't going to change (well maybe the ABSOLUTE black level, but you can't see that because of the adjustments by your eyes). The apparent black level (which is what you see) is determined by the contrast ratio of your projector.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17866513
> 
> 
> From your perspective I would be saying and doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did get a bait and switch. From my perspective as someone who hasn't owned a screen before, I am not going to know any better, outside of what they did in your situation, and while I was getting into the hype of getting a 2.8 high power, I am sure I will be happy with 2.4. Like some said, it may be a better overall compromise.
> 
> 
> I am a bit confused though. Are some saying the black levels are better or worse with the newer material or is it relative to sitting in the cone?



The only reason the blacks look better on the new fabric is because your projectors (Black) output is not magnified as much. This is only noticeable when doing side by side screen comparisons and not something to be all that excited. This is no different than if you used a matte white screen. With HP there is more punch with the brights in the cone because you get the gain everywhere else and the black may be a bit more inky on a dark scene . Watching the old fabric last night I am please as punch with the blacks especially with the lights on! Old or new both are good, false advertising is bad. This may have not been intentional but if I had not started this thread and questioned the company when would any of us know what they were pulling? Maybe next week at the show.. little late for my taste!


----------



## RodK

Is there anyone out there who has both the 2.8 and 2.4 screens to take comparison pics on and off axis? If you can pick between the materials when ordering, this would be very useful information.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RodK* /forum/post/17866837
> 
> 
> Is there anyone out there who has both the 2.8 and 2.4 screens to take comparison pics on and off axis? If you can pick between the materials when ordering, this would be very useful information.



I do have both screens and can not see a difference in my 12' wide room they are both the same brightness as far off axis as I can get. I am packing up the new fabric screen to return since that was not the fabric I ordered ;-)


----------



## Fabricator

i got an email saying mine was shipped today. if that is correct and no problems/issues, i should have it friday.


----------



## Murilo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JHouse* /forum/post/17862556
> 
> 
> RELAX. In reading your posts you seem to be panicking, and this probably isn't a very big deal. First, swatches are treacherous to judge from. Once your eyes are adjusted on one screen, you probably won't even notice 2.4 vs 2.8. And you have much better seating flexibility. Didn't you already say it looked great? And there ain't no free lunch, you get gain or wider cone. One or the other. The screen doesn't produce light, it only reflects what is shined on it.




I was a little to worked up, but you need to understand I just paid for mine a few weeks ago, paid an installer to install it, now i find out i may have pay him again and install another, and ship my current one back to da-lite, its a huge hastle, that should not have happened. If you had ordered yours already maybe you would be a little more worked up.


I do have a new screen but old samples, Im not looking at new screen samples, i have the new screen i paid for it a few weeks ago, and then paid to have it installed.


----------



## Murilo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/17862640
> 
> 
> Plain and simple Da-lite misled everyone. I called and asked if picture king HP was the same as fixed and electric the answer was "Yes" we only have one HP fabric. I requested samples, I ordered the screen with HP. Specs says 2.8 customer rep says 2.8, screen comes and is not 2.8, not the same fabric and after much email and phone calls and public forum thread they admit they changed it without telling anyone including their internal customer service people. So where does that leave the customers who received a different product than they ordered? I got them to send me what I had asked for but how about the rest of you. I guess if you are happy with the new fabric no harm done it just seems shady to me. .. Put the cheap **** in no one will know.. maybe I am making a mountain out of a mole hill... or maybe this is what makes the internet a good thing.



+1 you understand because you also paid good money for something, and did not receive what you ordered like myself. On the bright side the good folks at avdeals, or hd.ca are getting an old one sent to me. Very glad i purchased this through a reputable dealer like them now.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JHouse* /forum/post/17866546
> 
> 
> That black level isn't going to change (well maybe the ABSOLUTE black lever, but you can't see that because of the adjustments by your eyes). The apparent black level (which is what you see) is determined by the contrast ratio of your projector.



This misperception about black level is ongoing. The above is the simplest, clearest explanation I have seen. If you think a high gain screen will kill your black level, read the above AGAIN!


----------



## JHouse

Well, except for the typo (lever vs level).


----------



## xb1032




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/17867445
> 
> 
> I was a little to worked up, but you need to understand I just paid for mine a few weeks ago, paid an installer to install it, now i find out i may have pay him again and install another, and ship my current one back to da-lite, its a huge hastle, that should not have happened...



I wouldn't be happy either and IMO Dalite should cover the shipping costs.


As far as the install goes, why would you pay an installer to install something so simple as a screen?


----------



## Murilo

It is not a simple install, we have a wall unit, that covers the entire wall. He rigged it up so it could be bolted to the top of it.


Its an expensive wall unit it costed 7000 grand, i am not good with tools, and he did it neatly and properly. Their is no way i have maybe used a drill twice in my life, im not drilling into a 7000 dollar piece of furniture.


----------



## noah katz

Nor was it simple installing a heavy, unwieldy 10' long electric screen.


----------



## tigerfan33

Got my HP sample yesterday. It said 2.8 on the paper. I called Da-Lite today and asked them to send me the 2.4 gain. The 2.8 sample is really bright and liked it. It will be interesting to compare the 2.4. If the cone is larger and the brightness is even close to the older, I will probably go with the new.


----------



## Fabricator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/17868973
> 
> 
> Nor was it simple installing a heavy, unwieldy 10' long electric screen.



how heavy is an electric ? i have a manual coming. says its under 60#.


----------



## Jay Taylor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fabricator* /forum/post/17875571
> 
> 
> how heavy is an electric ? i have a manual coming. says its under 60#.



A 133" Contour Electrol with the options that I chose weighed about 86 pounds. When you add the mounting hardware, power cable, control switch cable and infrared receiver cable it is over 90 pounds.


----------



## Murilo

Well this has got even worse, da-lite claims they are not paying for shipping, even though they should for sure!


The company i went through does not think they should pay for shipping, which they shouldnt, but they dont want me to pay it either, nor would i. Da-lite i think does not understand how badly they screwed some of us over. They are downplaying this, and acting like yea well if you dont like it, send it back and we will give you the old material. But you have to pay shipping, even though its their own very shady business move. Shipping that from canada to america would cost 100 dollars.


Thread starter did you have to pay for shipping or avsforum, or did da-lite?


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/17885882
> 
> 
> Well this has got even worse, da-lite claims they are not paying for shipping, even though they should for sure!
> 
> 
> The company i went through does not think they should pay for shipping, which they shouldnt, but they dont want me to pay it either, nor would i. Da-lite i think does not understand how badly they screwed some of us over. They are downplaying this, and acting like yea well if you dont like it, send it back and we will give you the old material. But you have to pay shipping, even though its their own very shady business move. Shipping that from canada to america would cost 100 dollars.
> 
> 
> Thread starter did you have to pay for shipping or avsforum, or did da-lite?



Sent mine back yesterday. Took them a while to call AVS and figure it out. I don't know who paid but I did not. The Dalite customer service person alluded to the fact that I didn't get what I paid for as to have been a mistake between me and my vendor. I just bit my lip! None of the Vendors nor none of Dalite Customer Service people knew anything about there being 2 fabrics till I shoved it in everyone's face. I could have started this tread 3 weeks ago but was waiting for an official statement form Dalite as to why they would bait and switch or was it just failure to communicate and update documents, but we have seen none! I would think that a law suit would be in order or some type of legal action that can be taken if they refuse to pay the shipping on goods that were sold under fraudulent pretenses. I am no lawyer but I bet there are a few out there that could tell us what our right are.

Good luck!


----------



## jumpy27




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/17867573
> 
> 
> This misperception about black level is ongoing. The above is the simplest, clearest explanation I have seen. If you think a high gain screen will kill your black level, read the above AGAIN!



Agreed! I prefer to call the "apparent black level", the "perceived black level", which is self-explanatory.


----------



## airscapes

funny.. as hard as I look into the back .. I never see anything.. it is just black..







I do know with the real HP fabric I need to were shades when there is something other than black on the screen ..














Guess that balances out the 2.8 gain of the projectors inability to display black!

All kidding aside last night I had the Sony CRT on next to the HP and the HP was brighter blacks were just as black with all the lights out..


----------



## Fabricator

i have my HP up and running. i think its a 2.4, but i didn't look real hard, drinkin beers. later today i will confirm. don't feel like it right now. also have my samples.


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/17886072
> 
> 
> funny.. as hard as I look into the back .. I never see anything.. it is just black..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do know with the real HP fabric I need to were shades when there is something other than black on the screen ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess that balances out the 2.8 gain of the projectors inability to display black!
> 
> All kidding aside last night I had the Sony CRT on next to the HP and the HP was brighter blacks were just as black with all the lights out..



Your posts sound like mine from when I first started researching and using HP screens. Makes me smile. Anyway, your last sentence is true because your eyes stop down your iris and make the adjustment automatically. It's a wonderful thing.


----------



## noah katz

"your last sentence is true because your eyes stop down your iris and make the adjustment automatically."


Or because the black level is determined by room light (ambient or re-reflected) and not pj light.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/17888033
> 
> 
> "your last sentence is true because your eyes stop down your iris and make the adjustment automatically."
> 
> 
> Or because the black level is determined by room light (ambient or re-reflected) and not pj light.



If there are no lights on in the room and your projector is projecting black a say the end of the dvd.. that is the blackest black you will get. With a 2.8 gain that is magnified 2.8 so if you put a matte white screen next to your HP the mat white will look blacker .. does this matter when watching a move, not that I can tell. And yes ambient light effects it as well. Fortunately depending on where that light is coming from will have less effect on the Retro Reflective screen than the matte white..


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/17888033
> 
> 
> "your last sentence is true because your eyes stop down your iris and make the adjustment automatically."
> 
> 
> Or because the black level is determined by room light (ambient or re-reflected) and not pj light.



Only the absolute black level is determined by room light. But your eye determines what is going to look black, based on how much light is in what isn't black. That's why when you are looking at anything but a pure black screen, the black looks blacker when it has some non-black to put it in "perspective."


----------



## airscapes

Just finished watching "Watchmen" in HD.. didn't get the movie all that much but look fantastic on the Old Fabric screen! A very dark movie and either I don't get sucked into the blacks as some folks seem to or the screen looks great with a projector capable of a mere 4000:1 CR on low lamp with iris closed.. course it is a tiny screen


----------



## tigerfan33




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/17891027
> 
> 
> Just finished watching "Watchmen" in HD.. didn't get the movie all that much but look fantastic on the Old Fabric screen! A very dark movie and either I don't get sucked into the blacks as some folks seem to or the screen looks great with a projector capable of a mere 4000:1 CR on low lamp with iris closed.. course it is a tiny screen




Do most people with a HP turn off the Iris setting?


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tigerfan33* /forum/post/17891117
> 
> 
> Do most people with a HP turn off the Iris setting?



No idea my Old HC3000 has 2 settings open (bright) and closed for higher contrast. I Open the iris to watch baseball or to watch in the day time with lots of ambient light. In my setup with a small screen the projector is too bright with the iris open.


----------



## Fabricator

ok, let me get this straight . the 2.4 has a weave to the surface. and the 2.8 has a pretty much smooth surface. is this correct ?


if so :

i have a 2.8 HP. i just looked at my screen and the samples i got the same day, friday.

the screen, i have to look really hard to see any kind of bumpyness. and i can see the beads, pretty cool... the sample, that says 2.8, i can easily see a weave on the surface. and the sample beads look smaller.


this is with reading glass's, magnifying glass, and flash light.


----------



## Fabricator

ok, airscapes. your "texture" pic shows what i am referring to.


left pic is my sample. right pic is my screen.
http://173.49.169.131:999/dalitehp/photos/Texture.html


----------



## airscapes

Yes the left picture is the new fabric that they apparently are claiming to be 2.8 gain if I read what you wrote correctly. Your screen is the old material if it is smooth. Measure the thickness with a caliper the new stuff is thinner. Hell you can feel the difference with your fingers for that matter! I fixed the labeling on the texture photo to be more clear


----------



## Fabricator

you read correctly. to my eyes, the 2.4 is slightly dimmer than the 2.8. its interesting how the gain shifts, on all the examples, as the viewing position changes. i learned a lot on this subject in a short time. i made 2 videos, and took some pics. i will review in the official thread, soon.


----------



## Fabricator

oh. from what i have seen. i WOULD NOT tell someone to NOT get the 2.4 .


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fabricator* /forum/post/17893001
> 
> 
> oh. from what i have seen. i WOULD NOT tell someone to NOT get the 2.4 .



Just so long as they KNOW what they are getting! It may even work better than the 2.8 in some installations.


----------



## airscapes

The main reason of this post was the fact that the specs and material changed without notice and in a manner that was very shady. The Dalite dealers were not even told that they were selling something different than they had for the pass years.. how's that look when you sell something and something different shows up... you the vendor looks like you are ripping off your customer. Which works best is yet to be shown.. I wanted what I had read about in the Review thread, not something new and lower gain. Oh and I would bet you my life savings that the new stuff is way cheaper to make than the old.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/17893147
> 
> 
> The main reason of this post was the fact that the specs and material changed without notice and in a manner that was very shady. The Dalite dealers were not even told that they were selling something different than they had for the pass years.. how's that look when you sell something and something different shows up... you the vendor looks like you are ripping off your customer. Which works best is yet to be shown.. I wanted what I had read about in the Review thread, not something new and lower gain. Oh and I would bet you my life savings that the new stuff is way cheaper to make than the old.



I agree with how they handled it, though I wouldn't characterize it as "shady". I'd say it was more incompetence. I think they screwed up (and, I think, big time). When you say "Which works best is yet to be shown", there are so many variables to installation lighting, geometry, projector horsepower that "which works better" can never be answered in general and has to be evaluated on an install by install basis, just like choosing screens of any type. I know I'm interested enough in the larger viewing cone that I'm considering giving up my AT screen for the new material.


I think the fact they are continuing to make the old material available is very good news.


----------



## RodK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fabricator* /forum/post/17892986
> 
> 
> its interesting how the gain shifts, on all the examples, as the viewing position changes. i learned a lot on this subject in a short time. i made 2 videos, and took some pics. i will review in the official thread, soon.



I will be ordering a screen soon and I am waiting for this BIG time!!!


----------



## airscapes

not sure where the idea of a bigger viewing cone came from.. the only thing I noticed was since the sweet spot was dimmer to start with the fall off was less noticeable and if any thing more narrow.


----------



## Fabricator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RodK* /forum/post/17893272
> 
> 
> I will be ordering a screen soon and I am waiting for this BIG time!!!



don't hold your breath on the vids. youtube didn't except them














.

idk why, same camera & settings, they excepted my speed racer vid 3 months ago. so if anyone knows how to get a "THM" file on tube, lmk.


btw. when i ordered, i didn't know anything about this 2.4 stuff. but, i did make sure my wife(she ordered it while i was at work) MADE SURE they understood i wanted a 2.8. as i wanted them to KNOW i didn't want a matte white or whatever.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/17893332
> 
> 
> not sure where the idea of a bigger viewing cone came from.. the only thing I noticed was since the sweet spot was dimmer to start with the fall off was less noticeable and if any thing more narrow.



Post #38


----------



## Fabricator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fabricator* /forum/post/17893487
> 
> 
> don't hold your breath on the vids. youtube didn't except them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> idk why, same camera & settings, they excepted my speed racer vid 3 months ago. so if anyone knows how to get a "THM" file on tube, lmk.



ok, i just figured it out. vids are uploading now.


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fabricator* /forum/post/17892630
> 
> 
> ok, let me get this straight . the 2.4 has a weave to the surface. and the 2.8 has a pretty much smooth surface. is this correct ?



I wouldn't say the 2.8 is "smooth" in the sense of no relief. From what I have seen of the pictures previously posted the small clear bubbles that are somewhat flattened, which make up the 2.8, are uniform in size. The 2.4 screen varies the size and disbursement pattern of the bubbles so that they appear randomly sized and placed.


What the two screens have in common structurally is they are covered with clear flattened bubbles.


----------



## RodK

For those that have a full screen in the 2.4, is the texture noticable when watching normal programming?


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RodK* /forum/post/17895422
> 
> 
> For those that have a full screen in the 2.4, is the texture noticable when watching normal programming?



No the screen look wonderful! No texture at all just a very clear vivid picture in or out of the cone.


----------



## RodK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/17896096
> 
> 
> No the screen look wonderful! No texture at all just a very clear vivid picture in or out of the cone.



if the screen looks wonderful, how come you are changing it for the 2.8 ?


----------



## Fabricator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RodK* /forum/post/17896487
> 
> 
> if the screen looks wonderful, how come you are changing it for the 2.8 ?



he want MORE wonderful


----------



## RodK

Don't we all!!!


----------



## airscapes

I changed it because I ordered HP 2.8 and that is what I paid for but DID NOT RECEIVE! Besides the wife and I agree the old stuff is just better hands down. 2.4 is wonderful, but 2.8 blows it away in my set up. You are all acting like this is a good thing, the company cheaps out on a product, doesn't tell anyone and ships the stuff that is inferior to what you were expecting!!! Each and every screen sent out should be replace with 2.8 old fabric at no cost to customer or vendor including shipping and a written public apology should be posted on Dalite's website for the bait and switch! Sorry still pissed and those of you who love your new cheapo HP fabric, you don't really know what you are missing do you?










When there is nothing to compare to, whatever you have looks good!


----------



## Murilo

+1, I dont think alot of people understand since we just purchased and paid for it and then found out. Neither of us had any idea originally, until you discovered what we paid for was not what we received.


Incredibly frustrating ordeal, the hassle alone is driving me crazy. We work all day and now we have to not only get it uninstalled and a new one installed (more money out of our pocket) we also work all day and have to set up special times to ship these screens back, as well as be around to receive the new screens, all because da-lite screwed us over and is not even apologizing, furthermore acting like its not their fault, and they should not have to pay shipping, which is holding things up on my end.



Also dougs examination should be put ahead of mine, he has viewed full screens, i have only viewed the new version full screen, and an old sample.


----------



## JHouse

What makes you assume the new screen with the more complex and varied pattern of "bubbles" is cheaper to make? I would assume the opposite. And attacking the one and only complaint anyone ever has about the High Power seems like a pretty good issue for the manufacturer/designers to tackle (i.e. the size of the viewing cone).


----------



## Murilo

Complex and varied? My glass beaded was random size placed everywhere, it was not complex and varied.


I understand your a da-lite fan, i was to, the old highpower is still my favorite, but try looking at it from our perspective.


Your missing the point that what we ordered and paid good money for was not what we received.


Also I really dont get how the old fabric is still going to be used in fixed frame yet, if the new stuff is better.


Also the fabric is quite a bit thinner and feels much more flimsy then the sample, not sure how the new stuff can be considered better. Doug confirmed this when he measured the thickness, but i can literally feel a large difference comparing my sample to the screen.


People did complain about the viewing cone, but come on, not at the expense of this much brightness, i dont think when they had the viewing cone in mind, they wanted the gain dropped that much, and thinner rougher fabric.


I also went with the old fabric because it was smooth and easier to clean, this is rougher, and reminds me of my glass beaded really, and if you clean it, it looks like it would wreck like my glass beaded. Which got wrecked when i tried to clean something off of it.


The old highpower sample did not wreck when i tried to clean the sample, it was smooth, sturdy, and cleaned well. A big reason i also chose the highpower and da-lite.


----------



## JHouse

A 14% loss in peak gain, when traded for a 17% increase in off axis gain seems like a good trade. Lots of companies improve or just change their products over time. Some folks appreciate it, some cry foul. In this particular case, I can see why you think you may have lost some features you like. I can also see why they wanted to make the viewing cone broader and more gradual, based on the prior complaints. I'm betting that if you had one room with the 2.4 showing and another with the 2.8 showing on the same projector/same settings, if you stood in the center of the gain cone and opened your eyes in each room, you couldn't tell the difference. The difference will be when you move off axis, and then the differences might become noticeable, assuming you aren't blasting 2000 lumens (when you probably wouldn't notice any fall off).


I am a High Power fan, and not particularly a Da-Lite fan. I had another Da-Lite screen with sparklies, and except for the HP, I really think all the other technology among all the screen makers is pretty much the same, just different recipes. Plus the snaps on my Da-Snap ripped. Da-Lite just seems to have a uniquely superior product in the high gain market with this particular screen. (and now two screens).


----------



## airscapes

From the Da-lite webpage as of NOW.


Da-Lite > Products > Selecting the Right Screen.



High Power


A technological breakthrough, providing the reflectivity and optical characteristics of a traditional glass beaded surface with the ability to clean the surface when necessary. Its smooth textured surface provides the highest gain of all front projection screen surfaces with no resolution loss. The moderate viewing angle and its ability to reflect light back along the projection axis make this surface the best choice for situations where there is a moderate amount of ambient light and the projector is placed on a table-top or in the same horizontal viewing plane as the audience. Flame retardant and mildew resistant. Viewing Angle: 30° Gain 2.8


Guess my point is they are not listing 2 screens and still have no official document on the change of fabric from 2.8 to 2.4 or whatever it really is..


----------



## JHouse

They apparently hate to call the IT guys.


----------



## airscapes

HAHAH probably .. cost money to make changes..


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/17900605
> 
> 
> HAHAH probably .. cost money to make changes..



Yeah, and then there is all the rigmarole about getting somebody "special" to write it, and then getting it approved by management, then run it by legal, bouncing around back and forth with edit, yada yada. For all we know it's been in the works for 6 months.


----------



## airscapes

Screw the specs and docs .. None of the customers will notice.. just ship it out! The other thing the Manager or Sales told me.. we have some of the old stuff left so some screens depending on the config will use that.. But this idea of having both available is probably not true in the long run..


----------



## darinp2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/17893220
> 
> 
> I think the fact they are continuing to make the old material available is very good news.



From talking to them at CEDIA it sounds like that may not last. Maybe they just have some extra material leftover. It wasn't clear to me whether Da-Lite really had a say in this change. That is, one of their suppliers may have made a change that affected them. But this wasn't clear from what I was told. Either way, I was told that the current High Power is 2.4 gain and that is how things were.


The main issue I would like to figure out is whether there is any difference in visibility of the screen materials from say 1.0x the screen width. The 2.8 gain ones I have tend to have less visible texture than many screens, but there is still something there for me with LCOS projectors like the JVCs and Sonys. Not nearly as bad as screens like the Vutex SilverStar, but also not as texture/speckling/or whatever it is as a regular matte white screen. I bought a Carada Classic Cinema White to compliment the High Power in my theater partially because of that. The strange thing is this somewhat subtle texture isn't something I saw with DLP projectors with .95" chips, but not sure if the differences were more DLP vs DILA or chip size issues (since in this case the LCOS projectors had smaller chips).


--Darin


----------



## JHouse

That may explain why Da-Lite didn't give anyone the heads up. They got surprised by their vendor.


----------



## RodK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JHouse* /forum/post/17911212
> 
> 
> That may explain why Da-Lite didn't give anyone the heads up. They got surprised by their vendor.



I doubt that, seeing as they are quite visibly different. Someone would have noticed .


----------



## hrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *darinp2* /forum/post/17910763
> 
> 
> From talking to them at CEDIA it sounds like that may not last. Maybe they just have some extra material leftover. It wasn't clear to me whether Da-Lite really had a say in this change. That is, one of their suppliers may have made a change that affected them. But this wasn't clear from what I was told. Either way, I was told that the current High Power is 2.4 gain and that is how things were.



I called Da-Lite today to ask for a 2.4 gain sample. The rep told me anyone who orders a fixed frame screen will get the 2.8 gain fabric and anyone who orders an electric or manual pulldown screen will get the 2.4 gain fabric.


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hrd* /forum/post/17912753
> 
> 
> I called Da-Lite today to ask for a 2.4 gain sample. The rep told me anyone who orders a fixed frame screen will get the 2.8 gain fabric and anyone who orders an electric or manual pulldown screen will get the 2.4 gain fabric.



That's probably just what's in stock for now.


And if they got shipped a bunch of new stuff, who knows how long it took for them to get to the bottom of it.


----------



## Murilo

Well luckely I just got my order for my replacement screen filled (16:9) and my 2:35:1 i was planning on ordering. Both order forms listed 2.8 gain highpower in bold so Im happy im getting what i originally thought I was paying for. Sounds like from what darin said these might not be available for long? Im just happy after seeing a highpower 6 years ago, I am finally getting the one I loved when i seen it all those years ago.



But we also read da-lite reps telling people if they want the old stuff they have to request it for electric or manual.


----------



## NCDaveD

I just recieved my screen (80" 16:9) a couple of days ago and judging by the lack of weave, I think I have the old 2.8 gain material. Can't comment on the picture as I don't have a projector yet. I had to get the screen to obtain WAF before ordering the projector







.


Now if those sale prices would just come back for a day or two....


NCDaveD


----------



## airscapes

Hey that is great! You will love it!


----------



## billqs

I'm confused and somewhat upset as I ordered the High Power manual pull down specifically because of it's propensity not to curl or have waves. Although the pic projected on the screen looks great, I seem to already (after having the screen down a total of 3 times) seem to have a wave right in the center of the screen. It's a Model B 72"x 96".


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *billqs* /forum/post/17915685
> 
> 
> I'm confused and somewhat upset as I ordered the High Power manual pull down specifically because of it's propensity not to curl or have waves. Although the pic projected on the screen looks great, I seem to already (after having the screen down a total of 3 times) seem to have a wave right in the center of the screen. It's a Model B 72"x 96".



Just wondering, is your screen the old or new fabric?


----------



## noah katz

I have a 133" electric (so no uneven manual pulldown forces) and it's had waves (invisible w/images) from day one.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *billqs* /forum/post/17915685
> 
> 
> I'm confused and somewhat upset as I ordered the High Power manual pull down specifically because of it's propensity not to curl or have waves. Although the pic projected on the screen looks great, I seem to already (after having the screen down a total of 3 times) seem to have a wave right in the center of the screen. It's a Model B 72"x 96".


----------



## JHouse

My 120" pull down always had a couple of large, smooth, diagonal waves.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *billqs* /forum/post/17915685
> 
> 
> I'm confused and somewhat upset as I ordered the High Power manual pull down specifically because of it's propensity not to curl or have waves. Although the pic projected on the screen looks great, I seem to already (after having the screen down a total of 3 times) seem to have a wave right in the center of the screen. It's a Model B 72"x 96".



It's not that HP pull-downs don't have waves, it's that they are difficult to actually see because of the projection geometry with the HP. Can you actually see the wave when viewing a movie?


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/17916648
> 
> 
> It's not that HP pull-downs don't have waves, it's that they are difficult to actually see because of the projection geometry with the HP. Can you actually see the wave when viewing a movie?



This is one of their primary benefits. And why they don't usually come in tensioned models. All pull downs have waves, it's just that you can usually see them on the picture, whereas with the HP, you can't (except on rare fast pans).


----------



## billqs

I ordered my screen at the end of December, so I'm thinking it's the new material. I could notice the wave a bit when the menu on my Panasonic 4000u was on, but not while watching a film.


I was also surprised at the excellent black level and relative nondrop of brightness out of what I consider to be the 30 degree cone.


----------



## Fragster

Guys


Does this come in a 144" size? Will be pairing with a HC3800 ..if not, I'll go with BOC with SILVER DIY route.


Thanks


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fragster* /forum/post/17921093
> 
> 
> Guys
> 
> 
> Does this come in a 144" size? Will be pairing with a HC3800 ..if not, I'll go with BOC with SILVER DIY route.
> 
> 
> Thanks


 http://www.dalite.com/products/spec_pdfs/230.pdf


----------



## noah katz

I just ordered a sample of the 2.4 HP.


When I asked about the continued availability of the 2.8, she said it would be, while somehow managing to make it not sound definitive.


----------



## mariokrt64

I just got a few samples requested from Da-lite. Initially, although mentioned in my request, they did not included the 2.8 fabric, junst the 2.4. I made a second request and they replied that the 2.8 sample is being mailed now. Will see......


----------



## rgathright




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fragster* /forum/post/17921093
> 
> 
> Guys
> 
> 
> Does this come in a 144" size? Will be pairing with a HC3800 ..if not, I'll go with BOC with SILVER DIY route.
> 
> 
> Thanks



I inquired a while back to AVS (Jason) about getting a custom size screen that is not listed on the Da-Lite website. His response was you could get a custom size, but the cost would be for the next larger size.


----------



## Fragster

Thanks for the info, guys.


Now are u guys ordering this from AVS (Jason) or Da-Lite themself?


Cheers


----------



## hrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fragster* /forum/post/17927116
> 
> 
> Thanks for the info, guys.
> 
> 
> Now are u guys ordering this from AVS (Jason) or Da-Lite themself?
> 
> 
> Cheers



Da-Lite will not sell to you direct. AV Science has as good a price as any, usually better, and great service.


----------



## Fragster

^ Thanks....just emailed Jason.


----------



## mobius




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/17860366
> 
> 
> Im still not sure what i want to do, again old stuff still generally brighter, if you get a bit to far off axis it becomes darker.
> 
> 
> My heads spinning because im trying to decipher with my new seating if we will ever be to much off axis, or not. Again it makes it harder because their is literally a line where if you cross the old stuff becomes dimmer, generally 3 and half feet left or right of the projector lens. But then really there are times when company wont be sitting 3 and half feet to far from axis or projector lens, while other times if we have more company, i would feel very sorry for those few people who have to sit slightly further then that to the side, the old stuff seems to work in reverse becoming very dark instantly.
> 
> 
> I wish da-lite would maybe send me a replacement and let me decide.
> 
> 
> If only the old stuff could handle angles as well as the new it would be perfect.




If possible, why don't you just sit with it a while and compare them more? I think some time will give you the answer you're looking for. I demo'd a sample of the old HP and it IS bright! The off-axis loss in gain really bugged me though. Between the HP and Silverstar I'd take the Silverstar everyday, but then there's the issue of cost. ;-)


The wider viewing cone of the new HP material might suit my fancy more. I need a sample.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mobius* /forum/post/17928256
> 
> 
> 
> The wider viewing cone of the new HP material might suit my fancy more. I need a sample.



Hey you guys are smoking some good stuff.. who said this lower gain, cheaper, thinner material has a wider cone. Freaking Dalite hasn't even posted in print that it exists! I can tell you the cone is smaller if anything. Less bight at the center and same off axis as the old. I had both screen side by side.. NOTE:
http://www.dalite.com/products/selec...front#anchor-5 

Still says 2.8.. where is the mystery material that somehow is becoming better than what it is replacing without even being documented that existing.. Sorry still don't like the fact that they are not coming clean with the undocumented switch. Advertising one thing and selling another all in secrete, not even telling their vendors!


Let me restate the cone thing.. it is not any more wide or narrow.. there is just less change because the center is not as bright.. I do wish one of the folks that have the proper equipment and training would test and review this product and Dalite would post the specs so things could be verified...


Here are photos I took off axis. Left side is new fabric right side is old, this is out of the cone as far as I can go in my room. It's taken from about 5 ft to the right of the projector and about 24 -30 inches above directly in line (projector to my left) As you can see the brightness is the same out side of the cone.


----------



## mariokrt64




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/17928470
> 
> 
> Hey you guys are smoking some good stuff.. who said this lower gain, cheaper, thinner material has a wider cone. Freaking Dalite hasn't even posted in print that it exists! I can tell you the cone is smaller if anything. Less bight at the center and same off axis as the old. I had both screen side by side.. NOTE:
> http://www.dalite.com/products/selec...front#anchor-5
> 
> Still says 2.8.. where is the mystery material that somehow is becoming better than what it is replacing without even being documented that existing.. Sorry still don't like the fact that they are not coming clean with the undocumented switch. Advertising one thing and selling another all in secrete, not even telling their vendors!
> 
> 
> Let me restate the cone thing.. it is not any more wide or narrow.. there is just less change because the center is not as bright.. I do wish one of the folks that have the proper equipment and training would test and review this product and Dalite would post the specs so things could be verified...
> 
> 
> Here are photos I took off axis. Left side is new fabric right side is old, this is out of the cone as far as I can go in my room. It's taken from about 5 ft to the right of the projector and about 24 -30 inches above directly in line (projector to my left) As you can see the brightness is the same out side of the cone.



My 2.4 sample indicates 30 deg cone (15 deg to lens center?)...same as the 2.8 is quoted in their website. I am waiting for my 2.8 sample..will get it some time next week, I guess.


----------



## JHouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/17928470
> 
> 
> Here are photos I took off axis. Left side is new fabric right side is old, this is out of the cone as far as I can go in my room. It's taken from about 5 ft to the right of the projector and about 24 -30 inches above directly in line (projector to my left) As you can see the brightness is the same out side of the cone.



Did you have the exposure fixed at a certain level on manual so the camera wouldn't adjust the iris as you moved?


----------



## airscapes

yes camera was on full manual both screens were the same brightness.

NOTE those are 2 screens next to each other! One picture paused video


----------



## Fragster

So outside the 'cone', how much is the gain? I'm looking at the worst case scenario...if the gain is still more than 1 (BOC), then I'll be happy with the HP.


Really thinking to go SILVER route over BOC but I'm a computer guy and my handy-man skills are severely limited :-(. Wish I could get MissippiMan come over to my house and paint my 144" BOC and be done with it.


----------



## mit_hd

Some vendor is selling da-lite "HIGH GAIN (2.5)" screens on Ebay and the price is less than comparable High Power screens. I wonder if it is the new material. But interestingly it looks like it is a 2.5 gain screen instead of 2.4.


Just go to Ebay and seach for "da-lite high gain"


----------



## Murilo

Airscape is correct, im going to copy and paste my new findings when i spent more time with it. The 2.8 screens should be here this week, but this is my updated feel toward the 2.4 vs 2.8 viewing cone.


----------



## Murilo

"After extensive viewing, i was not taking into considering the sample was at the top center of the screen, so sitting down was not fair test of the sample i had to be standing up.


Basically in my seating which will soon be altered to 4 theater in a slight circle going around the projector, the 2.8 definately provides the brightness I would want. Once I get that setup I think i will be golden.


With my current setup we have a large leather couch right below the projector. The 2.8 sample is clearly brighter.


Then we have a love seat off to the side, its fairly off angle. The first chair on the love sit which is again fairly off angle the 2.8 then equals the 2.4, the sample was lost to me sitting their. Again though I am pretty far off axis and the 2.4 finally evened out with the 2.8. And the left hand portion of the love seat, the 2.4 finally seemed slightly brighter, but this is very off angle, I dont encourage any guests to sit their and usually move the couch so its not such at an angle.


For a 2.4 screen, if they wanted to improve the viewing cone, I thought the brightness would kick in sooner, but again i am fairly off angle when the 2.4 and 2.8 finally equalled brightness. So their was not much point in going 2.4


I will say for those going with the 2.4 if you do have extremely bad viewing angles in your setup, the 2.4 will serve you well, or if you simply want a bright screen but dont want to get to bright, this is another great choice, alot of people like some brightness but might find the 2.8 strong. Fabric wise and clarity wise they are both similar and excellent when it comes to texture and clarity.


If you do get the 2.4 screen it is a great screen, and may suit you better, for me from what i can tell to me the 2.8 is just better because it is brighter, and still has a large viewing cone before it hits the 2.4 screen brightness."


Basically what I have noticed is similar to what airscape said, the viewing cone is not really larger with the 2.4.And when I was very off angle and the 2.4 did appear to be brighter, it was only a bit brighter. And again this maybe due to the sample, maybe with the entire screen i wont feel the 2.4 becomes brighter at all.


But basically for reasonable viewing angles the 2.8 stayed brighter then the 2.4 all the way around as i moved to the sides, only when i started to get very off angle did it even out, but once again im viewing a sample to an entire screen, so the 2.8 entire screen may still be brighter when I get it. It sounds like thats what airscape noticed.


For normal viewing or what I would call reasonable off angle viewing where your not so off to the side it is akward to watch, the 2.8 sample stayed brighter. The sample only equalled my 2.4 and fell below it at really bad angles i would not watch from, but again that maybe just due to a sample compared to an entire screen.


----------



## Hughmc

In airscapes pics it looks to me like the old fabric is slightly brighter at the off angle shot he is showing. I am going to be sitting 10 ft back from a 104 in width screen and I am thinking if I get the new fabric with the panny 4000 it will be more than bright enough in my 18x13x8 room. Thoughts, recommendations? I cannot do a fixed screen, so I will most likely get the new material by default.


----------



## Murilo

Doug regarding your pictures thats what I viewed when i was fairly off angle in my one seat, the 2.4 equalled the 2.8 finally, but when I found the 2.4 became brighter it was even more off angle then those pictures and not by much at all (again maybe its just due to a sample and not an entire screen) i have an octagon sort of style room. So when I say the 2.4 becomes brighter only at very off angle, i mean more then those pictures even, and i dont ever encourage anyone to sit their in the corner couch. Sometimes guests say its fine their and i try to explain no its not, it cant be enjoyable watching that much of an angle. And again maybe when I get an entire screen i wont find this at all. And i really dont even want to give that as a plus for the 2.4 because I again dont think people should be watching movies at angles that bad.


Thats why Im looking to switch to 4 theater seats in a circle around the projector.



In all honesty though I dont think many people would prefer the new material over the old, the new is great, but not as good as the old. Unless the larger drop in brightness from the center would bother you in your seating configuration, I know it does bother people. Thats why Im switching my seating so all seats are close to on axis. Really though my projector is ceiling mounted and 2 feet above my head, and i find this perfectly bright with my 2.8 sample and it was still noticeably brighter then 2.4. I figured again maybe the 2.4 would do something special for people with ceiling mounts, but the 2.8 is still clearly brighter. It seems all the new material did is cut down on brightness not only in the center but even off center brightness is cut down, i had to be decently off angle like in those pictures you provided before the 2.8 equalled the 2.4. All they basically did was just take the 2.8 and make it a 2.4 with cheaper material, making it dimmer on axis so people dont notice a drop as much if they move to the sides. It really did not improve the cone at all and again when i thought the 2.4 stayed brighter, it was such a bad angle i cant imagine anyone wanting to watch that off angle and that could just be due to a sample and not an entire screen. Even at some decent off angle viewing the 2.8 was still showing up brighter.


The only other thing is I do find their might be to much brightness if i drop my projector anymore with the 2.8 where it might make the picture look unnatural like lcds in torch mode (dynamic mode), and show to many artifacts and that pumped up contrast look. Since im using a smaller 96 inch screen, with a fairly bright projector their is a point where I like the projector to be a bit higher with the 2.8 as some others have mentioned as well to prevent to much brightness. This will likely depend on your projector and screen size though. D


----------



## Hughmc

Thanks Murillo, your detailed post answered my questions and confirms what I see in airscapes pix


----------



## Robert Clark

Can't believe Dalite messed with one of the best home theater products ever. I was going to get a 133" Highpower last summer but postponed that till next summer.


Looks like that was a mistake...


----------



## Murilo

Yea airscape pictures are pretty much spot on what im seeing, I dont know if he can but it would be cool if he could take some pictures of it a bit off angle because my 2.8 sample still shows up a decent amount brighter moving to the sides.


----------



## airscapes

I sent the 2.4 screen back over a week ago. I am very happy with the Old fabric in my environment and very disappointed in Da-lite for trying to pull a fast one on all of us!


----------



## Murilo

I would take some when mine arrive this week, but i only have a cell phone camera, so im not even going to try.


----------



## threed123

The question about gain and brightness between the two materials has to do with the light curve of each, but the sweet viewing angle remains the same. Imagine on a 2.8 high-gain screen that you pull the center up to 2.8 and the ends go down at 30 to 60 degrees to a negative number. On a 2.4, the ends (light curve) do not frop as fast. Therefore, at 2.8 it will be brighter until you get to 30 degrees and both will appear the same brightness. Beyond 30 to 60 degrees, the 2.4 will actually maintain brightness over the 2.8 as it's light curve goes negative. Because of the way light travels back to the eye on a retro-reflective screen (e.g. Dalite HP), the screen appears to have even brightness at any point from the viewers vantage. On a angular reflective screen (e.g. Draper M2500 2.5 gain), you actually see the light curve decrease along the viewing axis known mostly as hotspotting. That is because you actually see the brightness in the center taper off to the end of the screen. To test this, use a gain of 1 swatch and put it at different points on the screen. I have the Draper and it looks great, but I tested it with a 1 gain swatch and found that off towards the end of the screen (as I watch from the center), the light actually goes negative brightness on the screen compared to the 1 gain swatch. This does not happen on the High Power. The reason I'm bringing this up is they are (my guess) leaving the 2.8 on fixed screens as these are most likely to be used in home theaters with controlled axis projection and the 2.4s in pull up/down screens are most likely viewed in conference and large venues requiring a wider viewing angle. You have to remember that Dalite doesn't have a clue that you are going to buy a pull down screen and use it in a home theater or worse--cut it apart and make a permanent screen out of it.


If you have 1-3 feet of height between you and your overhead projector, then use 2.8. If you have more than 3 feet, then probably the 2.4 is going to give you more satisfaction in the long run and keep your family happier on a wider couch as you run the risk of going to less than 1. gain at this point. Frankly, if you have more than 3 feet between you and the projector, you might be just as happy with a cheaper 1.0 gain screen on the highest brightness mode.


Also, because of the non-hot spotting characteristics of the retro-reflective screens, the HP is usually desireable over the Draper even through the Draper is made for ceiling mounted viewing--albeit, originally for low-lumen crts.


----------



## threed123




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mit_hd* /forum/post/17933905
> 
> 
> Some vendor is selling da-lite "HIGH GAIN (2.5)" screens on Ebay and the price is less than comparable High Power screens. I wonder if it is the new material. But interestingly it looks like it is a 2.5 gain screen instead of 2.4.
> 
> 
> Just go to Ebay and seach for "da-lite high gain"



Dalite makes a commercial glass-beaded 2.5 screen. These do not work well for HT since the images appear somewhat fuzzy and not sharp. The High Power is a refinement of the original glass-beaded screens that have been around for many years. The micro beads allow higher resolution less sparklies as well.


----------



## noah katz

"Imagine on a 2.8 high-gain screen that you pull the center up to 2.8 and the ends go down at 30 to 60 degrees to a negative number."


Not sure what negative gain means - that should be "less than one".


----------



## threed123




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/17958544
> 
> 
> "Imagine on a 2.8 high-gain screen that you pull the center up to 2.8 and the ends go down at 30 to 60 degrees to a negative number."
> 
> 
> Not sure what negative gain means - that should be "less than one".



Off course you are right. Probably not a good choice of words. I was referencing the fact that a unity gain of 1.0 is a starting point for increased and reduced gain (e.g. not "0").


----------



## FLBoy

"Fractional gain" works for me.


----------



## dookie1

just got a 106" to replace a greywolf. i believe mine is the new material, as it does have a barely visible texture.


let me start by saying that the greywolf is absolutely horrible...what you've read is true: texture, dingy image, pronounced brightness drop off.


as a result, i am completely thrilled with the 2.4. it is far brighter any way i look at it, and the off-axis performance is dramatically better that the GW. and no annoying texture. glad i never saw the 2.8...


----------



## RodK

With the new 2.4 being thinner, I wonder if they will offer it in a tensioned screen now?


----------



## airscapes

Gee with the new 2.4 Gain screen they are still selling according to all documents on their website still being 2.8, I wonder when someone will take them to court for false advertising and bait and switch







Still says you get a 2.8 gain if you by a manual pull down.. how long does it take to get your documentation updated ..and stop misleading the public!


And to answer you question, it is thin and crispy like a hunk of canvas that has been coated with drywall compound. It does not stretch, it has a fiberglass backing or so they that is what they Dalite said on the phone.. can't really find anything on their website about what they are selling .. just High Power 2.8...


----------



## Meret

I 'specifically' requested 2.8 gain in a pull-down model the other day and Da-lite did push back suggesting they can only input 2.8 into their system for fixed screens, system shows 2.4 fabric for manuals. I asked AVS to push them on it but would accept 2.4 if they really said no way. So I'm not exactly sure yet what I will receive (invoice shows my 2.8 request), but it will not be AVS's fault if Da-lite doesn't supply the 2.8 fabric.


I'm still curious what prompted the change after so many years of selling them in pull-down configurations. Obviously something happened.


Btw, I choose this screen based on the feedback from each of you that own one, so I hold you all personally responsible for my choice


----------



## Warbie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Meret* /forum/post/17969585
> 
> 
> So I'm not exactly sure yet what I will receive (invoice shows my 2.8 request), but it will not be AVS's fault if Da-lite doesn't supply the 2.8 fabric.



Let us know what yu end up with - i'm about to order a manual 2.8.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Meret* /forum/post/17969585
> 
> 
> I '
> 
> I'm still curious what prompted the change after so many years of selling them in pull-down configurations. Obviously something happened.
> 
> 
> Btw, I choose this screen based on the feedback from each of you that own one, so I hold you all personally responsible for my choice



When you look at the 2 products.. the new stuff appears to be much less expensive to manufacture.. so higher profit margin would be the "Why"


----------



## Jay Taylor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/17971010
> 
> 
> When you look at the 2 products.. the new stuff appears to be much less expensive to manufacture.. so higher profit margin would be the "Why"



Profit margin may be the main reason as well as what threed123 mentioned about many pull down screens being used for business presentations and needing a wider presentation.


I think that if profit margin was the only reason for going to a thinner 2.4 gain HP material on roll up screens that Da-Lite would make the same switch with their fixed screens.


There may be fewer problems with rolling up a thinner fiberglass backed HP screen than there are with rolling up a thicker old HP screen. Getting Da-Lite to divulge all of their reasons for the switch are another matter.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jay Taylor* /forum/post/17983779
> 
> 
> Profit margin may be the main reason as well as what threed123 mentioned about many pull down screens being used for business presentations and needing a wider presentation.
> 
> 
> I think that if profit margin was the only reason for going to a thinner 2.4 gain HP material on roll up screens that Da-Lite would make the same switch with their fixed screens.
> 
> 
> There may be fewer problems with rolling up a thinner fiberglass backed HP screen than there are with rolling up a thicker old HP screen. Getting Da-Lite to divulge all of their reasons for the switch are another matter.



I would be happy to just see the fact that there are 2 HP fabrics in print.. right now the non AVS member who never read this could order the HP thinking he/she is getting one thing and get something less.. kind of unfair don't you think?


----------



## Fabricator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/17983828
> 
> 
> right now the non AVS member who never read this could order the HP thinking he/she is getting one thing and get something less.. kind of unfair don't you think?



yes, indeed. but, i will say that they would never know the difference. even if their friend had a 2.8 at their home.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fabricator* /forum/post/17984513
> 
> 
> yes, indeed. but, i will say that they would never know the difference. even if their friend had a 2.8 at their home.



I don't agree with that at all, I had both and there is a big difference. Now if there is nothing to compare to other than the old no gain screen, they would be very happy. So why not just document it and play it straight with the customers.


----------



## Jay Taylor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/17983828
> 
> 
> I would be happy to just see the fact that there are 2 HP fabrics in print.. right now the non AVS member who never read this could order the HP thinking he/she is getting one thing and get something less.. kind of unfair don't you think?



I agree completely. Da-Lite had an excellent opportunity a month or two ago to announce their two HP fabrics with an informative press release and updated specs on their web site. Doing so now would be better late than never.


Is anyone at Da-Lite reading this thread?


----------



## Elkhunter

Before ordering a 159" HP Model C, I called Da-Lite last Monday morning to be sure that the 2.8 gain material is still available on the Model C.


They said that 2.8 will be available until the end of the year by request, and that if 2.8 isn't specifically requested on the order, Model Cs will be shipped with 2.4.


So, I than called B&H, and ordered a 159" 2.8 Model C.


The next day, I called Da-Lite again to check on my B&H order. They said that my screen would be shipped with the 2.8 material on Friday.


The shipper called me yesterday for delivery info. Hopefully, within 1-2 weeks, I'll get my screen, and the gain will be 2.8.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Elkhunter* /forum/post/17990674
> 
> 
> Before ordering a 159" HP Model C, I called Da-Lite last Monday morning to be sure that the 2.8 gain material is still available on the Model C.
> 
> 
> They said that 2.8 will be available until the end of the year by request, and that if 2.8 isn't specifically requested on the order, Model Cs will be shipped with 2.4.
> 
> 
> So, I than called B&H, and ordered a 159" 2.8 Model C.
> 
> 
> The next day, I called Da-Lite again to check on my B&H order. They said that my screen would be shipped with the 2.8 material on Friday.
> 
> 
> The shipper called me yesterday for delivery info. Hopefully, within 1-2 weeks, I'll get my screen, and the gain will be 2.8.



How about the guy that didn't ask...paid the same price I bet..

I am glad you were able to get what you wanted and hope you are happy as a clam.. I know I am!


----------



## Jay Taylor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Elkhunter* /forum/post/17990674
> 
> 
> They said that 2.8 will be available until the end of the year by request,



This makes me wonder if they're discontinuing the 2.8 fabric entirely.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jay Taylor* /forum/post/17992318
> 
> 
> This makes me wonder if they're discontinuing the 2.8 fabric entirely.



That was what I got from the Sales Manager .. once stock is gone that is it.. but not in so many words.. you know talking in circles.. so as not to admit anything..


----------



## hrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/17992894
> 
> 
> That was what I got from the Sales Manager .. once stock is gone that is it.. but not in so many words.. you know talking in circles.. so as not to admit anything..



I don't think the 2.8 fabric will be discontinued. It is very difficult to stretch the 2.8 fabric onto a fixed frame and get all the snaps in place. My 115" wide High Power has over 60 snaps. Unless Da-Lite would be okay with altering the 2.4 fabric to be as sturdy and stretchable as the 2.8 fabric, which may well lose the savings in manufacturing costs that everyone here thinks is the reason behind the switch to the 2.4 fabric, the 2.4 fabric would never be used for any of the fixed frame screens.


----------



## RodK

I hope the High Power guru (Tryg) gets his hands on this 2.4 material soon and gives us a full detailed comparison against the 2.8. I think we would all value his opinion.


----------



## Alex solomon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RodK* /forum/post/17994296
> 
> 
> I hope the High Power guru (Tryg) gets his hands on this 2.4 material soon and gives us a full detailed comparison against the 2.8. I think we would all value his opinion.



Yeah, and grab one before they are all out. Any reviews out yet on the new 2.4 screen ?


----------



## MCaugusto

Question : Did all or most of you guys who purchased the Da-Lite High Power made sure to set up the projector with the lens facing the exact middle of the screen, as strongly recommended by some people who are very familiar with this particular screen, otherwise the viewer will not get the benefit of "retro-reflectivity" and screen gain ?

OR did some of you disregard such recommendation and placed the projector with the lens facing elsewhere, namely the bottom or the top middle of the screen ?

Thanks >>> Marcos


----------



## Fabricator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MCaugusto* /forum/post/18002892
> 
> 
> Question : Did all or most of you guys who purchased the Da-Lite High Power made sure to set up the projector with the lens facing the exact middle of the screen, as strongly recommended by some people who are very familiar with this particular screen, otherwise the viewer will not get the benefit of "retro-reflectivity" and screen gain ?
> 
> OR did some of you disregard such recommendation and placed the projector with the lens facing elsewhere, namely the bottom or the top middle of the screen ?
> 
> Thanks >>> Marcos



i did not move my pj. it is about 2' above my head. if i lowered it, i would pick up some gain. but for now i see no reason to bother. the image is darn nice with good media.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MCaugusto* /forum/post/18002892
> 
> 
> Question : Did all or most of you guys who purchased the Da-Lite High Power made sure to set up the projector with the lens facing the exact middle of the screen, as strongly recommended by some people who are very familiar with this particular screen, otherwise the viewer will not get the benefit of "retro-reflectivity" and screen gain ?
> 
> OR did some of you disregard such recommendation and placed the projector with the lens facing elsewhere, namely the bottom or the top middle of the screen ?
> 
> Thanks >>> Marcos



Remember not all projectors have lens shift. If you have a DLP with a fixed offset you can not really do that.


----------



## MCaugusto

airscapes >>> By your comment of "you can not really do that", did you mean that i should never use a High Power screen with a pj that must be placed with the lens facing the bottom/top middle of the screen ?

Or did you mean that the result of such combination would be a waste of screen material, namely that the specified gain would be nulled ?

It is just that it's still hard for me to accept the fact that a pj must be located at eye level when using a Da-Lite High Power screen for it to achieve all it claims to be able of accomplishing...


----------



## Fabricator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MCaugusto* /forum/post/18003572
> 
> 
> It is just that it's still hard for me to accept the fact that a pj must be located at eye level when using a Da-Lite High Power screen for it to achieve all it claims to be able of accomplishing...




well, believe it. but, at the same time. even if you do not where your pj as a a hat, the image will still be brighter than a regular screen. unless way to the side.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MCaugusto* /forum/post/18003572
> 
> 
> airscapes >>> By your comment of "you can not really do that", did you mean that i should never use a High Power screen with a pj that must be placed with the lens facing the bottom/top middle of the screen ?
> 
> Or did you mean that the result of such combination would be a waste of screen material, namely that the specified gain would be nulled ?
> 
> It is just that it's still hard for me to accept the fact that a pj must be located at eye level when using a Da-Lite High Power screen for it to achieve all it claims to be able of accomplishing...



Well, near eye level. How close is all about angles rather than fixed eye-pj distances. It all depends on the geometry of your installation. It is certainly unusable with older DLP's like the Optoma 82 that had fixed 35% vertical offset.


If it's "hard to accept", buy the screen, try it out and let the pain in your wallet help you accept it.










Better yet, get a free sample and try it out.


----------



## airscapes

No, I just meant that if you don't have lens shift you can not place the lens of the projector in the dead center of the screen it will be below. This is one reason table mount is best for high power. The projector is in front of the view (like me) and my head is only about 15" above the projector. I get a plasma like screen seated 5' behind my box mounted projector (small screen) .. if the screen was bigger the projector would be closer to me or maybe just behind me.. if I had a high ceiling I could raise the screen and the projector as well. Just wanted to point out that the projector can not always be positioned at eye level and that is OK! We are getting a bit off topic here.. this thread is more about how Dalite was telling us we were getting 2.8 classic HP when we buy say a model B or C with HP and instead selling us some new 2.4 lower quality stuff (my opinion on the quality part) without telling us. They still have not updated their site to say they are selling something other than 2.8 HP.


----------



## Murilo

Well I put in my order about a week and half ago, possibly 2 weeks now. Its taking awhile because my sales guy at avdeals.com or hd.ca said something is backordered.


I am guessing with all the 2.8 screens people are wanting that might be the problem. He said he hopes to find out tomorrow.


Not impressed really at all with this entire fiasco. Totally all fault on da-lite. Av sales has been excellent through this.


So i paid for a screen I did not get, paid to get it professionally installed, found out they used a cheaper version without me knowing it, then had to get it uninstalled, set up an agreement for a 2:35:1 2.8 screen I paid for 2 weeks ago, plus a replacement 2.8 16:9 screen since they did not originally deliver what i paid for.


Now to add to the problems 2 weeks back ordered, and it has not moved according to the company i ordered it through.


I hate to say it, but service is getting worse and worse with da-lite, it would be nice if da-lite would take our concerns seriously, but i dont think they do.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/18005447
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to say it, but service is getting worse and worse with da-lite, it would be nice if da-lite would take our concerns seriously, but i dont think they do.



Until someone starts or threatens a lawsuit they won't do anything.. I am sure AVS forum is only a small drip of their business and as long as they are not in danger of being sued why come clean and have to replace all those screens that have been sold with 2.4 to unsuspecting consumers who thought they were getting what the website says which is 2.8!


----------



## Hughman

First thank-you for bringing the screen changes to my attention, the microscopic photos of the beads are the first I've seen of these screens are are quite remarkable. Does anyone know when these changes took place? I purchased a high power last year and believe it to be the newer version, the screen sub-surface is weaved, my primary complaint has been with the visible texture of the surface, it almost gives a subtle paisley print type effect to the image. After viewing your micro photo of the newer material with the non-uniform nature of the bead application that very well would explain what I've been seeing.


----------



## Hughman

Here's a photo which captures the screen texture. The lighting in the lower right portion potion of the photo accentuates the issue but nearly exactly mimics what I often see.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughman* /forum/post/18006845
> 
> 
> Here's a photo which captures the screen texture. The lighting in the lower right portion potion of the photo accentuates the issue but nearly exactly mimics what I often see.



That looks like the 2.8 to me. The 2.4 is more of a checkerboard patter as you can see from the other photos I took


My sample had an area like that.. I wiped it with a damp microfiber rag and it looked much better afterward . be careful.. but I would give that a shot.. could be black from the backing getting on the surface when rolled up.. assuming this is not a fixed screen


Or this may be the one of the reasons they made the change.. not apposed to change just secret change!


----------



## Hughman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/18007133
> 
> 
> That looks like the 2.8 to me.



Do your samples of the 2.8 show similar "visual" texture issues and the 2.4 does not? I'll be replacing the screen soon for one of different dimensions and if the 2.4 shows none of the issues depicted in my photo then, obviously, that's the screen which would suit my purposes.


It's not just this section affected, the entire screen shows the same texture when exposed to similar lighting. I've already used a MF cloth with no changes. The screen was cut from a model c roll-down and the backing is definitely the weave pattern noted in your photos of the 2.4.


Regardless of what transpires within the thread, I'll order samples of both formulas and make a determination.


----------



## rgathright

I already have a 12" x 12" sample of the 2.8 and a piece of the 2.4 being sent to me.


----------



## airscapes

 http://173.49.169.131:999/dalitehp/photos/Texture.html 

This is the front of both products.. as you can see the new stuff looks like a checker board on the front (screen itself) I did not notice this when viewing. I would like to see hat those dark areas of your screen look like under a microscope.. wonder if the beads are loose or missing of coated with something..


----------



## Hughman

Wow, I thought those photos were of the back of the screen, LOL. In that case I would appear to have the 2.8. The back of my screen looks like the front of the 2.4. Purely guessing but I'd say the texture noted is from inconsistent application of beads.


----------



## Jay Taylor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughman* /forum/post/18007612
> 
> 
> Wow, I thought those photos were of the back of the screen, LOL. In that case I would appear to have the 2.8. The back of my screen looks like the front of the 2.4. Purely guessing but I'd say the texture noted is from inconsistent application of beads.



So did I! The back of my screen appears to be black vinyl with a fairly visible checkerboard texture similar to the picture on the left which is apparently the front of Doug's 2.4 screen that he returned. I have difficulty seeing only a slight trace of checkerboard texture on the front of my screen. Since my order was received at DaLite on December 4th, 2009 I assume that my screen is a 2.4 screen.

*Edit by Jay:* After further investigation we've determined that I have the Old 2.8 gain fabric: Da-Lite Contour Electrol 133" HP Screen 




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughman* /forum/post/18006845
> 
> 
> Here's a photo which captures the screen texture. The lighting in the lower right portion potion of the photo accentuates the issue but nearly exactly mimics what I often see.



Approximately what are the dimensions of the portion of the screen in your photo?


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jay Taylor* /forum/post/18008251
> 
> 
> So did I! The back of my screen appears to be black vinyl with a fairly visible checkerboard texture similar to the picture on the left which is apparently the front of Doug's 2.4 screen that he returned. I have difficulty seeing only a slight trace of checkerboard texture on the front of my screen. Since my order was received at DaLite on December 4th, 2009 I assume that my screen is a 2.4 screen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Approximately what are the dimensions of the portion of the screen in your photo?



Jay, if you shine an led flash light along the surface of the 2.4 like I did the squares pop out at you.. under normal light you don't see them.. both those photos of new and old were taken the same way with the light source across the surface


----------



## dryeye

In response to the title of this thread, apparently a new HP 2.4 gain. I ordered a 106" model B oct 1st and received it 6 days later so the switcheroo has been going on for some time. Reciently I requested more HP samples (both types) and have come to this conclusion, the old material does have a slightly higher gain in its cone and its cone is definately narrower. To me it's not the end of the world and in fact I prefer the new material for this reason. However I do strongly agree DaLite needs to update their website describing both flavors of this HP material.


----------



## Hughman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jay Taylor* /forum/post/18008251
> 
> 
> Approximately what are the dimensions of the portion of the screen in your photo?



Without setting up the same shot again I'd guess around 6 inches wide.


----------



## rgathright




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/18007456
> 
> http://173.49.169.131:999/dalitehp/photos/Texture.html
> 
> This is the front of both products.. as you can see the new stuff looks like a checker board on the front (screen itself) I did not notice this when viewing. I would like to see hat those dark areas of your screen look like under a microscope.. wonder if the beads are loose or missing of coated with something..



Are you saying your pictures are the front and not the back of the screen material. Isn't the white side the front facing the projector?


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgathright* /forum/post/18009113
> 
> 
> Are you saying your pictures are the front and not the back of the screen material. Isn't the white side the front facing the projector?



Yes both pictures are the front side that faces the projector. one on the left as it says is the new stuff, the one on the right is the old stuff.


----------



## mariokrt64




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dryeye* /forum/post/18008698
> 
> 
> In response to the title of this thread, apparently a new HP 2.4 gain. I ordered a 106" model B oct 1st and received it 6 days later so the switcheroo has been going on for some time. Reciently I requested more HP samples (both types) and have come to this conclusion, the old material does have a slightly higher gain in its cone and its cone is definately narrower. To me it's not the end of the world and in fact I prefer the new material for this reason. However I do strongly agree DaLite needs to update their website describing both flavors of this HP material.



I got a sample of the new material 2.4 and it indicates a 30 deg. cone, which I think is the same as the old one. Is that so, or was this an error on my sample description sheet?


----------



## RodK

No, Da Lite is stating that the viewing cone is the same for both materials ( at least that is what they told me in an email ). Real world use is telling us otherwise though.



P.S. I am still undecided as to which material I want for my screen.


----------



## mariokrt64




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RodK* /forum/post/18010545
> 
> 
> No, Da Lite is stating that the viewing cone is the same for both materials ( at least that is what they told me in an email ). Real world use is telling us otherwise though.
> 
> 
> 
> P.S. I am still undecided as to which material I want for my screen.



What's the real life experience??New material wider cone/lower gain than old? If so, how much wider cone is being experienced"


----------



## tigerfan33




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RodK* /forum/post/18010545
> 
> 
> No, Da Lite is stating that the viewing cone is the same for both materials ( at least that is what they told me in an email ). Real world use is telling us otherwise though.
> 
> 
> 
> P.S. I am still undecided as to which material I want for my screen.






I ordered my 106" hp yesterday. I had both samples and they were both plenty bright to me. Yes one is brighter than the other but both seemed to give that Plasma look. I suspect I will be getting the new which is fine with me. I know I could have asked for the 2.8 gain but did not. I do appreciate this thread for giving us information to give those a choice if they perfer.


----------



## dryeye




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mariokrt64* /forum/post/18010634
> 
> 
> What's the real life experience??New material wider cone/lower gain than old? If so, how much wider cone is being experienced"



My walk around the room test using samples of both HP materials and some Carada BW told me the old HP went "darker" sooner, noticeably sooner in my case. But it was also was brighter at the center of the cone. How much wider I cannot say in degrees. Honestly I'd be happy with either but prefer the wider cone of the new material. My "testing" was done under admittedly harsher conditions than normal viewing however, to highlite the cone/dropoff. I viewed solid color test patterns and full white from my DVDO Duo. With regular movies I'm sure it isn't so noticeable. For the record my PJ to screen distance is 172"/ Screen to viewer is 150"/ PJ is mounted 51" above the floor and center screen is 50" high so you can see it's a pretty optimum setup for the HP materials.


----------



## Hughman

Da-lite has updated their High Power description to reflect the change in gain.

_High Power



A technological breakthrough, providing the reflectivity and optical characteristics of a traditional glass beaded surface with the ability to clean the surface when necessary. Its smooth textured surface provides the highest gain of all front projection screen surfaces with no resolution loss. The moderate viewing angle and its ability to reflect light back along the projection axis make this surface the best choice for situations where there is a moderate amount of ambient light and the projector is placed on a table-top or in the same horizontal viewing plane as the audience. Flame retardant and mildew resistant. Viewing Angle: 30° Gain: 2.4_


----------



## Jay Taylor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughman* /forum/post/18011206
> 
> 
> Da-lite has updated their High Power description to reflect the change in gain.



Interesting that there's no mention of the 2.8 gain HP screen. This is more evidence that when supplies run out the 2.8 gain HP screen will be history.


----------



## Jay Taylor

I took some macro photos of the front and back of the HP screen that I purchased on December 4, 2009. It's probably the new fabric. If any of you can verify that I'd appreciate it. Whatever type it is I love it!

*Edit by Jay:* After further investigation we've determined that I have the Old 2.8 gain fabric.


There's also some photos of the screen being used in the link below:

Da-Lite Contour Electrol 133" HP screen


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jay Taylor* /forum/post/18012566
> 
> 
> I took some macro photos of the front and back of the HP screen that I purchased on December 4, 2009. It's probably the new fabric. If any of you can verify that I'd appreciate it. Whatever type it is I love it!
> 
> 
> There's also some photos of the screen being used in the link below:
> 
> Da-Lite Contour Electrol 133" HP screen



Wow. Not good at it...those shots look amazing.







Really they do and I am going to go with a 110" inch diag. HP screen and AE4000 so that really gives me something to look forward to. And it will drop down in front of a 60 inch Sony, so I truly can appreciate the shots you provided as it shows scale to give me an idea of what to expect, but smaller. How far away are you standing from the screen in the shots with the tv as the screen is descending?


Your shots should be a link in one of the HP screen or AE4000 projector threads so potential new purchasers can get an idea of what it might look like if they are planning to do what you did and what I plan to do. Throw in some info on distances you are from the screen and some other info and it will serve as a good example.


----------



## Murilo

To redeye, With respect to the cone i hope i didnt stir that up. And I hope your not being fooled like me. The cone i did not find is any better with the new one, it just dims less off to the side compared to the center, and like doug said its quite a bit dimmer on center and even somewhat off axis then the 2.8 unless you have seating way off axis then yes you will notice the 2.8 becomes a tough darker at very bad viewing angles where i would never want to sit. Make sure your not being fooled, just because the 2.8 dims quicker off axis its not darker then the 2.4, it still brighter off axis (reasonably off axis)its main selling point is not its viewing cone, in the 30 degree cone the 2.4 is darker for sure, its selling point and why its listed at 30 degree cone yet, is it does not dim or get much darker or brighter where you sit. Brightness still falls off on the sides after spending a month with it, i can tell off to the sides the 2.4 still looses brightness and is brighter on axis like the like the 2.8 but just not as much. With that said the 2.8 may have larger drops in brightness off angle, but it is still brighter off axis. Unless you are really off axis then i found them to be even, and if you have some very bad off access seats like my one, then the 2.4 seemed a touch brighter for some reason.


I look at it this way, the 2.8 and 2.4 are very similar, ones just more extreme and the others more modest. They both loose brightness off to the sides, the only difference is one is brighter, so going to the sides its a more noticeable drop in brightness on the 2.8, but the 2.4 if you stop and adjust your eyes will still be dimmer then the 2.8 off to the sides, even though the brightness did not fall as much. Make sure your not fooled, and give your eyes time to adjust.


Again if your fairly off angle they eventually even out, i couldnt detect the sample 2.8 from my 2.4 screen, but i find that to off angle as well. And at my bad seating position which is very off angle, for some reason the 2.4 looked a touch brighter.




As i posted recently being a decent amount off axis the new was brighter, being a good portion off axis they were even. And in my seat im getting rid of, which i do not encourage people to sit, the 2.4 was finally a touch brighter. You really need bad viewing angles before the 2.4 becomes brighter. You said you were walking around? This is not a good test, because you will walk fairly off angle, but just walk to your seating or depending on how high the samples are just stand where your seating is, unless you have very off angle seating, the 2.8 should be brighter, or at worst even. But dont be fooled again by it seemingly "becoming darker" just because the brightness drops off more, again give your eyes time to adjust and process it, it did loose more brightness, but it should still be brighter then the 2.4



2.4 also is a great screen, probably the second best i seen, but I still prefer the 2.8 from the samples i seen which i placed on my 2.4. Especially with my new seating which will be around the projector all seating will be in the cone and only a bit off axis where i found the 2.8 to be noticeably brighter all around.




All in all like doug i just found 2.8 to be brighter all around my viewing area. If you have a very off angle viewing area then the 2.4 might suit you better. Or if your bothered more by extreme drops in brightness being off angle (even though the 2.8 still typically stays brighter off axis) then go with the 2.4


----------



## Murilo

Jaytaylor i thought you had a 2.4 cause it looks like mine but then looking at your stuff up close, or your up close pictures, it seems more like the 2.8. I dont notice squares really like i seen on my 2.4 on the front, and your back looks like the 2.8 back (which does look like the front of the 2.4)


Unless the camera or computer is not sharp enough to show the small squares, i say you for sure have a 2.8, if the camera is not at fault.


Get really close, I can walk right up to my screen and see perfect tiny squares all along the screen in perfect checkerboard pattern, one small square right beside the other perfectly aligned all along the screen.


If you cant see perfect squares all perfectly aligned on all over your screen its a 2.8.


----------



## airscapes

Lets set this straight.. front of 2.8 is as smooth as a babies bottom the 2.4 if rougher.

When light is shown across the screen (front of the screen) you see no symmetrical pattern with 2.8 and you will see checker board with the 2.4


We are talking about the part you shine your projector on not the back.


----------



## Murilo

Yes, but they are right the 2.8 back displays a checkerboard pattern almost like the front of the 2.4. So if you do have a 2.8 and the back has a checkerboard pattern, and the front does not....its a 2.8.



If that back and the front have checkerboard or square pattern of perfect squares all along, its a 2.4 Just for refrence. Im pretty sure he has a 2.8 though.



And yes its also smooth i was about to type that as well.


Im willing to say im 90 percent sure he has a 2.8, although im going to look very stupid if im wrong, or blame poor pictures


----------



## Murilo

Oh yea reason why i came here, despite da-lite getting a ton of calls for the 2.8 material, my dealer promised me the material was not the reason for the backorder.


----------



## noah katz

Got my sample of 2.4; all I used to compare was a solid blue screen from my pj when not getting a signal.


My 2.8 is slightly brighter on axis; I couldn't really see a difference off axis.


----------



## darinp2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/18015640
> 
> 
> Got my sample of 2.4; all I used to compare was a solid blue screen from my pj when not getting a signal.
> 
> 
> My 2.8 is slightly brighter on axis; I couldn't really see a difference off axis.



Do you see any difference in screen texture with the solid blue screen?


Thanks,

Darin


----------



## Jay Taylor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18012946
> 
> 
> Wow. Not good at it...those shots look amazing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really they do and I am going to go with a 110" inch diag. HP screen and AE4000 so that really gives me something to look forward to. And it will drop down in front of a 60 inch Sony, so I truly can appreciate the shots you provided as it shows scale to give me an idea of what to expect, but smaller. How far away are you standing from the screen in the shots with the tv as the screen is descending?



Thanks Hughmc. Your image will be beautiful with a 110" screen.


The shots of the screen descending and the screen shots were all taken 12 feet from the screen.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/18013362
> 
> 
> Jaytaylor i thought you had a 2.4 cause it looks like mine but then looking at your stuff up close, or your up close pictures, it seems more like the 2.8. I dont notice squares really like i seen on my 2.4 on the front, and your back looks like the 2.8 back (which does look like the front of the 2.4)
> 
> 
> Unless the camera or computer is not sharp enough to show the small squares, i say you for sure have a 2.8, if the camera is not at fault.
> 
> 
> Get really close, I can walk right up to my screen and see perfect tiny squares all along the screen in perfect checkerboard pattern, one small square right beside the other perfectly aligned all along the screen.
> 
> 
> If you cant see perfect squares all perfectly aligned on all over your screen its a 2.8.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/18013448
> 
> 
> Lets set this straight.. front of 2.8 is as smooth as a babies bottom the 2.4 if rougher.
> 
> When light is shown across the screen (front of the screen) you see no symmetrical pattern with 2.8 and you will see checker board with the 2.4
> 
> 
> We are talking about the part you shine your projector on not the back.



Thanks Murilo & Doug. I originally thought without a doubt that I had the 2.4 screen because I thought that Doug's photo of the 2.4 screen was the back. Now that I know it was the front I'm almost positive that it's a 2.8 screen. There is only a slight hint of a checkerboard appearance on small portions of the screen. You can tell the resolution of the macro photos in my link by looking at the details on the ruler. The checkerboard pattern is quite visible on the back of the screen but not the front as you can see from the photos.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18012946
> 
> 
> Your shots should be a link in one of the HP screen or AE4000 projector threads so potential new purchasers can get an idea of what it might look like if they are planning to do what you did and what I plan to do. Throw in some info on distances you are from the screen and some other info and it will serve as a good example.



Once I'm positive what type of HP screen that I have I may do that. I also plan to update a previous thread that I started on hanging the screen by chains. I have more installation hardware details and other shots that I'll add to that thread that don't apply to this thread.


I've updated some of the info on the web page to include distances as you suggested. If you can think of anything else that I need to add please let me know:

Da-Lite Contour Electrol 133" HP Screen


----------



## noah katz

I didn't notice any texture on either.


This was very hasty done just by holding the sample up to the screen and moving the sample to change the relative angles to my eyes.


Next time I have someone over to hold the sample up for me I'll do it from a proper viewing distance.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *darinp2* /forum/post/18015978
> 
> 
> Do you see any difference in screen texture with the solid blue screen?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Darin


----------



## Murilo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/18017126
> 
> 
> I didn't notice any texture on either.
> 
> 
> This was very hasty done just by holding the sample up to the screen and moving the sample to change the relative angles to my eyes.
> 
> 
> Next time I have someone over to hold the sample up for me I'll do it from a proper viewing distance.



Yea you really need to put it on the screen and stand back at your viewing distance. Can you tape it to the top portion of the screen ? Thats what i did. By top portion i mean the black boarder at the top so the sample drops down onto the screen area.


I also made the same mistake they didnt look much different standing right infront of them, you cant judge like that, standing back at my seating distance the 2.8 definately was still brighter off angle. As doug noted as well. When i was standing right infront of it, it didnt look much different either, but standing back at my seating area i really noticed a difference.


----------



## Murilo

So just for reference so those ordering wether they want a 2.4 or 2.8. I measured if you sit 5 feet 5 inches off to the side from the center of the lens, the 2.8 will still be brighter, anything over this and it instantly becomes a bit dimmer then the 2.4 and stays that way. This is with a 96 inch screen so not so big. If you have a bigger screen you could go wider.


But if you have seating more then 5.5 feet from the center of the projector lens to either side on a 96 inch screen the people sitting off to the side will get dimmer picture then they would with the 2.4.


I do have two two seats off to the side ones right on the 5.5 mark and one is passed it. But im switching to a 4 circular theater seating around my projector which will make this a non issue for me whenever i pull the trigger on my new seating.


----------



## noah katz

"I measured if you sit 5 feet 5 inches off to the side from the center of the lens, the 2.8 will still be brighter,"


This isn't very meaningful without knowing all the other dimensions of your setup.


----------



## 37fiat

By the way, on the Da-Lite website, the High Power specs have now been changed to the 2.4 gain.


Their advertised viewing angle angle remains at 30 degrees however.


I ordered a 119" HP 2.4 screen 2 weeks ago, and checked today if it's been put into production. Apparently not yet, so considering the viewing angle remains the same, I had the specs changed on it to the original 2.8 gain screen.


The 2.8 has been proven to work very well with regard to edge curling and lack of noticeable waves, and I don't want to take a chance that the new thinner 2.4 material may have issues with that down the road. The brighter image won't hurt either!


I wanted the 2.4 for the slightly wider angle, but if Da-Lite themselves don't think it will increase the viewing angle, what's the point?


----------



## xb1032

I bought my HP screen last summer and called today about a customer 119" screen and while I was on the phone with a Dalite rep I asked about the 2.8 material and this guy told me that I could no longer request a screen with the 2.8 material because he said that the supply they had from their supplier is no longer available (take this for what it's worth). He also told me that according to the engineers that there is no discernable viewing angle difference between the 2.4 and the 2.8. I'm having them send me a sample as well so I can see what all of this is all about. My bet is the 2.4 material is a cost savings for Dalite.


----------



## Meret

Got a call from a shipping company wanting to drop off a box weighing 60lbs+ tomorrow from Da-lite, so I guess I will find out tomorrow if they filled the request for 2.8 gain or not.


I almost finished all the 'must get' things for my new projector setup. What am I going to do once it's all done







This has become a hobby


----------



## jonathanR

xb1032:


I hope your wrong. I placed an order this past Monday for an cosmo electrol 133" with 2.8 specifically noted from projectorzone.com. I better not have to deal with the hassle of returning that thing.


----------



## Darth Indy

You know what, I have been thinking hard about my next screen being a Da-lite high power but with the BS way they have handled the switcheroo of 2.8 to 2.4 I don't know or think they deserve the money. It's one thing to change a material and have a press release on it change specs everywhere to let people know BUT it's entirely different to do what they have done.


----------



## xb1032




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jonathanR* /forum/post/18023393
> 
> 
> xb1032:
> 
> 
> I hope your wrong. I placed an order this past Monday for an cosmo electrol 133" with 2.8 specifically noted from projectorzone.com. I better not have to deal with the hassle of returning that thing.



A story could vary from one rep to the next in any business so you never know. Personally, I'd call the company back to make sure. Projectorzone should make sure it's right. It's a real hassle returning screens. I had to do this THREE times with Elitescreens and had I not been working from home at the time since freight had to pick up/drop off it would have made it extremely difficult.


On a side note though if they are out of 2.8 material there's just not really any options out there anyway for something high gain like this at an affordable price with out other drawbacks though.


----------



## DvdJags




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jay Taylor* /forum/post/18012566
> 
> 
> I took some macro photos of the front and back of the HP screen that I purchased on December 4, 2009. It's probably the new fabric. If any of you can verify that I'd appreciate it. Whatever type it is I love it!
> 
> 
> There's also some photos of the screen being used in the link below:
> 
> Da-Lite Contour Electrol 133" HP screen



So what did you use to hang your screen? I am trying to hang a 159" Contour Electro from the ceiling however I do not have the ceiling hooks for the screen. It only has the two ceiling brackets. Are you hanging from the ceiling hooks or the brackets? I would like to use four ceiling hooks because I think the screen is too heavy to just hang from two brackets or hooks. Any ideals?


----------



## Jay Taylor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DvdJags* /forum/post/18025460
> 
> 
> So what did you use to hang your screen?



DvdJags, I PM'd you.


Jay


----------



## Meret

My screen arrived yesterday and from everything I can tell, it's the old 2.8 material (based on the info and images Airscapes posted). The invoice states 2.8 gain, the texture feels like very smooth paper and no matter how I shine a light on it, I cannot get see any texture squares. The is the best image I could get (I desaturated the color from the image since my camera sucks).


So I think I lucked out as one of the last few to get the old fabric in a pull-down. What might have helped is I ordered a custom size (62" x 110") and it was cut from a 16:10 screen which may have still be in-stock.











Either way, it was exciting to finally get it and it looks beautiful. I'll post my comments about screen in general in the 2.8 thread as it really has to suit your viewing setup.


Thanks Airscapes for pointing out the change or I probably wouldn't have managed to get the old fabric.


----------



## noah katz

I taped the 2.4 sample to the edge of my 2.8 and moved sideways & up/down from minimum normal viewing distance, and the only difference was that close to on axis the 2.8 was slightly brighter; they looked the same when I moved to the side.


Dalite deserves criticism for their handling of this situation, from a performance standpoint I don't think it's a big deal.


----------



## Snow-Okami

Ugh. I called projectorzone and spoke to 5 representatives to make sure before I ordered my screen would be 2.8, 1 of them even claimed to have spoken to Da-Lite about the change and the assured me the screen would be 2.8 and not 2.4. Upon receiving the screen I have squares! I don't care how long it takes but I have contacted them from several ends to get this exchanged. This is unacceptable.


Thanks airscapes for pointing out the difference


----------



## Alex solomon

I taped my hi power sample on my Da-lite white matte. Colors look well saturated and vibrant, a lot of WOWs! Bright scenes are really something on this screen. However, on darker material the blacks are not really black. Is this because I have the PJ calibrated for the matte screen? Could I expect a better black level once calibrated for hi power screen ? A 110" custom 2:35:1 manual pulldown from Da-lite is one of the option I am looking at to go along with the AE4000. Thanks.


----------



## jonathanR

Snow-okami:


When did you order your screen from projectorzone? I just ordered mine last Monday and told the rep numerous times i wanted 2.8 and I'd be returning anything else. So if its squares.........it 2.4 (new)?


----------



## noah katz

"However, on darker material the blacks are not really black. Is this because I have the PJ calibrated for the matte screen?"


It's because the gain works on the black level as well as the white level, thouigh that's not to say a recalibration wouldn't help.


----------



## Murilo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/18022895
> 
> 
> "I measured if you sit 5 feet 5 inches off to the side from the center of the lens, the 2.8 will still be brighter,"
> 
> 
> This isn't very meaningful without knowing all the other dimensions of your setup.



It was suppose to give you an idea of it being off center, since they both have the same viewing cone and retroreflective properties/


As i mentioned in that post this is on a 96 inch screen, so larger screens should be even better as I mentioned, you can be more of axis with a bigger screen. This is just to give people an idea.


Make sure to read or quote my entire post.


"So just for reference so those ordering wether they want a 2.4 or 2.8. I measured if you sit 5 feet 5 inches off to the side from the center of the lens, the 2.8 will still be brighter, anything over this and it instantly becomes a bit dimmer then the 2.4 and stays that way. This is with a 96 inch screen so not so big. If you have a bigger screen you could go wider."


If you need to know its ceiling mounted 2 feet above, again that should not make any difference, the screen size will. Both screens as far as i can tell loose realtivly the same brightness when moving up and down, and again i was only comparing viewing angles nothing else.



You have your own samples to see for yourself, you just need to view them properly. This was just to give possible people who plan on ordering and have not seen both an idea.


----------



## Murilo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Snow-Okami* /forum/post/18036873
> 
> 
> Ugh. I called projectorzone and spoke to 5 representatives to make sure before I ordered my screen would be 2.8, 1 of them even claimed to have spoken to Da-Lite about the change and the assured me the screen would be 2.8 and not 2.4. Upon receiving the screen I have squares! I don't care how long it takes but I have contacted them from several ends to get this exchanged. This is unacceptable.
> 
> 
> Thanks airscapes for pointing out the difference





I know how you feel, but be happy their was a post on here before you ordered and received the new fabric and had it installed by a professional. This has been a nightmare for me.


Im still waiting on my backordered screens (i ordered a 2:35:1, and i wanted a replacement for my 16:9 which was 2.4) my dealer said he promises they will have enough fabric, but has not told me what the back order problem is yet, neither has da-lite. They better have enough 2.8 fabric i ordered mine at the begining of January already, and people who ordered later are getting 2.8. I just want my 2.8 screens and this mess to be over ! This 3 week back order (whatever it is) in itself is almost unacceptable.


----------



## Fabricator

if they do, in fact, quit making the 2.8. i wonder what the resale value would be on it ?


----------



## noah katz

"Make sure to read or quote my entire post.


I did read it all.


I'm admit it's a bit nitpicky, but your statement "the 2.8 will still be brighter" is definitive, whereas the information you gave about the conditions is not - it's not enough to determine the angle between the lines defined by pj-screen and screen-viewer which determine the gain.


----------



## xb1032




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alex solomon* /forum/post/18037108
> 
> 
> I taped my hi power sample on my Da-lite white matte...Bright scenes are really something on this screen. However, on darker material the blacks are not really black. Is this because I have the PJ calibrated for the matte screen? Could I expect a better black level once calibrated for hi power screen ? A 110" custom 2:35:1 manual pulldown from Da-lite is one of the option I am looking at to go along with the AE4000. Thanks.



When you refer to black levels I am assuming your "minimum luminance" level. If that is the case, it pretty much is what it is. I have a RS2 clone and if I compare a complete black screen with a sample non-gain white screen (Elitscreens 1.1) the difference is minimal. With on screen content the difference is there but very little. Now someone with a projector with black levels not as good I would assume that the glow on the AE4000 for instance would be higher on an RS2 therefore your black levels are likely elevated more. There's a trade off but after having the HP a typical non-gain screen looks DIM now (especially when you get into larger screens).


----------



## Murilo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/18040888
> 
> 
> "Make sure to read or quote my entire post.
> 
> 
> I did read it all.
> 
> 
> I'm admit it's a bit nitpicky, but your statement "the 2.8 will still be brighter" is definitive, whereas the information you gave about the conditions is not - it's not enough to determine the angle between the lines defined by pj-screen and screen-viewer which determine the gain.



Im a little confused what your saying, but if you tell me i can give you other measurements.


----------



## Alex solomon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xb1032* /forum/post/18044450
> 
> 
> When you refer to black levels I am assuming your "minimum luminance" level. If that is the case, it pretty much is what it is. I have a RS2 clone and if I compare a complete black screen with a sample non-gain white screen (Elitscreens 1.1) the difference is minimal. With on screen content the difference is there but very little. Now someone with a projector with black levels not as good I would assume that the glow on the AE4000 for instance would be higher on an RS2 therefore your black levels are likely elevated more. There's a trade off but after having the HP a typical non-gain screen looks DIM now (especially when you get into larger screens).



umm, actually I tried it out with my old Sharp Z3000, a 720p Pj that's pretty outdated and a black level that is not as good as the AE4000. So the result might be totally different with the AE4000. I wish there was a manual high gain screen I that I can buy and return if it doesn't work out. I don't mind paying the shipping charges both ways plus reasonable amount of restocking fee. There is nothing like trying on your own environment for auditioning.


When I refer to black level, I mean the dark material looked washed out, like the brightness is cracked up way too high. I am also concerned about what Art also mentioned this in his AE4000 review, of using 2.35:1 high gain screen and the lens zoom.
_

"Since the screen is wider, there would be even more roll-off of brightness in the corners and far left and right sides of the image in general"_ Is this true ?


----------



## Murilo

Well I am very happy, my 2:35:1 and 16:9 replacement screen, both 2.8 versions are shipping today!


Cant wait until they arrive. And if their 2.4 when I receive them i dont know what i will do










I dont want to give cheap plugs but the guys at hd.ca need to be admired for their help. Im not paying shipping fee's, for the return, and they also do free shipping anyway so im not paying for any. I can tell its been hell on them dealing with me, and my anger about this issue, and trying to deal with da-lite who seemed to take the approach we didnt do anything wrong.


You have to feel bad for the retailers as well in this ordeal.


----------



## Snow-Okami




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jonathanR* /forum/post/18038443
> 
> 
> Snow-okami:
> 
> 
> When did you order your screen from projectorzone? I just ordered mine last Monday and told the rep numerous times i wanted 2.8 and I'd be returning anything else. So if its squares.........it 2.4 (new)?



JonathanR:


I ordered the screen the 17th of Jan. And yes, I did receive a 2.4. I sent out a very angry email to both Da-Lite and projectorzone immediately. The representative that I talked to, who talked to Da-lite just sent me a email 2 hours ago stating that he just spoke to Da-lite again and it is indeed a 2.4 screen.


However, what made me extremely happy is Da-lite is sending me a 2.8 screen at no cost, and they have sent me a Fed-Ex pickup for the old screen tomorrow!


I do not fault projectorzone at all for this mistake, they seemed just as clueless about the change as I did before reading this thread. The way they handled the situation was excellent however.


Am I glad I will not have to deal with the hassle I thought I would returning this thing 2.4.


I have no idea what screen you will be recieving, but apparently as quoted from the email: "Da-Lite also informed me that on all their manual and non-tensioned electric screens, the gain will transition to 2.4, while their fixed frame and tensioned electrics will remain at 2.8 gain. The Da-Lite rep I talked to joked that 'It will stay like that.until it changes.'"


Good luck Jonathan


----------



## DrMark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/18044945
> 
> 
> Im a little confused what your saying, but if you tell me i can give you other measurements.



We need to know the distance from the center of the screen, and the distance below the projector lens level. Consider the difference between standing one foot from the screen and 5.5 feet to one side vs. standing 100 feet from the screen and 5.5 feet to one side. The angles are very different between these two cases, and it is the angle that matters.


--Mark


----------



## hrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Snow-Okami* /forum/post/18048564
> 
> 
> J
> 
> I have no idea what screen you will be recieving, but apparently as quoted from the email: "Da-Lite also informed me that on all their manual and non-tensioned electric screens, the gain will transition to 2.4, while their fixed frame and tensioned electrics will remain at 2.8 gain. The Da-Lite rep I talked to joked that 'It will stay like that.until it changes.'"



A rep told me the 2.8 would stay put in all the fixed frame screen lines. Since it sounds like the new material might not be strong enough for a fixed frame installation, I have always figured that would be true. The "tensioned electrics", however, do not exist. Da-Lite does not make tensioned screens with the High Power fabric.


----------



## Murilo

"We need to know the distance from the center of the screen, and the distance below the projector lens level"


As mentioned projector is 2 feet above eye level. Projector is perfectly center with my screen.


Distance is 12 feet back.


----------



## mariokrt64

Is it still posible to get a 2.8 screen? Anyone who ordered the last few weeks got it?


----------



## Warbie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mariokrt64* /forum/post/18056100
> 
> 
> Is it still posible to get a 2.8 screen? Anyone who ordered the last few weeks got it?



I'd also like to know this - particularly 119" manual screens. My samples finally arrived and i'm happy with the high power material that was sent, which is 2.8 gain, and don't want to wait another 4 months! for the 2.4 material to arrive for a comparison.


----------



## Garman

I have a Da-Lite HP screen which has worked out great for the VPL-VW50 Sony projector. I have recently upgraded to the new VPL-VW85, I been experimenting with screen material over the last several weeks and have decided to go with the new JKP Affinity Screen by Da-Lite which produces better blacks in my environment. Anyone looking for just the screen material let me know as I have a 92" Da-Snap for sale now, I might keep it though as it is very good at increase the Pop and Wow factor.


----------



## xb1032




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Warbie* /forum/post/18058916
> 
> 
> I'd also like to know this - particularly 119" manual screens. My samples finally arrived and i'm happy with the high power material that was sent, which is 2.8 gain, and don't want to wait another 4 months! for the 2.4 material to arrive for a comparison.



FYI, I called DaLite and they had a sample to my house in 3 days.


----------



## jonathanR

Snow-Okami:



Do you know of anyway to manually un-roll a cosmo electrol? Mine arrives next week. Right when it arrives I want to double check and see what pattern I have. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks.


----------



## Warbie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xb1032* /forum/post/18060975
> 
> 
> FYI, I called DaLite and they had a sample to my house in 3 days.



I live in the UK, so it takes a little while. It was nice that they sent me a sample of every material they have (bar the newer 2.4 material) though. Either way i'm happy with the 2.8 and will get that if possible.


----------



## x86




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jonathanR* /forum/post/18061002
> 
> 
> Snow-Okami:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know of anyway to manually un-roll a cosmo electrol? Mine arrives next week. Right when it arrives I want to double check and see what pattern I have. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks.



I've got an older cosmo electrol - does yours have the IR remote option? Either way you will need to (at least temporarily) wire it with power. If you do have IR, you can set it out on a flat surface and hit down quickly followed by stop to get it to unroll a couple inches.


Now that I think about it, if you are asking how to get it to unroll w/out electricity (i.e., "manually," like you said), I don't think there is any way to do that. That screen motor keeps a pretty tight grip on the drum. good luck!


----------



## mariokrt64




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/18038495
> 
> 
> "However, on darker material the blacks are not really black. Is this because I have the PJ calibrated for the matte screen?"
> 
> 
> It's because the gain works on the black level as well as the white level, thouigh that's not to say a recalibration wouldn't help.



Last night I tried a sample of the 2.4. After reading the initial comment on the blacks, I was looking particularly at this and zero in on an image of a guy dressed in a dark (black?) suit. The portion of the suit within the HP sample looked very gray in comparison with my screen (DIY Behr SS, gray). I did not adjusted the contrast/brightness which I will do next time I try this. However, my initial reaction was a bit of disappointment, since the side by side difference in black levels was noticeable, in my view. I read somewhere else that I may need to dial the contrast low to reduce the white levels...I will try that to see how it looks...


But, is this the typical black levels that I should be expecting with the HP? Although I was and still considering the HP, this experience has me looking at other options. I have a sample of the high contrast cinemavison (gray, 1.1) that will try later to see the difference.


BTW, I am using a Mitsu HC6800 (


----------



## noah katz

"my initial reaction was a bit of disappointment, since the side by side difference in black levels was noticeable, in my view."


That's our eyes playing tricks on us.


Without the other screen for comparison, the blacks will look much better.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mariokrt64* /forum/post/18069293
> 
> 
> However, my initial reaction was a bit of disappointment, since the side by side difference in black levels was noticeable, in my view. I read somewhere else that I may need to dial the contrast low to reduce the white levels...I will try that to see how it looks...



My HC3000 went from a contrast setting of +8 and a brightness of +4 with my old screen to a contrast setting of -9 and a brightness of 0. This is with the iris closed (not adjustable either open or closed)


Blacks are a combination of ambient light and the light your projector puts out with no input or 0 IRE I think is the term.

So if you amplify what it does at 0 IRE 2.4 times and compare that to no amplification of your old screen.. it will be different for sure.

I love my front projection Plasma screen, samples can't tell you much of anything other than ... yep it is bright!


I should also say I have the 2.8 gain and when compared to the 2.4 (had both screens) the black at times seem better on the 2.4 but I had not yet adjusted the setting to their final resting point.. don't fear the dark or lack of it..


----------



## billqs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Snow-Okami* /forum/post/18048564
> 
> 
> JonathanR:
> 
> 
> I ordered the screen the 17th of Jan. And yes, I did receive a 2.4. I sent out a very angry email to both Da-Lite and projectorzone immediately. The representative that I talked to, who talked to Da-lite just sent me a email 2 hours ago stating that he just spoke to Da-lite again and it is indeed a 2.4 screen.
> 
> 
> However, what made me extremely happy is Da-lite is sending me a 2.8 screen at no cost, and they have sent me a Fed-Ex pickup for the old screen tomorrow!
> 
> 
> I do not fault projectorzone at all for this mistake, they seemed just as clueless about the change as I did before reading this thread. The way they handled the situation was excellent however.
> 
> 
> Am I glad I will not have to deal with the hassle I thought I would returning this thing 2.4.
> 
> 
> I have no idea what screen you will be recieving, but apparently as quoted from the email: "Da-Lite also informed me that on all their manual and non-tensioned electric screens, the gain will transition to 2.4, while their fixed frame and tensioned electrics will remain at 2.8 gain. The Da-Lite rep I talked to joked that 'It will stay like that.until it changes.'"
> 
> 
> Good luck Jonathan



How did you get such good results from da-lite. They have told me that while they will deign to except my return, I must find my own shipping at my own cost in order to get the screen that I originally ordered in the first place! This is rotten customer service! I'm going to keep fighting them on this.


----------



## Snow-Okami

@ JonathanR


I would do as x86 said, don't tamper with things, just use the motor and hope for the best!


@billqs


I didn't get any customer service from da-lite. They would not even respond or acknowledge the multiple emails I sent them. I never got around to calling them because projectorzone handled my case so nicely. It was their customer service that helped me get the right screen. I told them from day one, they listed 2.8 AND da-lite listed 2.8 on their site and I would not accept / order anything with less gain. They didn't even know about the change when I told them about this thread. The rep I spoke to even spoke to a da-lite manager and he gave him the same run around. I guess they finally bit the bullet and decided to tell people because by the time I got my screen and realized it was a 2.4, the da-lite site had changed their specs from 2.8 to 2.4 gain... completely undercover! Seeing the huge hassles others on this forum have seem to gone through I was very worried about this and demanded a 2.8 screen, I told them anything less would be unacceptable. They handled the situation very well even though it was not their fault but rather da-lite's. I feel sorry for them, they must be going through a lot of complaints / returns because of this.


I do not know what retailer you ordered from but YMMV as always. I guess I just got lucky. Even if they couldn't have supplied me with a 2.8 I still would have returned it and went with a silverstar.


----------



## billqs

Actually, I emailed several folks at Da-lite and got a lot of help from AVScience and Da-lite is now replacing my screen without shipping. The screen Da-lite sent me not only was 2.4 but had waves and a slight bit of curling from the first time I pulled it down and so its going back as defective.


----------



## jonathanR

Snow-Akami:


Actually I did order from projectorzone that why I'm already thinking the worse. I'll have the screen next wednesday so we'll see. I have the electrician hard wiring it when it arrives. I'll just makes sure he adds a quick disconnect for both the power and the low voltage. That way if its the wrong screen I can just snap off the disconnects and easily return it instead of having to cut and re-connect the wires & VPI (12volt) module.



Jonathan


----------



## Snow-Okami

My replacement screen just came today! Going to go open it now and see if they got my order right this time. Hoping for a 2.8!


JonathanR:


That is a really good idea, I hope you get the right screen. Please keep me up to date on what screen you receive and how your install goes.


Billqs:


I am glad you were able to get rid of the 2.4 and get the proper screen in mail! Was a bit worried about you getting the 2.8.



Edit: It is indeed a 2.8. Much easier to tell the difference, its highly reflective upon any light hitting it unlike the 2.4, which seemed to have a very matte like finish to it.


Another interesting thing I noticed is on the packaging of screen there are 2 dots on the side. One is green and one is red. On the red dot is written "2.8 gain". What is strange is on the last screen I got there was a green dot on the side too overlaying a red one. I do not recall seeing anything written on it though. On this 2.8 screen, the red dot overlays the green. I think this may just be a way to distinguish what your screen is before opening it. Red for 2.8 gain? Green for 2.4? Strange. I will post a crappy photo of what I am talking about (don't expect anything fancy, just camera phone quality) but hopefully, it may help other people in the same situation.


Don't know why I thought red, its a bit more orange now that I look at it.


----------



## airscapes

My replacement had a red dot with the words Older HP written on it!

In fact I have the photo of it in my link on the first post
http://173.49.169.131:999/dalitehp/photos/100_0366.html


----------



## Snow-Okami

Heres mine







:

http://mizore.net/pictures/random/gain1.jpg 
http://mizore.net/pictures/random/gain2.jpg 


Dot looks orange instead of red, I don't know why I figured red.


----------



## Fabricator

here is my 2.8 label. as i said, when my wife ordered it, i made sure she said "2.8". just so i didn't get any of the other offerings = matte white, spectra, etc. that was about 2 days before this thread.


----------



## Snow-Okami

Set up my 2.8 today and I must say, the difference in my opinion between the 2.8 and the 2.4 is amazing for on axis-viewing. And the way it deflects ambient light is simply fantastic, I can watch casually with the lights on with very little wash-out.


I was not too impressed with the 2.4 at all but this 2.8 has simply blown me away completely. It will be hard for me to use another type of screen again!


What a huge step up from my original matte white.


----------



## jonathanR

Snow-Akami:


Thanks for the photos along with everyone elses. I can wait for delivery on Thursday or just go tomm during my lunch break and pick it up at the delivery warehouse. I hoping for the red/orage dot







with 2.8 gain written on it. By the way snow what type of projector are you using.


JR


----------



## Murilo

Well received my screens!


Can da-lite get anything correct?


So i received my replacement, 2.8, all black wonderful.


Received my 2:35:1 custom screen, read the order placed by hd.ca again was suppose to be all black.


Open it up, all white! At this point cant they even get the color correct? I mean come on! Just read the order da-lite! I mean when your filling an order, just read, also your sending two screens, why would I want an all white and an all black?


So my only issue with it since its going in an electric case anyway that is all black, is the back side is pure white. My entertainment area is all black, does anyone think theirs any chance of reflections from the back with an all white back surface? Is their any chance of this?


Please let me know because i have 24 hours to decide this.


----------



## Imageek2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/18098967
> 
> 
> Well received my screens!
> 
> 
> Can da-lite get anything correct?
> 
> 
> So i received my replacement, 2.8, all black wonderful.
> 
> 
> Received my 2:35:1 custom screen, read the order placed by hd.ca again was suppose to be all black.
> 
> 
> Open it up, all white! At this point cant they even get the color correct? I mean come on! Just read the order da-lite! I mean when your filling an order, just read, also your sending two screens, why would I want an all white and an all black?
> 
> 
> So my only issue with it since its going in an electric case anyway that is all black, is the back side is pure white. My entertainment area is all black, does anyone think theirs any chance of reflections from the back with an all white back surface? Is their any chance of this?
> 
> 
> Please let me know because i have 24 hours to decide this.



I am not sure of the reflections, but I just painted my white HP screen case to match my projection wall, Dark Green flat paint. The white was just too distracting to me. It held the paint very well and looks good. Worst case scenario you could just paint it.


----------



## Murilo

Im not sure, its really the principle out of everything i went through with da-lite to not get this right. I should mention the order sent to me at my hosue did not state all black on the second, but the purchase order sent to my via email by my dealer stated all black, and i believe thats what da-lite received. I told him out of principle and since we did pay a slight bit more for all black, we would like all black, but we also dont want to be waiting another one, da--lite needs to have a replacement out soon. So we will see how it goes.




Anyway playing around with the 2.4 and 2.8 since i now have one above and one below at the moment.


My projector is ceiling mounted 2 feet above my head, so im not getting full gain, but nor do i want to, i have a bright projector and their is such thing as to much brightness when you have a bright projector, like when it looks like contrast is pumped way to high, or your practically blinded by the image.


So anyway the brightness increase between the two with my ceiling mount was not as much as dougs. He was almost perfectly eye level with his projector and the difference is huge. With mine the difference is very noitceable but not a massive jump in brightness, not a night or day difference like dougs was, but a definite noitceable improvement that i think is worth it. I found my projector image slightly dim with my current settings on the 2.4, the and the 2.8 displays it perfectly, with the manual iris closed even another notch cutting down on brightness, so theirs a definite decent quality jump in brightness for us ceiling mounted.


The biggest thing i notice is their is a much more pop and wow factor with the 2.8, not even the kick in brightness can take credit for it, it just seems that colors pop more.


Noticed no difference in sharpness, they both look very clear, maybe the 2.8 a tad bit more but that is negligible.


Very happy with the new screens, my installer just needs to put them in my electric case. Where he successfully transplanted my 2.4 before i knew it was a 2.4. Even though elunevsion had cheap screens, their electric case comes in handy to house and automate my high powers.


Can I also say how awesome dual screen setups are, not many people run them, but switching between 2:35:1 and 16:9 with no black bars, and no hastle or activating projector memory functions, or zooming is a great experience.


----------



## Alex solomon

Does anyone know where I can buy I bigger sample/fabric of the HP ?


----------



## Snow-Okami

JonathanR:


I am currently using the Optoma HD20. Amazing on the HP 2.8 Screen. Bright Mode + Bright Profile = Just as good as the TV during the day with ambient light







What projector are you using?


I feel like a kid with a new toy in the sandbox with this screen.


----------



## jonathanR

Snow:


Just got my box today from projector zone and indeed it has the orange sticker over the green one w/ high power 2.8 written in pen







. I must admit the graphite black case looks very clean. Anyway I feel better now after I hoist it 10' feet in the air it'll be the 2.8 old material.


I have a Epson 8500ub in the box still. This is my first projector, it'll be about 18" above my viewing height.


JR


----------



## kjoy064

I was wondering if someone would be kind enough to see the cost of material to suit a 92" 16:9 screen with little extra overlay and postage to Australia? AVS don't ship out of the US.


cheers. Please PM thanks


----------



## wxnz79

johnathanR: Is there any chance you could post some pics of the black graphite case. I was originally looking at just black, but would be interested to see what the graphite looks like. Thanks.


----------



## jonathanR

wxnz79:


Sure no problem. I'll take a few tonight after i get home from work (5pm pacific time).


----------



## jonathanR

Here's a few photos of the label, the black case and the dalite VPI module.


JR


P.S.


wxnz79, sorry i said graphite, I meant regular black case, looks nice though either way. Its not a smooth black finish either, more of a rough texture but you can tell it has a thick coating.


----------



## Hynds

Hello all,


I strongly leaning towards getting a high power screen with the old 2.8 gain. However, when I learned about the 2.4 and that they use it for manual pull downs, I assumed they changed it because the old 2.8 material didn't do well in the pull down screens. Basically, my question is whether or not a model C 119 pulldown with the 2.8 gain is going to last a long time without breaking. Have people that have had similar screens had any problems? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.


Thanks,

David


----------



## airscapes

From what I have been able to tell.. reading all of the threads on this product there is no issue with it failing..

When you see the 2 products side by side, it is obviously the only reason for the 2.4 was a cost savings to Dalite. I would think the original 2.8 that has been around for years will hold up much better over time. it is thicker, smoother and produces less wrinkles in my tripod screen than the 2.4. I can only imagine it would be better in a big screen. I know there are folks here who have had these screens for years and will answer you question directly.


----------



## Hynds

Thanks for the feedback airscapes. That's what I was hoping to hear.


----------



## wxnz79




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jonathanR* /forum/post/18105617
> 
> 
> wxnz79, sorry i said graphite, I meant regular black case, looks nice though either way. Its not a smooth black finish either, more of a rough texture but you can tell it has a thick coating.



Thanks for the pics. The black still looks nice. Be good to see it hung nicely on the wall!


----------



## mariokrt64




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mariokrt64* /forum/post/18056100
> 
> 
> Is it still posible to get a 2.8 screen? Anyone who ordered the last few weeks got it?



So it looks that it is posible to get the 2.8 model C????


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mariokrt64* /forum/post/18110829
> 
> 
> So it looks that it is posible to get the 2.8 model C????



According to Da-Lite whom I called, yes it is still possible to get the 2.8. You have to make sure it is a custom order or you will get 2.4 by default.


----------



## Robert Clark

I just spoke to a reseller who assured me that they could still supply me a 133" diagonal HP in 2.8 if I specified it.


On a related note, I just received my 8" square of 2.4 material sample and have attached it to my matte white screen. I have to say that it is still an excellent gain material screen and I would be very happy with this material. It still packs loads of oomph, and the texture noted earlier upon inspection looks absolutely microscopic and is NOT visible from any normal seating distance based on my sample. I understand that Dalite handled this all wrong but at least there is an excellent choice out there for a retro reflective high gain screen without visible texture (a problem I've noted on all angular reflective screen materials I've tried...)


----------



## xb1032




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18110910
> 
> 
> According to Da-Lite whom I called, yes it is still possible to get the 2.8. You have to make sure it is a custom order or you will get 2.4 by default.



I called today and was told the same. The first guy I spoke with said no but I could tell from other questions that I asked his knowledge was limited.


----------



## Murilo

So after spending a little while longer with the 2.8, i will also say, as clear and texture free as the 2.4 was, the 2.8 looks even clearer, its quite amazing. The 2.4 was very clear, but the 2.8 is almost like your not even projecting onto a screen, its just floating their.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/18113559
> 
> 
> So after spending a little while longer with the 2.8, i will also say, as clear and texture free as the 2.4 was, the 2.8 looks even clearer, its quite amazing. The 2.4 was very clear, but the 2.8 is almost like your not even projecting onto a screen, its just floating their.



Winner, winner...!!

And really that is what we want!!


----------



## rgathright

I have two samples (one ordered before the news come out about the new stuff) and I specifically ordered a 2.4 sample to match with the first one. After comparing the two both of my samples are the same 2.4 gain. So I now do not have different samples to compare against each other. When I got my first sample is seems to bright to me, so the 2.4 may work after all.


----------



## tigerfan33




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgathright* /forum/post/18113701
> 
> 
> I have two samples (one ordered before the news come out about the new stuff) and I specifically ordered a 2.4 sample to match with the first one. After comparing the two both of my samples are the same 2.4 gain. So I now do not have different samples to compare against each other. When I got my first sample is seems to bright to me, so the 2.4 may work after all.




I am very happy with my 2.4. 106" HP

I had both samples sent to me and yes the 2.8 was brighter but it was not night and day difference. I did notice (with the samples) that the 2.8 was not nearly has bright off angle. Against my matte white the 2.4 sample melted into the screen and could not even see the square. I wanted a screen that I could watch with lights on and have accurate colors. When I ordered I did not specify 2.4 or 2.8. I knew I would be happy with either. I am sure you will too!!


----------



## Alex solomon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tigerfan33* /forum/post/18114001
> 
> 
> I am very happy with my 2.4. 106" HP
> 
> I had both samples sent to me and yes the 2.8 was brighter but it was not night and day difference. I did notice (with the samples) that the 2.8 was not nearly has bright off angle. Against my matte white the 2.4 sample melted into the screen and could not even see the square. I wanted a screen that I could watch with lights on and have accurate colors. When I ordered I did not specify 2.4 or 2.8. I knew I would be happy with either. I am sure you will too!!



I am liking the 2.4 sample better as well. Not only the 2.4 has better viewing angle but the perceived black level was much better than the 2.8. The 2.8 is brighter than the 2.4 for sure, but in my batcave HT that extra brightness in not needed. Don't know if the 2.4 is going to as durable as the 2.8. Only time will tell.


----------



## Murilo

Perceived black level again will be the same when you have only one screen. After viewing both, i think contrast might even be a bit better with the 2.8.


Since the 2.8 is much brighter, black levels will also look good as your eyes adjust, comparing to the 2.4 the black level is slightly elevated, i did not notice a huge difference in black level but the 2.8 had a slightly elevated black leve. However the white level is much higher on the 2.8. I find the contrast superior on the 2.8. While black levels are only slightly brighter, whites are much brighter and much higher then the 2.4, you are again only noticing it because your comparing the two side by side, when your eyes are only viewing one screen then you get the proper contrast benefit of that screen.


Also you will need to recalibrate, trust me i didnt have to do much with the 2.4 at all, but the 2.8 i had to lower contrast by 1 and close my lens down further.


All this would be really hard to do with samples. But allowing my projector to improve contrast by lowering the iris and reducing contrast setting, really made for a wow factor paired with the 2.8. It feels great now not having to purchase a projector where I want 700 lumens, I can focus on contrast, black level, color. I feel the 2.8 really let me push my projector to its full potential. And again I also feel in general the 2.8 does have better contrast whites are quite a bit brighter, while i found blacks only slightly more elevated.


Again I also found the 2.8 has a fairly wide viewing angle, and stays brighter then the 2.4 for a decent off angle distance. Make sure your not fooled by the larger shift in brightness to the sides, since the 2.4 is dimmer to begin with when you move its not getting much dimmer, but the 2.8 does get quite a bit dimmer, so make sure your eyes adjust and are not fooling you. They fooled me as i assumed the 2.8 was dimmer even slightly off angle, then i waited compared, and focused, and noticed it was still brighter, i just thought it was dimmer since their is a larger drop in brightness then the 2.4. I will compare again tonight but I was fairly off angle before the 2.4 was actually slightly brighter, this again is comparing full screens.


I can also say with the full screen the shifts in brightness moving to the sides are not as noticeable as on the 2.8 sample.


Sounds like some of you might prefer the 2.4 though, the 2.8 can be to bright for some, and also those who have a large seating area wide angles or who are bothered by shifts in brightness.


Im moving my theater seating around the projector, all 4 recliner seats the 2.8 was brighter and like airscape i simply enjoyed it better. However again the highpower is not for everyone. The 2.4 is still a really good screen, its just not quite as good to my eyes as the 2.8. Much like airscape noticed.


I should mention alot of also have batcaves, mine is not quite a batcave but i have a black wall unit, and in the dark i cant see anything so its very close to a bat cave, and many of us still love the 2.8. Like me it also allowed me to use settings such as closing the manual iris further, and recalibrating that allowed my projector to provide better contrast.


But again i can see how it might be to bright for some, but i figured those people would probably be going with a 1.4 carada, or something along those lines. Maybe the 2.4 has a good niche market afterall.


----------



## Alex solomon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/18114315
> 
> 
> Perceived black level again will be the same when you have only one screen. After viewing both, i think contrast might even be a bit better with the 2.8.
> 
> 
> Since the 2.8 is much brighter, black levels will also look good as your eyes adjust, comparing to the 2.4 the black level is slightly elevated, i did not notice a huge difference in black level but the 2.8 had a slightly elevated black leve. However the white level is much higher on the 2.8. I find the contrast superior on the 2.8. While black levels are only slightly brighter, whites are much brighter and much higher then the 2.4, you are again only noticing it because your comparing the two side by side, when your eyes are only viewing one screen then you get the proper contrast benefit of that screen.
> 
> 
> Also you will need to recalibrate, trust me i didnt have to do much with the 2.4 at all, but the 2.8 i had to lower contrast by 1 and close my lens down further.
> 
> 
> All this would be really hard to do with samples. But allowing my projector to improve contrast by lowering the iris and reducing contrast setting, really made for a wow factor paired with the 2.8. It feels great now not having to purchase a projector where I want 700 lumens, I can focus on contrast, black level, color. I feel the 2.8 really let me push my projector to its full potential. And again I also feel in general the 2.8 does have better contrast whites are quite a bit brighter, while i found blacks only slightly more elevated.
> 
> 
> Again I also found the 2.8 has a fairly wide viewing angle, and stays brighter then the 2.4 for a decent off angle distance. Make sure your not fooled by the larger shift in brightness to the sides, since the 2.4 is dimmer to begin with when you move its not getting much dimmer, but the 2.8 does get quite a bit dimmer, so make sure your eyes adjust and are not fooling you. They fooled me as i assumed the 2.8 was dimmer even slightly off angle, then i waited compared, and focused, and noticed it was still brighter, i just thought it was dimmer since their is a larger drop in brightness then the 2.4. I will compare again tonight but I was fairly off angle before the 2.4 was actually slightly brighter, this again is comparing full screens.
> 
> 
> I can also say with the full screen the shifts in brightness moving to the sides are not as noticeable as on the 2.8 sample.
> 
> 
> Sounds like some of you might prefer the 2.4 though, the 2.8 can be to bright for some, and also those who have a large seating area wide angles or who are bothered by shifts in brightness.
> 
> 
> Im moving my theater seating around the projector, all 4 recliner seats the 2.8 was brighter and like airscape i simply enjoyed it better. However again the highpower is not for everyone. The 2.4 is still a really good screen, its just not quite as good to my eyes as the 2.8. Much like airscape noticed.
> 
> 
> I should mention alot of also have batcaves, mine is not quite a batcave but i have a black wall unit, and in the dark i cant see anything so its very close to a bat cave, and many of us still love the 2.8. Like me it also allowed me to use settings such as closing the manual iris further, and recalibrating that allowed my projector to provide better contrast.
> 
> 
> But again i can see how it might be to bright for some, but i figured those people would probably be going with a 1.4 carada, or something along those lines. Maybe the 2.4 has a good niche market afterall.



It is very hard to see what to expect from any screen looking at a tiny 7" x 7" sample. I like bright image myself. I am getting around 900 lumens with my Sharp (92" screen, projecting from 10' 5") in high brightness mode and that is what I would like to achieve with HP & AE4000 combo. I don't know if the Panny has a manual Iris or not, but if closing down the Iris gives better contrast and black level, I might go with the 2.8. My AE4000 shipped today from PP, and I should be getting my Carada sample soon as well. Hopefully I would have chosen a screen by next weekend.


----------



## rgathright




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tigerfan33* /forum/post/18114001
> 
> 
> I am very happy with my 2.4. 106" HP
> 
> I had both samples sent to me and yes the 2.8 was brighter but it was not night and day difference. I did notice (with the samples) that the 2.8 was not nearly has bright off angle. Against my matte white the 2.4 sample melted into the screen and could not even see the square. I wanted a screen that I could watch with lights on and have accurate colors. When I ordered I did not specify 2.4 or 2.8. I knew I would be happy with either. I am sure you will too!!



I was able to get a third sample (2.8 gain) piece heading to me, so I can finally be able to figure out which one I want.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgathright* /forum/post/18117058
> 
> 
> I was able to get a third sample (2.8 gain) piece heading to me, so I can finally be able to figure out which one I want.



To me this is sort of like saying.. do I want a Hamburger or Filet mignon.. but either one is better than any matte white that is for sure..


----------



## CT_Wiebe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hynds* /forum/post/18107116
> 
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> 
> I strongly leaning towards getting a high power screen with the old 2.8 gain. However, when I learned about the 2.4 and that they use it for manual pull downs, I assumed they changed it because the old 2.8 material didn't do well in the pull down screens. Basically, my question is whether or not a model C 119 pulldown with the 2.8 gain is going to last a long time without breaking. Have people that have had similar screens had any problems? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> David



I have a 106", 16:9, Da-Lite, Model C, High-Power screen (gain = 2.8) that I got in November of 2004. It's still great, and no waves. It's mostly retracted (my room is dual purpose, LR & HT) and my regular HDTV set is behind the screen. I have used it for around 20 hours/week until I got my 1080p PJ in November of 2008. Since then, I have been using it for around 50 hours/week.


I sit at 11.5' from my screen, on an 8' long couch, and I do notice a slight fall-off in brightness between putting my head directly under the PJ and in my normal seating at the end of the couch (about 3.5' off center). However, the image is still plenty bright from my hallway about 6.5' off center.


I did calibrate my PJ for my normal seating area. The blacks are not perfectly black, but when watching movies or HDTV, I can't notice the difference (unless I put my hand into the "black bar" area - 2.35:1 movies or 4:3 TV shows).


----------



## Hynds

Thanks CT_Wiebe,


Well it looks like the consensus is that these manual pulldowns are quite durable. I'll think I'll be ordering one shortly (I don't want to wait to long and have da lite refuse to use the 2.8 for pulldowns). After playing around with my new projector for one night I think I want to go with 133 inches. Anybody think that's a mistake?


David


----------



## Robert Clark

Go for the larger. It's like women and breast implants. They always wish they had gone bigger later...


----------



## Hynds

LOL, if I could figure out something else to do with my speakers I'd like to bump it up to 150.


----------



## hrd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgathright* /forum/post/18117058
> 
> 
> I was able to get a third sample (2.8 gain) piece heading to me, so I can finally be able to figure out which one I want.



I put up the 2.4 sample against my 2.8 screen tonight, but did not notice much of a difference. Maybe it's just because the sample is too tiny to be of much use.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hrd* /forum/post/18126708
> 
> 
> I put up the 2.4 sample against my 2.8 screen tonight, but did not notice much of a difference. Maybe it's just because the sample is too tiny to be of much use.



My guess is you are viewing outside the 30 degree viewing cone.

If you are outside the gain cone they will be the same gain..

These are photos are from the link on the first page of this thread and are of 2.8 gain ON a 2.4 screen view from within the gain cone


----------



## neekos

that's pretty drastic..


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *neekos* /forum/post/18127751
> 
> 
> that's pretty drastic..



no kidding.. the manufacture knew they were selling lower gain fabric as 2.8 and had been for months!


----------



## noah katz

"that's pretty drastic"


Yes, not what I saw w/my sample.


But there's no telling what cameras will do; airscapes, does the difference look that pronounced in person?


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/18129444
> 
> 
> "that's pretty drastic"
> 
> 
> Yes, not what I saw w/my sample.
> 
> 
> But there's no telling what cameras will do; airscapes, does the difference look that pronounced in person?



YES! The difference between the 2 fabrics is so noticeable that when I had both screens.. my 82 year old mother said.. WOW that one is much better.. talking about 2.8 and she is happy looking at a 20" crt with bad cable!


If you are not seeing a difference between 2.4 and 2.8 then you are not viewing them withing the 30 degree to projector lens cone.. where is your projector mounted?? Ceiling.. stand on a chair with your head under the projector and look at the samples..


----------



## tigerfan33

When I put the 2.8 sample up against my 2.4 screen, it was a tad brighter but was not night and day brighter......and yes I was in the middle of the cone. It was not as big a differnce as airscape pictures. The MAIN reason I like the 2.4 is that it equals the brightness of my matte white around 60 degrees off center where the 2.8 was a lot darker. Within 30 degrees of center it gives me the plasma look I want.


----------



## tigerfan33




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tigerfan33* /forum/post/18129904
> 
> 
> When I put the 2.8 sample up against my 2.4 screen, it was a tad brighter but was not night and day brighter......and yes I was in the middle of the cone. It was not as big a differnce as airscape pictures. The MAIN reason I like the 2.4 is that it equals the brightness of my matte white around 60 degrees off center where the 2.8 was a lot darker. Within 30 degrees of center it gives me the plasma look I want.




BTW. I think airscape saw what he saw and is accurate with his pics.

I am saying that in MY enviroment, it was not that big of difference.


----------



## airscapes

No problem! If it works for you that is all that matters!

The main reason for this thread was to expose the bait and switch that was taking place without the customer or Vendors knowledge. The 2.4 seem to be all that will be available in the future regardless of what Dalite says now. When I first contacted them and spoke to the sales manager he more or less said that the 2.8 was done when their stock was gone. If you look at the website, the 2.4 was not added to the list of fabrics, all they did was change the 2.8 to 2.4 at the end of the paragraph!


----------



## rgathright

This is the main reason I want to do a final comparison between the two. I originally was planing on getting a HP screen at the end of this year. But if the 2.8 is better for me I want to get it now while I can get it.


----------



## RodK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgathright* /forum/post/18130881
> 
> 
> This is the main reason I want to do a final comparison between the two. I originally was planing on getting a HP screen at the end of this year. But if the 2.8 is better for me I want to get it now while I can get it.



That is what I am doing. I got both samples and prefer the look and feel of the 2.8 . I quzzed everyone in my house individually and they all thought the 2.8 just seemed like a higher quality material. I am ordering my screen this week.


----------



## Murilo

So after having both screens, 2.4 and 2.8 for a week, i pretty much agree with airscape, maybe not as passionately because my environment for highpower is not quite as perfect, but its still noitceable. I have a very dark viewing environment but projector is ceiling mounted 2 feet above my head.


Brightness-The 2.8 is a pretty big leap up, maybe not as huge as airscape but its quite noitceable. When sitting in the cone the 2.8 is brighter for sure. I am switching to a 4 configuration setup semi circle with theater chairs around the projector (which is mounted 2 feet above eye level) and the 2.8 had more brightness and pop then the 2.4 even on the end chairs which were 5 and half feet to the side of the projector, again my screen is only 94 inch and this is 13 feet back. Bigger screen means more viewing angle.


Blacks/contrast-This was the most noticeable difference, blacks on the 2.8 were only a touch elevated, it was very close, but the 2.8 was quite a bit brighter. I was kind of amazed compared to the sample how close blacks were, the sample made me think blacks were alot worse with the 2.8, however the 2.8 has better contrast so blacks looked better. I dont like beowolf but i purchased the animated disc as a demo or projector test. With the 2 screens blacks looked better (even though they were a touch brighter) on the 2.8 because it was quite a bit brighter, it was a first scene where the hall goes dark, and i paused and analyzed a few scenes where a woman was infront of a dark black cave. The blacks looked better on the 2.8 because she popped and her dress appeared noticeably brighter, in comparison to the black cave backdrop. Thus it made blacks look deeper. Really if your goal is absolute blacks neither screen should be on your list. But i did feel blacks or rather contrast made blacks look a bit better on the 2.8. Putting up a pure black pattern from my projector, blacks were a bit elevated on the 2.8 compared to the 2.4, but not much, it was very close, and again contrast on the 2.8 makes blacks looks even better since brightness and whites are quite a bit brighter. I was expecitng with such a large increase in brightness blacks to be alot worse, but they were very close to the 2.4, thus i find contrast better on 2.8.



Clearness- Have to give it to the 2.8, they are both excellent for clearness, but i would rate the 2.4 a 9, while the 2.8 gets a 10, no texture at all, images pop out at you.



All in all i prefer the 2.8 but still see where the 2.4 has its uses. Again if large shifts in brightness bother you, 2.4 is better, if you have wide viewing angles and seating 2.4 is better. The 2.8 has good viewing angles off to the side and in my setup is brighter to the sides, however brightness drops quickly and falls below the 2.4 if your seating is to far to the side. Its a fine line, a matter of inches. So if you have some seating off to the side the 2.8 should still be brighter, however if you have seating way off to the sides where your really looking at the screen from a sharp angle, the 2.4 might be better.



I just dont think the market going after the high power will prefer the 2.4 unless the above conditions apply. Da-lite should really keep the 2.8, but offer and market the 2.4 as an alternative to peeople with wider viewing angles.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/18132521
> 
> 
> Da-lite should really keep the 2.8, but offer and market the 2.4 as an alternative to peeople with wider viewing angles.



HAHAHA you know, dalite doesn't want to keep the 2.8 for some reason, remember you would have gotten 2.4 and been happy with it not knowing you been screwed over. This bait and switch has been going on for some time.. This is what I am passionate about! This thread is the only reason you know there is a 2.4 and get to compare.. Yes maybe some folks would have realized they didn't get what they were expecting as I did but the rest of the folks would just hang it and watch it.. not knowing what they were missing..










Fictitious conversations:

"Boss our new supplier has stuff that is almost as good as the the current stuff and 1/5 the cost.. they won't be able to tell the difference! We can put it in the portables and pull downs and no one will know. The guys that buy the fixed frames have meters so we had better keep using the more expensive 2.8 in them and our profit margin is already sky high so no problem!"


----------



## RodK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/18132819
> 
> 
> Fictitious conversations:
> 
> "Boss our new supplier has stuff that is almost as good as the the current stuff and 1/5 the cost.. they won't be able to tell the difference! We can put it in the portables and pull downs and no one will know. The guys that buy the fixed frames have meters so we had better keep using the more expensive 2.8 in them and our profit margin is already sky high so no problem!"




I also think that part of it is the big price difference between the pull down and the fixed frame. I think they are trying to equal their profit margins between the two, thats why the cheaper material is only in the pull downs.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RodK* /forum/post/18133544
> 
> 
> I also think that part of it is the big price difference between the pull down and the fixed frame. I think they are trying to equal their profit margins between the two, thats why the cheaper material is only in the pull downs.



Would be nice to believe but if that was true.. would it not have made more business sense to offer an additional choice? 2.4 at current price, 2.8 at a higher price rather than just selling the new stuff as (high Power 2.8).

The fact they did not do this leads me back to the original info from the sales manager. Once the stock of 2.8 is gone it will no longer be available. This line of thinking is reinforced by the fact they DO NOT list a 2.8 on their website anymore. NOTE that just changed a week or so ago.. after I mentioned law suite..

As you can tell, this really pissed me off. I am not sure why it bothers me so much but it really does.

Hope I can find a used 2.8 in a couple of years when I get a new home with room for a real screen!


----------



## Jay Taylor

Out of curiosity I called a Da-Lite representative again and asked the big question: "Why did Da-Lite switch their Hi-Power fabric on rollup screens from a 2.8 gain screen to a thinner and apparently cheaper 2.4 gain screen?"


Her answer was "to provide a more flexible installation." I asked for clarification of the word "flexible", as in able to roll up and unroll with less problems, or, a more flexible viewing angle. She said it provided a more useable viewing angle for most installations.


I then asked the other question several of you in this thread have asked; "when supplies run out around the end of the year will that be the end of the 2.8 fabric?" She answered that they were unsure at this time.


I doubt if this clarified much but it was worth a try.


----------



## Hynds

I just got off the phone with a Da-lite rep. First off, he seemed sort of annoyed that I was inquiring about the possibility of getting a pull down with the 2.8 material. However, he said that they were going to continue to use the 2.8 for fixed frames and would be available for request for pull downs for a long time. When I asked what advantages the 2.4 material had for a pull down application he didn't really have any response except that the picture might be more uniform and the screen was smoother. In any case if this guy is correct we should have the option to get the 2.8 for a while.


David


----------



## Hughmc

I am counting on getting the 2.8 manual pull down, since I am going to order one tomorrow from B&H.


----------



## solarin006

Well after putting up my 'high power' 2.8 gain 133" screen I was HIGHLY disappointed with the overall results. The brightness was virtually identical to my carada BW screen with maybe a slight edge in contrast. So I double check the box and realize they sent me cinema vision instead of high power.










Back in the box you go, maybe I'll get what I initially ordered in another 2 weeks.


----------



## Murilo

LoL, im really worried now my all white one my dealer insisted i get my proper order as a matter of principal, so i sent it back as well, my all black should be here this week. Im just wondering if they may end up sending me a 2.4, or some other screen. 3rd times a charm i hope.


----------



## Hughmc

I was in B&H photo on Thurs and they are going to order the 2.8 for me. I couldn't purchase it then, because they wanted to make sure that on a custom order there would be no price difference, which as I expected there isn't. I will place my order Monday on the phone with B& H. On the order quote, it states there are no refunds, exchanges since it is a custom order, but if the screen isn't 2.8, it will go back to Da-lite which is where it will be shipped from directly to me. In the meantime, I will also get samples of the 2.4 and 2.8 ordered on Monday so I can see when the actual screen comes if it is indeed the 2.8.


----------



## Murilo

Received my 2.8 all black custom 2:35:1 screen! Its done! It took 3 months but im happy. Now to just get my installer to transport them into my electric case, and im finished.



He already transported a 2.4 into the electric case which works great, now i have to get him to take it back out and put in my two 2.8's into my two cases.


Those cheap elunevision electric screens i purchased awhile back were at least good in the long run for their electric case.


----------



## ChillyWilly26

Received a 2.8 from projectorzone after just noting I wanted the 2.8 in the comments field on the order form...16:9 106" Model B...won't get a change to hang it until the weekend, will be matched with a PRO8100.


Love the forums...have been catching up on threads and searching for answers for 2 weeks straight, can't believe the wealth of knowledge here.


----------



## rgathright

I received my 3rd HP sample today. The first one I received was right before the 2.4 version came out. I assumed it was 2.8, so I ordered a 2.4 sample. They both looked identical. So I figured the first one must have been a 2.4 gain also. I then ordered a 2.8 gain sample which is the 3rd one. All three of these are the same. I taped them together and hung them from my current Carada BW screen. They are all the same. I looked at them with a flashlight-they are all the same.


Now what do I have?? Is there anyway to tell?


Below are some pictures of the three samples. See if you can tell me which one is the 2.8 gain. I can't tell the difference, but I know which one it is.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rgathright* /forum/post/18231232
> 
> 
> I received my 3rd HP sample today. The first one I received was right before the 2.4 version came out. I assumed it was 2.8, so I ordered a 2.4 sample. They both looked identical. So I figured the first one must have been a 2.4 gain also. I then ordered a 2.8 gain sample which is the 3rd one. All three of these are the same. I taped them together and hung them from my current Carada BW screen. They are all the same. I looked at them with a flashlight-they are all the same.
> 
> 
> Now what do I have?? Is there anyway to tell?
> 
> 
> Below are some pictures of the three samples. See if you can tell me which one is the 2.8 gain. I can't tell the difference, but I know which one it is.



Look at the first post. shine a flash light across the surface and see what you have compared to the pictures I posted. If you have a digital caliper measure the thickness..


----------



## rgathright

It appears to be smooth. I will take a flash picture tomorrow to see if there is any difference. My wife would kill me if I did it now and messed up The Bachelor.


----------



## airscapes

Here are the pics of the 2 different fabrics with the flashlight shining across the surface. That is not the back of the screen that is the front surface. And the thickness measurements, the sample was 2.8 the screen here was 2.4


----------



## Alex solomon

Thanks for all who helped out. I have placed my order for 115" cinemascope 2.8 gain Hp screen.


----------



## rgathright




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/18231808
> 
> 
> Here are the pics of the 2 different fabrics with the flashlight shining across the surface. That is not the back of the screen that is the front surface. And the thickness measurements, the sample was 2.8 the screen here was 2.4



The texture pictures are confusing me. If they are of the white/front side then why are they dark?


----------



## airscapes

They are dark because the light source is an LED flash light and no flash was used. The ides is to visually see the texture of the surface not to see the reflective quality of the sample. The 2.4 has an emulsion sprayed on a hunk of of canvas type material, 2.8 has the beads embedded in a vinyl backing and appears smooth as a babys bottom. You can not see these difference with out light shining across the screen surface.

Doug


----------



## airscapes

Here is how the sample and screen where lit for the close up of the fabric. The 2.8 shown in the photo is smoooooth the 2.4 looks like a grid and is not smoooooth and yes that is the whites side not the back side..


----------



## ms20003

Well I just got my 133" HP screen today and I believe it is a 2.8. So far I think I may be the only person out there that is disappointed. I have a BenQ w6000 projector and the screen when showing any scenes with whites is grainy. It is only in bright backgrounds (no it wasn't the way it was intended in the movie, I compared it to my LCD). Also I sit 15' feet away from my screen. I assume this would be worse on the 2.4? Any thoughts?


Thanks,

P


----------



## noah katz

"I have a BenQ w6000 projector and the screen when showing any scenes with whites is grainy."


I'd bet the problem is the pj or the source material, not the screen.


The brighter the image, the easier it is to see detail, including imperfections.


Does it look grainy with a different source of light?


----------



## Murilo

I have a w5000, curious what other screen you were using?


The w6000 is one of the brightest projectors available maybe you need less gain.


Unless you were really using a low gain screen, the benqs are terrible for noise, a very dim screen might help a bit, but you would have to give up brightness. I purchased an algolith flea and it really cleaned things up without loosing detail, settings are low, but it made my projector fantastic, it was sharp but also clean.


I had my flea off this weekend and immediately noticed watching movies their was quite a bit of noise. I cant live without it now.


Dlps are noisy in general, and their sharpness and brightness does not help. I would be very surprised if you had another screen and did not notice this, dlp especially benq shows alot of noise on all screens i viewed. It was slightly less noitceable on a negative gain screen but the image was also to dim.


I noticed this on all screens so thats why im curious what you were using before?


Also I sit 2 feet below the projector, if you sit to close to eye level with the projector, and with a bright projector that shows alot of noise, it just shows up that much more when you are close to eye level with the projector because the entire image brightness is being reflected back at you, and you see everything in the picture including the noise. Sitting two feet below it i notice that noise is alot less noitceable with only a small drop in gain. It was well worth it. I actually dont think its a good idea to sit eye level with the highpower unless you have a dim projector or one that is soft and shows little noise because again the entire image is being reflected back at you, and you can pick out every little film grain, noise or artifact.



And like noah said in general the brighter you get the easier it is to see details and noise in the picture. Even with my flea if im at eye level with the projector all that light is being reflected back at you, and I can still see noise and it becomes more apparent. Raising my projector a bit only decreased the gain a little, but hid the noise more as well.


I love dlp but i could not live with one without my flea, their is just to much noise, and benq is probably the worst for it.


Also make sure brilliant color is off, known to add noise, alot, and make sure your projector is properly calibrated for brightness and contrast this also helps.


We all went through this dealing with the w5000.


Sharpness needs to be set properly, not to high, it adds noise


Brilliant color adds tons of noise


Bright sharp dlp will show noise and be more apparent. Benq is especially bad for this.


If you dont want to get a flea, and noise does bother you once you calibrated sharpness, brightness, contrast you might want to look at jvc, epson, which are softer and show less noise.


----------



## Murilo

Also make sure your sharpness is not to high my benq at anything over 4 sharpness caused ringing, and added more noise.


----------



## airscapes

Try lowing sharpness as has been said, and if the iris can be set to a closed position (not active) it may help to reduce the brightness.

Do you see this with just the white screen and no source? Image menu may should have something to show blank white screen. Try this with no input and see if the offending grain is visible.


----------



## ms20003

My old screen is a 1.1. elite screen. I lowered the sharpness last night and it helped some. The graininess is still there on walls or any background items.


Where can I buy an algolith flea or something similar to help at a reasonable cost?


I know you have to pay to play but at this point is it worth selling my w6000 to get a 8500ub so I don't have this problem rather than spending another $1000 on noise reduction device. At this point its a wash. I wish i had researched this more before I purchased the w6000.


----------



## Hughman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ms20003* /forum/post/18239186
> 
> 
> Well I just got my 133" HP screen today and I believe it is a 2.8. So far I think I may be the only person out there that is disappointed. I have a BenQ w6000 projector and the screen when showing any scenes with whites is grainy. It is only in bright backgrounds (no it wasn't the way it was intended in the movie, I compared it to my LCD). Also I sit 15' feet away from my screen. I assume this would be worse on the 2.4? Any thoughts?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> P



Any projected noise/grain becomes more evident the higher in foot Lamberts you go and suspect this is what you're seeing. Is the grain you are seeing in motion or is it stationary?


----------



## ms20003




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughman* /forum/post/18242236
> 
> 
> Any projected noise/grain becomes more evident the higher in foot Lamberts you go and suspect this is what you're seeing. Is the grain you are seeing in motion or is it stationary?



It is stationary. Do you think the epson 8500ub would be much less apparent? I hate to spend $1000 on a noise reducer when my projector was only $2000. At that point I should have just went with a better projector unless you think the noise is on most if not all projectors in this price range.


Thanks,

Pat


----------



## Hughman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ms20003* /forum/post/18242814
> 
> 
> It is stationary. Do you think the epson 8500ub would be much less apparent? I hate to spend $1000 on a noise reducer when my projector was only $2000. At that point I should have just went with a better projector unless you think the noise is on most if not all projectors in this price range.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Pat



Noise inherent in the projected image is typically moving, stationary artifacts may indicate something on the screen itself. Is your screen a roll-up, if so project and image with the grain then slowly roll up the screen, if the screen is the issue it will become very evident as the grain moves through the image.


----------



## ms20003

Just tried it and it is not the screen. The HP screen brings it out more but the grain didn't move through the image. The grain also appears on my old 1.1 screen. What do I call this if it isn't noise? I don't know what to do lol....


----------



## FLBoy

Are you sure you're not just seeing the pixels? I can see my pixels, and your screen's viewing area is nearly twice the area of mine.


----------



## airscapes

What is your source? Does it do it with DVD and HD cable? Are you viewing HD or is it SD?? Sorry if this was in your original post..


----------



## ms20003

yeah it is not pixels. My source is blu ray on a ps3 and also hd cable tv. I am getting really confused on noise/sharpness. I bought the w6000 based on a overall more detailed/cleaner picture. It appears I may have been wrong and it is more detailed but not nearly as clean and looks hazier compared to the 8500ub.


----------



## Murilo

Yea generally unless your using a really low quality screen, like my glass bead one that might make the image more grainy, its almost always the source.



The highpower is one of the clearest screens I ever viewed. That being said if your projector has alot of noise like mine, the highpower will show it. Clear+bright means you can see everything, good and bad.


Other screens will have that problem just maybe not quite as bad because they might be less clear, and more dim.


I think you should first look at maybe moving back a bit, try lowering brightness a bit, or moving the projector further from eye level. Its amazing how much a foot can dim the image enough with the highpower to hide the gain. Of course its still plenty bright. I just find with my benq which is even dimer then yours, to close to eye, was to overwhelming with brightness, and grain in the picture also became to easy to see. Raising the projector a bit reduced gain a bit and brightness and hid some of the grain.


Then you either look at a new projector, or if you like the dlp brightness, punch, ect... you can then look into a processor with good noise reduction.


Its not the screen though its definately your projector like you found out.


Also make sure brilliant color is not on, brilliant color doubles and tripples noise with the w5000. I remember when i first got my w5000 i had brilliant color, a glass beaded screen, and sharpness way to high, the image was depressing on most movies with grain. Those settings cranked it up to unreal levels.


Now with my highpower, and flea, i get the brightness and sharpness I want, with a clean image and no loss of detail. The flea is one of the very few noise reduction that can be used without loss of details. Thats why its highly reguarded by many as the best.


Even though it was marketed as mpeg 2 hdtv, noise reduction due to the fact it came out before blue ray, it works wonders with no detail loss on blue rays as well. As mentioned you can even do a split screen mode, and Im amazed how much it cleans up with no loss of detail, i have never seen a device do that.


As I am told the machine cant tell the difference between mpeg2 compression noise and film grain, it sees them both as noise jumping around in the picture and can eliminate it, with no detail lost, if settings are low. Theirs even a neat feature that makes the picture 2d black and white to show you how it maps and finds noise in the picture.


But they also spent years focusing on noise reduction algorithms, now they do noise reduction for broadcast companies.


Im getting off topic though. Sorry. I just cant live without mine.


----------



## rgathright




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ms20003* /forum/post/18244190
> 
> 
> yeah it is not pixels. My source is blu ray on a ps3 and also hd cable tv. I am getting really confused on noise/sharpness. I bought the w6000 based on a overall more detailed/cleaner picture. It appears I may have been wrong and it is more detailed but not nearly as clean and looks hazier compared to the 8500ub.



Here is a flea that is for sale in the AVS section.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/vbcla...do=ad&id=13031


----------



## ms20003

Thanks. I bought it but I don't know if the deal is going to go through. He says he has a deal pending with someone else.


----------



## Eljavier75

Hi,


I'm new on AVS forum. Sorry for my mistakes, I'm from Paris - France.










I just ordered on B&H Photo Video website a Da-Lite 92060 Deluxe Model B 92" with HP screen surface. The sales department at B&H Photo Video and Pro Audio confirmed me before by email that this screen has a 2.8 gain and not 2.4 as the new HP screen.


I was really happy and bought the screen right away!










But after reading all the comments on this forum, I asked B&H seller to double-check to have a confirmation from Da-Lite.


And the answer is :


"Thank you for contacting the sales department at B&H Photo Video and Pro Audio.


Im sorry but according tro dalite the material for this screen is in fact 2.4 gain. This isn't a big different from the 2.8. The websites that adverise it at 2.8 are incorrect though."










What can I do as I already payed for the screen?










Do you think it's still possible to receive a HP with 2.8 gain screen surface if I insist a lot, or it's dead, Da-Lite doesn't anymore produce or send the old one?



Thanks


----------



## airscapes

Well they never really said it would be around for good.. if this dealer is your only choice, the 2.4 is going to be far better than anything else made by another manufacture in that price range. The 2.4 works, just not as bright. It really sucks that they did this but I guess there were folks that felt the same way when the 8track tape when by the way side.. You may want to get a quote from AVS on the same screen and see what they tell you.


----------



## Eljavier75

Hi,


I've sent this message to B&H Photo Video and Pro Audio :



"Hello XX,



I'm sorry to insist, but High Power 2.4 gain is not the same screen

surface at all.


Screen surface with 2.8 gain is much brighter than 2.4 gain and

produces images with more contrast.


I ordered this screen on your website, because you confirmed me it was

for sure 2.8 gain and not 2.4.


I know that Da-Lite doesn't officially produce any more 2.8 gain

screen, but they still send High Power 2.8 gain when customers

especially request it.


It is extremely important for me, so could you please negociate with

Da-lite representant to have a 2.8 gain.


I'm sure you will do your best on this matter, so I thank you in

avance for your patience.



I look forward to hearing from you soon.


XX "



And here is seller's answer :


"Thank you for contacting the sales department at B&H Photo Video and Pro Audio.


Its really only very slightly brighter. But If you give me all of your information. Your name Address email address and phone number. We can get you the slightly brighter 2.8 screen special ordered.










Please let us know if there is anything else we can assist you with. "


Sounds good!










They seem to be pretty pro on this case!











Let you know ...


----------



## GoCaboNow

I currently have the 2.8 hp and have the pj mounted at 54". I am curious how the new 2.4 gain rolls off as you raise the PJ compared to the old material. Anyone have a calculator on the new material?


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Eljavier75* /forum/post/18279225
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
> I've sent this message to B&H Photo Video and Pro Audio :
> 
> 
> 
> "Hello XX,
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry to insist, but High Power 2.4 gain is not the same screen
> 
> surface at all.
> 
> 
> Screen surface with 2.8 gain is much brighter than 2.4 gain and
> 
> produces images with more contrast.
> 
> 
> I ordered this screen on your website, because you confirmed me it was
> 
> for sure 2.8 gain and not 2.4.
> 
> 
> I know that Da-Lite doesn't officially produce any more 2.8 gain
> 
> screen, but they still send High Power 2.8 gain when customers
> 
> especially request it.
> 
> 
> It is extremely important for me, so could you please negociate with
> 
> Da-lite representant to have a 2.8 gain.
> 
> 
> I'm sure you will do your best on this matter, so I thank you in
> 
> avance for your patience.
> 
> 
> 
> I look forward to hearing from you soon.
> 
> 
> XX "
> 
> 
> 
> And here is seller's answer :
> 
> 
> "Thank you for contacting the sales department at B&H Photo Video and Pro Audio.
> 
> 
> Its really only very slightly brighter. But If you give me all of your information. Your name Address email address and phone number. We can get you the slightly brighter 2.8 screen special ordered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please let us know if there is anything else we can assist you with. "
> 
> 
> Sounds good!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They seem to be pretty pro on this case!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let you know ...



I got my 2.8 delivered just today. I don't know yet if it is 2.8, but it should be as I special ordered it. I won't have it hung until later today and won't have my projector till Thurs or Fri. I will review again here the pics of the differences between the two and make sure I do have the 2.8. I also ordered a black case a couple of days after the order was placed with B&H since white is standard. On the end of the cardboard container it says, HP 2.8, black case. I can take pics when I have it up.


Ok, so I am sick and have a cold, low fever, etc, so my patience is thin, but holy hell, the packing on the screen is so good, too good.







It took me half an hour to get the MFer out of the box.














I was pissed and getting more pissed. What happens is the styrofoam support at every so many feet make it an absolute bear to pull out the screen as the styro gets bound up on the cardboard due to the tight fit pulling it out. Ugh!! that squeaky sound reminding me I am struggling. It is very difficult to open sideways due to the glue sealing it, but I did manage to use my utility knife carefully to cut down along the edges several feet to free up the screen being bound by the styrofoam. A second person helping to hold the box would make it much easier.


----------



## Jay Taylor

Hughmc,


I found it easier and also important to open up the box lengthwise rather than pulling the screen out from the ends. That way the styrofoam supports will keep the screen protected and off of the floor. I didn't remove all of the styrofoam supports until the screen was hanging from chains attached to the ceiling.


----------



## Hughmc

Reporting in. I did get the 16x9, 119in, Da-lite Manual C Pull Down and it is the 2.8 HP material as I checked it closely and compared to the pics provided here. I ordered it in February at B&H Photo and it arrived Tuesday of this week.


I couldn't be happier the PQ is stunning. I never would have thought I could get this good PQ on a big screen.


Thanks for this thread and contributing to make sure some get the right product.



Hugh


----------



## Alex solomon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18303410
> 
> 
> Reporting in. I did get the 16x9, 119in, Da-lite Manual C Pull Down and it is the 2.8 HP material as I checked it closely and compared to the pics provided here. I ordered it in February at B&H Photo and it arrived Tuesday of this week.
> 
> 
> I couldn't be happier the PQ is stunning. I never would have thought I could get this good PQ on a big screen.
> 
> 
> Thanks for this thread and contributing to make sure some get the right product.
> 
> 
> 
> Hugh



Congrats! What is your projector and how high is it mounted from eye level ?


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18303410
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for this thread and contributing to make sure some get the right product.
> 
> 
> 
> Hugh



Your very welcome!


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alex solomon* /forum/post/18303436
> 
> 
> Congrats! What is your projector and how high is it mounted from eye level ?



I have the Panny AE4000. It is within 20 inches of eye level. I have just 4 seats in a row, live alone and mainly view alone unless my kids or and occasional friend visit, so I always get the sweet spot/cone.







The left and right viewing positions are no more than 3 ft from center and when I checked different positions drop off is not even noticeable. My room is 8x13x8 with some ambient lighting from windows, but I can controi it with dark drapes and keep it off the screen. The projector is at about 15ft from the screen.


I noticed light on the screen isn't just the issue, any light competing with the bulb seems to be an issue, meaning if I turn on the over head light sure it is glaring on the screen, but it is also diffusing or competing with the projector light before it hits the screen. Perception is so interesting. Turn on the light and blacks on the screen look brown...switch it off and bam, blacks are black.


----------



## Alex solomon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18306274
> 
> 
> I have the Panny AE4000. It is within 20 inches of eye level. I have just 4 seats in a row, live alone and mainly view alone unless my kids or and occasional friend visit, so I always get the sweet spot/cone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The left and right viewing positions are no more than 3 ft from center and when I checked different positions drop off is not even noticeable. My room is 8x13x8 with some ambient lighting from windows, but I can controi it with dark drapes and keep it off the screen. The projector is at about 15ft from the screen.
> 
> 
> I noticed light on the screen isn't just the issue, any light competing with the bulb seems to be an issue, meaning if I turn on the over head light sure it is glaring on the screen, but it is also diffusing or competing with the projector light before it hits the screen. Perception is so interesting. Turn on the light and blacks on the screen look brown...switch it off and bam, blacks are black.



I too have the AE40000. Blacks are my only concern which look very elevated and dark gray, at least on the sample I got from Da-lite, compared to my matte white screen. I hope when the entire screen has the same gain and no low gain screen in the back ground and when properly calibrated, the blacks would indeed be black.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alex solomon* /forum/post/18306670
> 
> 
> I too have the AE40000. Blacks are my only concern which look very elevated and dark gray, at least on the sample I got from Da-lite, compared to my matte white screen. I hope when the entire screen has the same gain and no low gain screen in the back ground and when properly calibrated, the blacks would indeed be black.





I am going on just a few days with the combo, but so far the blacks are acceptable. I think they are better than on my Sony 60 in. A3000 RPTV. I will report back more and I am sure I will hear your take on them.


----------



## Alex solomon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18306742
> 
> 
> I am going on just a few days with the combo, but so far the blacks are acceptable. I think they are better than on my Sony 60 in. A3000 RPTV. I will report back more and I am sure I will hear your take on them.



I will report back once I test drive the HP.


----------



## airscapes

I have an OLD Mitsubishi HC3000 with a contrast ratio of 4000:1 and a small screen with the projector close compared to most of you. Black is BLACK and the off (fade to black) is as good as whatever they used to project Avatar in Real 3D at the theater. I paid close attention to that the second time I went to see it. I would think you guys that are buying new projectors shouldn't have an issue with black..

BTW, the sample looked awful compared to the complete screen. It is far to small to give you any idea what your screen will look like.

If you want the blackest blacks and don't really want your screen to look like a plasma TV, then don't buy the HP. A .8 gain screen will give you better blacks.. but the rest of the image.. the part you need to see to watch the movie.. will be dim


----------



## Alex solomon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/18308116
> 
> 
> I have an OLD Mitsubishi HC3000 with a contrast ratio of 4000:1 and a small screen with the projector close compared to most of you. Black is BLACK and the off (fade to black) is as good as whatever they used to project Avatar in Real 3D at the theater. I paid close attention to that the second time I went to see it. I would think you guys that are buying new projectors shouldn't have an issue with black..
> 
> BTW, the sample looked awful compared to the complete screen. It is far to small to give you any idea what your screen will look like.
> 
> If you want the blackest blacks and don't really want your screen to look like a plasma TV, then don't buy the HP. A .8 gain screen will give you better blacks.. but the rest of the image.. the part you need to see to watch the movie.. will be dim



airscapes,


Your comments here and elsewhere was what finally pushed me to get the HP. I have read many posts and feedback from owners and all are very positive. I am not expecting the deepest black from the HP but I do not want a very dark gray. If I can get a black close enough to what I get now with the 1.0 matte screen, I will be happy.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alex solomon* /forum/post/18308695
> 
> 
> airscapes,
> 
> 
> Your comments here and elsewhere was what finally pushed me to get the HP. I have read many posts and feedback from owners and all are very positive. I am not expecting the deepest black from the HP but I do not want a very dark gray. If I can get a black close enough to what I get now with the 1.0 matte screen, I will be happy.



Alex, you will love it. Sorry to be so touchy about the black level talk.. I guess it is not as important to me because I am happy with what I have







and assume anyone would be. That is probably a bad conclusion to to make.

I think It would be eye opening if you could set your new screen up so it covered 1/2 the old screen so as to compare the over all image. Probably not possible, but would really make you feel better and put all your fear to rest instantly. This was what I did when I got my HP screen and at that point is was only the 2.4. Next thing I had to do was compare the 2.4 to 2.8 .. to find the keeper..


I look forward to hearing your comments when you get the new screen.


----------



## Alex solomon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/18308979
> 
> 
> Alex, you will love it. Sorry to be so touchy about the black level talk.. I guess it is not as important to me because I am happy with what I have
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and assume anyone would be. That is probably a bad conclusion to to make.
> 
> I think It would be eye opening if you could set your new screen up so it covered 1/2 the old screen so as to compare the over all image. Probably not possible, but would really make you feel better and put all your fear to rest instantly. This was what I did when I got my HP screen and at that point is was only the 2.4. Next thing I had to do was compare the 2.4 to 2.8 .. to find the keeper..
> 
> 
> I look forward to hearing your comments when you get the new screen.



I am planning to do just that before taking the 92" down. I will try to take some pictures as well. If I like the HP, I will most likely buy a 106" - 110 " HDTV format as well. After living with the 115" cinemascope 45 x 106 VA, the 45 x 80 VA of the HDTV format look small (CIH setup). So I may end up with two screens if I can make them work with the AE4000.


----------



## Alex solomon

Received the Da-lite 115" - 2.35 HP (2.8 gain) screen yesterday. After calibrating I was surprised to find that my contrast level was unchanged from what it was for the Da-lite matte screen @ +10. I also lowered the brightness only two notches to +1. I checked and triple checked with AVIA, DVE and AVSHD 709 and the result are all the same.


Overall I like the HP. This screen shows every detail so crappy looking materials look bad. I see a lot of video noise (mosquito noise) on very bright scenes (even on blu-ray discs) and it can become distracting. I used noise reduction filter on my XA2 and Onkyo 886 processor that helped a bit but not much. Black level was good. Color uniformity is excellent. Pop and wow is amazing. PJ is mounted 50" off the floor so the image is very bright in my batcave HT. I think I will get be looking to get a filter to help with the brightness, black level and video noise.


----------



## martinstraka8282

Anybody here deal with hd.ca?


I ordered a Da Lite 110" Manual C High power today. I specified 2.8gain material to the rep over the phone, along with a black case, hope thats what I get. The rep knew what I was talking about as far as the 2.4 and 2.8 gain material, so it'll probably be Da Lites mistake if thats not what I get.


----------



## Murilo

Ah yes. You chose wisely as a canadian.


Dealing with hd.ca they are well aware of your issue, and i can only speak extremely highly of them. I had 2.4 for some time when this thread came about, and they had it replaced. My last screen also had a small spot on it, and they are replacing that. Excellent service.


I have dealt with complete-it.ca some people seem to like the guy, but he has always rubbed me the wrong way, very aggressive, and I doubt I would have received the same service and kindness during the refund.


Anyway I shouldnt speak for others businesses im just very happy with hd.ca especially if you want the 2.8 they know all about it dealing with me, trust me your covered in that regard.


----------



## Murilo

Alex how close is it to eye level, i have mine 2 feet above eye level, only a slight gain drop, but i find much closer its overly bright, and noise shows to much, at 2 feet their is a slight gain loss (very slight and much needed gain loss imo I think this screen should be rated over 3.0) and it hides noise and tones down brightness a bit.


Or get a flea, I should be working for algolith, but all i can say is when I have the flea on, my w5000 considered probably among the worst projectors for noise, noise becomes very unnoticeable with no loss in detail. Whenever i dont have it running, i can automatically notice something is wrong, the picture is far to grainy where it becomes a distraction, the flea eliminates enough where it no longer becomes distracting.


----------



## Alex solomon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/18328790
> 
> 
> Alex how close is it to eye level, i have mine 2 feet above eye level, only a slight gain drop, but i find much closer its overly bright, and noise shows to much, at 2 feet their is a slight gain loss (very slight and much needed gain loss imo I think this screen should be rated over 3.0) and it hides noise and tones down brightness a bit.
> 
> 
> Or get a flea, I should be working for algolith, but all i can say is when I have the flea on, my w5000 considered probably among the worst projectors for noise, noise becomes very unnoticeable with no loss in detail. Whenever i dont have it running, i can automatically notice something is wrong, the picture is far to grainy where it becomes a distraction, the flea eliminates enough where it no longer becomes distracting.



PJ is 50" off the floor. I can probably move it up a few more inches 9-11" but no more. Thanks for the flea suggestion. Does the Flea accept 1080p/24 signal though? That along with ND filter will get me where I want to be. I have already started noticing the elevated black level,especially in dark material, ND filter might help here. I think I will try these options before buying a second HP screen like I originally planned.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alex solomon* /forum/post/18329220
> 
> 
> PJ I have already started noticing the elevated black level,especially in dark material, ND filter might help here. I think I will try these options before buying a second HP screen like I originally planned.



You may want to try some bias lighting if you don't have any. This helps with the perceived contrast and you don't notice the glow as much in very dark material. Just something inexpensive and easy to try.


----------



## Alex solomon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/18329868
> 
> 
> You may want to try some bias lighting if you don't have any. This helps with the perceived contrast and you don't notice the glow as much in very dark material. Just something inexpensive and easy to try.



Thanks much, airscapes.


----------



## martinstraka8282




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/18328770
> 
> 
> Ah yes. You chose wisely as a canadian.
> 
> 
> Dealing with hd.ca they are well aware of your issue, and i can only speak extremely highly of them. I had 2.4 for some time when this thread came about, and they had it replaced. My last screen also had a small spot on it, and they are replacing that. Excellent service.
> 
> 
> I have dealt with complete-it.ca some people seem to like the guy, but he has always rubbed me the wrong way, very aggressive, and I doubt I would have received the same service and kindness during the refund.
> 
> 
> Anyway I shouldnt speak for others businesses im just very happy with hd.ca especially if you want the 2.8 they know all about it dealing with me, trust me your covered in that regard.



That's good to hear! It's always a bit of a crapshoot ordering since not only do I live in Canada, I live in the f'in Yukon.


I checked out complete-it.ca, but there price was significantly more than HD.ca, and the other couple of sites I checked out ignored my emails completely.


It's been 2 days and my card still hasnt been charged, so I'll probably call in tomorrow to make sure there's no problems. How long did it take for the charge to appear for you?



I didn't get the CSR feature to keep the cost down a little bit, anybody think I'll regret this? I'll be the only one ever retracting it, and it'll only be about once a day, if that even.


----------



## airscapes

I know AVS drop ships, so I would imagine it is that way with most vendors. Your card will probably get charged when Da-lite ships and knows the shipping cost.. I think my screen was delivered before they got the final cost and invoice to me... but I am a little closer than you are. :-(


----------



## noah katz

I just ordered a new bigger HP 2.8 and am selling my 133" Cosmopolitan Electrol 2.8 for $675 + shipping; PM me if interested.


----------



## 37fiat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *martinstraka8282* /forum/post/18331623
> 
> 
> That's good to hear! It's always a bit of a crapshoot ordering since not only do I live in Canada, I live in the f'in Yukon.
> 
> 
> I checked out complete-it.ca, but there price was significantly more than HD.ca, and the other couple of sites I checked out ignored my emails completely.
> 
> 
> It's been 2 days and my card still hasnt been charged, so I'll probably call in tomorrow to make sure there's no problems. How long did it take for the charge to appear for you?
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't get the CSR feature to keep the cost down a little bit, anybody think I'll regret this? I'll be the only one ever retracting it, and it'll only be about once a day, if that even.



Small world eh? I'm in Whitehorse as well, and got a 119" Da-Lite HP 2.8 Model C about a month ago.


I bought it through hd.ca as well, and they were pretty good to deal with. Originally ordered the 2.4, but Da-Lite hadn't started working on it after 2 weeks, and after rethinking it, asked hd.ca to get them to change it to the 2.8 gain. They did, and I received it 3 weeks later.


I'm really glad I went with the 2.8. The picture is amazing! Can't see any waves at all, and the picture just POPS! I wish I would've got the electric version just cause I'm lazy, but couldn't justify the cost for the CSR either. The regular manual version is just fine and is very easy to open and close.


How did hd.ca work out the shipping with you?


----------



## Murilo

Yes flea accepts 1080p/24, does not accept 1080p/60, does accept 1080i/60.


----------



## martinstraka8282




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *37fiat* /forum/post/18332663
> 
> 
> Small world eh? I'm in Whitehorse as well, and got a 119" Da-Lite HP 2.8 Model C about a month ago.
> 
> 
> I bought it through hd.ca as well, and they were pretty good to deal with. Originally ordered the 2.4, but Da-Lite hadn't started working on it after 2 weeks, and after rethinking it, asked hd.ca to get them to change it to the 2.8 gain. They did, and I received it 3 weeks later.
> 
> 
> I'm really glad I went with the 2.8. The picture is amazing! Can't see any waves at all, and the picture just POPS! I wish I would've got the electric version just cause I'm lazy, but couldn't justify the cost for the CSR either. The regular manual version is just fine and is very easy to open and close.
> 
> 
> How did hd.ca work out the shipping with you?



No **** small world, that's about the last thing I expected to read here!


So about 5 weeks turnaround from the time you ordered? I didnt really get any solid info as far as how long it would take, but he figured about a month give or take. They charged me about 170 for shipping (Fed Ex), and he said Da lite would send it to them first, not just directly from Da Lite.


Did you have any problems with your order, or did you get exactly as requested? I asked for the 2.8 gain material, plus 6 in extra drop, and Black case, hopefully they get it right.


I wish I had the money for the electric, or even the CSR feature... well I do, I just have so many other things I want to buy! Good to hear another glowing review though!


----------



## ms20003

Does anyone have quite a few waves on there model c HP screen? I know you can't see them when watching the screen but when my projector isnt on they are quite noticable (maybe about 7-12 waves)


----------



## 37fiat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *martinstraka8282* /forum/post/18344072
> 
> 
> No **** small world, that's about the last thing I expected to read here!
> 
> 
> So about 5 weeks turnaround from the time you ordered? I didnt really get any solid info as far as how long it would take, but he figured about a month give or take. They charged me about 170 for shipping (Fed Ex), and he said Da lite would send it to them first, not just directly from Da Lite.
> 
> 
> Did you have any problems with your order, or did you get exactly as requested? I asked for the 2.8 gain material, plus 6 in extra drop, and Black case, hopefully they get it right.
> 
> 
> I wish I had the money for the electric, or even the CSR feature... well I do, I just have so many other things I want to buy! Good to hear another glowing review though!



Yeah, I got pretty much what I had ordered from them, and I too went with the extra 6" black drop (supposed to be a total of 8" but was just a bit more at 9"). The wife nixed the black case, so I have the plain old white one, and it looks ok.

I'm sure you're going to be happy with your HP screen too!


You won't miss the CSR feature. It's real easy to roll it up.


What do you have for a screen right now? Did you check out any of the screens and projectors at Spectrum?

This Da-Lite HP absolutely kills anything they have down there.


If you want to check it out before you get yours, send me a PM. Always happy to help out!


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ms20003* /forum/post/18344358
> 
> 
> Does anyone have quite a few waves on there model c HP screen? I know you can't see them when watching the screen but when my projector isnt on they are quite noticable (maybe about 7-12 waves)



Yes, waves are an issue with pull-downs. No, you don't see them when watching a movie. So I suggest not watching your screen when nothing is playing.


----------



## mrTAPOUT

Can somone please provide me links on where to buy a 120" da'lite high power that is electric drop down in video format? So many places, so hard to figure it out. Where can I find the best price for this? thanks


----------



## jonathanR




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/18332395
> 
> 
> I just ordered a new bigger HP 2.8 and am selling my 133" Cosmopolitan Electrol 2.8 for $675 + shipping; PM me if interested.



Just by curiosity what size are going up to and what are you powering it with?? I thought a 133" was already pretty large.


----------



## Alex solomon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mrTAPOUT* /forum/post/18370021
> 
> 
> Can somone please provide me links on where to buy a 120" da'lite high power that is electric drop down in video format? So many places, so hard to figure it out. Where can I find the best price for this? thanks



Call Jason here @AVS.


----------



## noah katz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jonathanR* /forum/post/18370094
> 
> 
> Just by curiosity what size are going up to and what are you powering it with?? I thought a 133" was already pretty large.



New screen is 128 x 62 (splits the difference between 1.78 and 2.35); I got the RS10 open box deal.


----------



## noah katz

'Call Jason here @AVS.'


Yep, no point in looking anywhere else (I did look); the prices are as good as anyone's, and you know that you'll get service if you need it.


----------



## DvdJags




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/18371969
> 
> 
> 'Call Jason here @AVS.'
> 
> 
> Yep, no point in looking anywhere else (I did look); the prices are as good as anyone's, and you know that you'll get service if you need it.



I 2nd that even though I did not get the screen from AVS, their quote was low as you are going to get an HP. I ended up ordering celing hooks for my HP Contour Electrol from them . I received great service.


----------



## mrTAPOUT

thanks guys. Do I pm him and whats his last name?


----------



## DvdJags




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mrTAPOUT* /forum/post/18372620
> 
> 
> thanks guys. Do I pm him and whats his last name?



Just go to their website. It's http://www.avscience.com/ .


----------



## Murilo

Sorry martin i missed your post, not sure if they charged your card but i think they ship right from da-lite so da-lite sends the bill and they charge you when its finally shipped.


You will be happy with them, i was not the most pleasant to deal with regrettably when i found out i received the 2.4 but they were always nice and even rectified it and replaced it months after i purchased.


I know quebec acoustic was also charging people who had a 2.4 to ship back to da-lite, hd.ca insisted it was not my duty to pay shipping back as well, and I never had to. I think they pushed da-lite to do it oddly.


Avsforum and jason are also excellent to deal with as well. But no fault of theirs shipping costs to canada were very high.


HD.ca was free shipping so i ended up that route.


Two best vendors to go with depending on your location, imo.


----------



## RodK

+1 on hd.ca for canadians. Cam is excelent to deal with, and they have the best pricing.


----------



## RodK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ms20003* /forum/post/18344358
> 
> 
> Does anyone have quite a few waves on there model c HP screen? I know you can't see them when watching the screen but when my projector isnt on they are quite noticable (maybe about 7-12 waves)



I just hung my screen on Sunday and noticed some bad waves. I sent pics to where I purchased it and they have contacted Dalite for a replacement. Here is what mine looks like.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RodK* /forum/post/18385096
> 
> 
> I just hung my screen on Sunday and noticed some bad waves. I sent pics to where I purchased it and they have contacted Dalite for a replacement. Here is what mine looks like.



Is that 2.8 or 2.4??


----------



## Murilo

Mine has a wave in the left hand corner but smaller, but they are not bad, not as bad as pictured, if i had a decent camera i would take pics, i wonder if its just the lighting thats making it more noticeable.


I cant notice it from the front only the side, again not sure if mines better then yours or its the lighting. Looking straight on mine looks flat only looking from the extreme side can i see a wave in the left hand lower corner.


----------



## RodK

it is 2.8 and it is bad.










the lighting was used just so it is noticable in the picture for dalite to see. If I used a flash, you would see nothing with it being retroreflective and all. It is quite noticable in person, and I was not a happy camper but I am being well looked after from HD.ca


----------



## airscapes

Can I ask a silly question.. was the screen hung level. I mean I would assume so but you didn't say so I figured I would ask... did you put a 4ft level on it? If so then I assume you took the picture on a funky angle or the screen material is not attached to the roller straight.


----------



## RodK

Yes, I triple checked the level and I even played with it ( I loosened the bolts and slowly raised each end to no difference) . It appears the material was not put on the roller properly, tighter in the center and looser on the sides (right side more so).


----------



## airscapes

That really sucks! Hope you get a good one and can start enjoying it, I just can not understand why this kind of thing happens.. there is no real excuse!


----------



## noah katz

Are they visible in use?


----------



## RodK

still waiting for my rs10, but for a brand new screen I expect better than that. I saw a cheap draper last week that was alot smoother.


----------



## Murilo

Yea I assume mine is alot better since i cant see any waves looking straight on with the projector off mine looks flat. Actually looking at rodk photo again mine is night and day difference to his with regards to smoothness.


No you cant see waves when viewing its retro reflective.


Then again as mentioned I cant see any wave on mine looking directly forward. I had to shine a flashlight directly on the side to notice a small wave in the left hand corner, not much of a wave though.


Nothing like the picture. I probably wouldnt have even noticed a wave unless i spent 10 minutes expecting mine and looking directly at the side. I assume rodk put his up and seen it right away. I have actually always been impressed at how flat mine have looked when i pulled them down.


Dare I say da-lite quality control has not been great lately, i had a screen with a black film on it, even more reason for canadians to go with hd.ca, and americans id suggest dealing with jason at avsforum, nothing would be worse then getting a screen thats not up to quality and having the dealer not handle shipping or getting a replacement.


----------



## Craig Peer

I had a friend that just got a 96" wide 2.4 gain High Power Cosmopolitan Electol which I helped him install yesterday. Nice screen, no waves, looks and works great !! I think I like the new 2.4 High Power material better - it looked very uniform and smooth.


Just FYI.


----------



## Murilo

Well I had both and it not more smooth I think airscape will also tell you that. 2.8 is definately smoother.


Uniform not really either, the 2.4 is a lighter material, and also has a pattern on it.



I actually had some waves in my 2.4 as well although like my 2.8 they were not much, very small, nor were they bothersome.


On both my 2.8 and 2.4 i couldnt actually see any waves, unless I looked at them from the very side then i could see slight wave on both.


----------



## Craig Peer




> Quote:
> I actually had some waves in my 2.4 as well although like my 2.8 they were not much, very small, nor were they bothersome.



Pull down, or electric? This 2.4 is electric.


----------



## Murilo

Pull down. I dont know really know how that factors in though, comparing both material extensively they both had slight waves, the 2.8 is way smoother, and much heavier material, i also found the 2.8 clearer when viewing both at the same time.


----------



## Craig Peer




> Quote:
> Pull down. I dont know really know how that factors in though



I think electric screens have a bigger roller. Anyway, didn't see any waves on my buddies 2.4 High Power Cosmo Electrol.


----------



## barryb100

_I strongly leaning towards getting a high power screen with the old 2.8 gain. However, when I learned about the 2.4 and that they use it for manual pull downs, I assumed they changed it because the old 2.8 material didn't do well in the pull down screens. Basically, my question is whether or not a model C 119 pulldown with the 2.8 gain is going to last a long time without breaking. Have people that have had similar screens had any problems? Any advice would be greatly appreciated._


I have had the HP2.8 Model C since 06 and have loved it. It provides an absolutely beautiful picture. With that being said, recently it has shown an age related problem. When displaying scenes with mostly white, horizontal gray bands are visible. It seems as though some of the bead material may have worn off. So, the bands appear because the image is being reflected from the backing material (where the beads are missing)


It is an issue but only when the image is mostly white. With most movies it isn't a big issue. In fact, almost everyone who sees the screen for the first time, when I ask, "did you see the lines" they respond they didn't notice.


I have probably pulled and retracted the screen at least 700 times. Others who have had the screen for a number of years may not have this problem at all. The build quality of my screen is excellent.


About the waves. With the lights on and nothing being displayed on the screen, the waves are quite visible. However, they are not visible when playing material.


Even with the horizontal line problem, I would still buy another 2.8 screen -- The picture is just that good! I reason, I upgrade most components every few years, so $160 per year for the screen isn't a big issue. I hope the 2.8 is still available.


It would be nice to drop in a 2.4 and evaluate the difference, but I really love the 2.8 screen too much.


----------



## FremontRich




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *barryb100* /forum/post/18443726
> 
> _I strongly leaning towards getting a high power screen with the old 2.8 gain. However, when I learned about the 2.4 and that they use it for manual pull downs, I assumed they changed it because the old 2.8 material didn't do well in the pull down screens. Basically, my question is whether or not a model C 119 pulldown with the 2.8 gain is going to last a long time without breaking. Have people that have had similar screens had any problems? Any advice would be greatly appreciated._
> 
> 
> I have had the HP2.8 Model C since 06 and have loved it. It provides an absolutely beautiful picture. With that being said, recently it has shown an age related problem. When displaying scenes with mostly white, horizontal gray bands are visible. It seems as though some of the bead material may have worn off. So, the bands appear because the image is being reflected from the backing material (where the beads are missing)
> 
> 
> It is an issue but only when the image is mostly white. With most movies it isn't a big issue. In fact, almost everyone who sees the screen for the first time, when I ask, "did you see the lines" they respond they didn't notice.
> 
> 
> I have probably pulled and retracted the screen at least 700 times. Others who have had the screen for a number of years may not have this problem at all. The build quality of my screen is excellent.
> 
> 
> About the waves. With the lights on and nothing being displayed on the screen, the waves are quite visible. However, they are not visible when playing material.
> 
> 
> Even with the horizontal line problem, I would still buy another 2.8 screen -- The picture is just that good! I reason, I upgrade most components every few years, so $160 per year for the screen isn't a big issue. I hope the 2.8 is still available.
> 
> 
> It would be nice to drop in a 2.4 and evaluate the difference, but I really love the 2.8 screen too much.




Since an electric rollup screen puts no pressure on the material when the screen is lowered and raised, I'm almost certain a manual rollup screen shortens the life of the screen...


----------



## RodK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Craig Peer* /forum/post/18441877
> 
> 
> I think electric screens have a bigger roller. Anyway, didn't see any waves on my buddies 2.4 High Power Cosmo Electrol.



The model C uses the same roller as the electrics.


----------



## RodK

I got my replacement screen Thursday and all is finally well. No waves to be seen at all.


I got my RS10 hooked up and running last night. I am using a 110" Da-lite 2.8 high power screen. All I can say is ..........WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Even the wife was impressed










A BIG thanks to Jason and Joe , and to everyone here who has helped me along the way to purchase the best projector and screen combo for my less than ideal setup.


Time to finally get off the computer and start watching some movies


----------



## Fat Dave

I'm a serious lurker on these forums, but don't often post (as you can see). I've been following this thread and the other HP threads with interest as I got closer to renovating my home theatre. I wasn't planning to do an upgrade until late fall, but the move to the new fabric has pushed me to act sooner.


I'm attempting to order a 65"x155" screen (fixed-frame) with the old HP 2.8 fabric via hd.ca. Given the size of my screen, I believe the older HP fabric would be more beneficial to me than the newer material. I don't necessarily think the 2.4 fabric will be "bad", however given what I have read, I believe the 2.8 will better suit my theatre.


I'll report back with the results on what I am able to obtain.


Thank you to all contributors, both to this thread and the other HP threads - your input is extremely valuable. Please keep it up!


----------



## RobertR

I'm very glad I read this thread. I was able to get the 2.8 material, and am very pleased with it.


----------



## nirvy111




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *barryb100* /forum/post/18443726
> 
> _I strongly leaning towards getting a high power screen with the old 2.8 gain. However, when I learned about the 2.4 and that they use it for manual pull downs, I assumed they changed it because the old 2.8 material didn't do well in the pull down screens. Basically, my question is whether or not a model C 119 pulldown with the 2.8 gain is going to last a long time without breaking. Have people that have had similar screens had any problems? Any advice would be greatly appreciated._
> 
> 
> I have had the HP2.8 Model C since 06 and have loved it. It provides an absolutely beautiful picture. With that being said, recently it has shown an age related problem. When displaying scenes with mostly white, horizontal gray bands are visible. It seems as though some of the bead material may have worn off. So, the bands appear because the image is being reflected from the backing material (where the beads are missing)
> 
> 
> It is an issue but only when the image is mostly white. With most movies it isn't a big issue. In fact, almost everyone who sees the screen for the first time, when I ask, "did you see the lines" they respond they didn't notice.
> 
> 
> I have probably pulled and retracted the screen at least 700 times. Others who have had the screen for a number of years may not have this problem at all. The build quality of my screen is excellent.
> 
> 
> About the waves. With the lights on and nothing being displayed on the screen, the waves are quite visible. However, they are not visible when playing material.
> 
> 
> Even with the horizontal line problem, I would still buy another 2.8 screen -- The picture is just that good! I reason, I upgrade most components every few years, so $160 per year for the screen isn't a big issue. I hope the 2.8 is still available.
> 
> 
> It would be nice to drop in a 2.4 and evaluate the difference, but I really love the 2.8 screen too much.



My screen(I purchased 18 months ago and is 2.8 gain) had those lines from day one. I suspect it's damage caused by the roller, although I don't know why mine had them from the start, like it was a used screen or they weren't careful during assembly.


----------



## Kottan

Hello,


I`ve been reading in this great forum for quite a long time. Amongst others, the HP caught my attention. Having moved into a new house about one year ago, I wanted to wait for more money to come for a dedicated home theater. I have been planning on getting a HP, fixed frame, 65 x 116. However, this discussion as to the two fabrics made me a little nervous - consensus here seems to be that the older 2.8 fabric is the preferable option.

I have thus two questions: Do I get the 2.8 fabric automatically when ordering a fixed frame, do I get this only upon specifying the 2.8 fabric, or will I no longer get the 2.8 when waiting too long - shall I pull the trigger?

Second: What is the best way to order a HP from Europe (Austria specifically)? Directly via Da-Lite?


Many thanks!


----------



## RobertR




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kottan* /forum/post/18583624
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> 
> 
> I have thus two questions: Do I get the 2.8 fabric automatically when ordering a fixed frame, do I get this only upon specifying the 2.8 fabric, or will I no longer get the 2.8 when waiting too long - shall I pull the trigger?
> 
> Second: What is the best way to order a HP from Europe (Austria specifically)? Directly via Da-Lite?
> 
> 
> Many thanks!



If you doubt that you'll get the 2.8 material automatically, why don't you specify it to make sure? Why would you NOT specify it? I just received the 2.8 material in a pull down frame, so I see no reason why you couldn't get it too--unless you procrastinate for months and months...


----------



## Alex solomon

I placed my order for a 106" HDTV format 2.8 gain HP screen to go along with my 115" 2.35 HP screen for a dual screen setup with AE4000. Even though the price was higher than the competition, I went with Jason for a peace of mind.


----------



## biomed_eng_2000

I plan on getting a HP screen in a Model B, about 96". The screen will always be in the down position. I never roll it up.


Which would be less prone to wrinkling over time, the 2.4 or the 2.8 gain material?


Thanks!!


----------



## Jason Turk




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kottan* /forum/post/18583624
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> 
> I`ve been reading in this great forum for quite a long time. Amongst others, the HP caught my attention. Having moved into a new house about one year ago, I wanted to wait for more money to come for a dedicated home theater. I have been planning on getting a HP, fixed frame, 65 x 116. However, this discussion as to the two fabrics made me a little nervous - consensus here seems to be that the older 2.8 fabric is the preferable option.
> 
> I have thus two questions: Do I get the 2.8 fabric automatically when ordering a fixed frame, do I get this only upon specifying the 2.8 fabric, or will I no longer get the 2.8 when waiting too long - shall I pull the trigger?
> 
> Second: What is the best way to order a HP from Europe (Austria specifically)? Directly via Da-Lite?
> 
> 
> Many thanks!



Right now you pretty much have to specific the 2.8 if you want it...


----------



## Jason Turk




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *biomed_eng_2000* /forum/post/18588840
> 
> 
> I plan on getting a HP screen in a Model B, about 96". The screen will always be in the down position. I never roll it up.
> 
> 
> Which would be less prone to wrinkling over time, the 2.4 or the 2.8 gain material?
> 
> 
> Thanks!!



It is a crap shoot really, especially since the 2.4 has only been out for a few months. Everyone has to remember these are non-tensioned screens and while Hi Power is a heavier weight fabric and has specific reflective properties that can help mask "non-flatness" (yeah I know it isn't a word)...they could all potentially still have waves, especially over time. The only way to ensure that won't happen is with a tensioned (which of course HP isn't available that way).


----------



## RobertR

High Power may not be tensionable as such, but I was able to pull it tight over my home-built fixed frame (using neodymium magnets), so I was able to eliminate wrinkles.


----------



## Jason Turk




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RobertR* /forum/post/18594551
> 
> 
> High Power may not be tensionable as such, but I was able to pull it tight over my home-built fixed frame (using neodymium magnets), so I was able to eliminate wrinkles.



Yes fixed frames are considered "tensioned".


----------



## tigerfan33




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *biomed_eng_2000* /forum/post/18588840
> 
> 
> I plan on getting a HP screen in a Model B, about 96". The screen will always be in the down position. I never roll it up.
> 
> 
> Which would be less prone to wrinkling over time, the 2.4 or the 2.8 gain material?
> 
> 
> Thanks!!



I've had my HP 2.4 for a couple of months and no waves. Mine says down 24/7. Never has been rolled up.


----------



## Jason Turk




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tigerfan33* /forum/post/18595748
> 
> 
> I've had my HP 2.4 for a couple of months and no waves. Mine says down 24/7. Never has been rolled up.



Likely you will never see/get them. But the 2 months unfortunately is somewhat irrelevant as if they are going to appear, it could be anytime from date of arrival to years down the road. It is really hit or miss (not trying to talk people out of HP...it is a great fabric and I sell tons of them but I just want people to know there is a risk for waves as with any nontensioned screen).


----------



## SkunkWorkz

Hd.ca for Canadians? If so Plasma.com is the same people at HD.ca.. But and American company...


----------



## RodK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SkunkWorkz* /forum/post/18666011
> 
> 
> Hd.ca for Canadians? If so Plasma.com is the same people at HD.ca.. But and American company...



Yes, hd.ca had the best price in Canada and their service is excellent. Shipping can be quite expensive buying a screen in the US and shipping it to Canada.


----------



## airscapes

Just wanted to bring this to the same page as the HP review since folks are still ordering 2.8 and getting 2.4 and having a hard time finding this thread.


----------



## NickTF

I suggest reading this thread it made the difference in my ability to be able to catch Da-Lite's error even after specifically requesting 2.8 material (they sent 2.4 the first time).


----------



## Nima

I got my permwall 133" CIH which specifically says 2.8 Highpower both on the receipt and on the packaging. I made the test with a LED flash light and can see a smooth surface but can also see a texture which looks like the dots from the back comming through. This is prominent in the parts where the saps have been attached to the screen (tension).


I am not sure which material I have. Any more pointers? How visible is the texture of the 2.5? Does the 2.8 have any texture at all i.e. do you see the dots from the back? I also sometimes see a checkerpattern (without flashlight just sun light) but not as shown in the picture but rather that I think there are little squares with more spark and other ones which look "painted".


Did anyone with a fixed frame got the new material?


Thanks,

Nima


----------



## airscapes

I have only seen the 2 screens I had in my possession and what you are describing sounds like the the new fabric. The (Dalite manager) told me that the old fabric would be phased out at some point. Does the fabric have a strong vinyl smell to it? If so, I would say this is 2.4 and you should start making calls if you want the 2.8. If you have already assembled the screen, hang it up and see how you like it. As you may have seen, others who asked for 2.8 got 2.4 just this past week, so it is possible they put the wrong screen in the box.. I would say if you really want to be sure, borrow or buy a digital measuring caliper and see how thick the fabric is and compare to my posted readings.


----------



## Nima

Thank you airscapes. The fabric is already hung. It does not have a vinyl smell to it. If I shine the light like shown in your procedure I do see a smooth surface. If I put the flash light in front of the fabric I see a silver haze like a darker film which is on the material. I don't know how to describe it but it looks like dust covering screen but it is not because I already cleaned the screen with a microfibre cloth.


I also have one or two small defective areas where the surface does not appear smooth and light is broken/reflected differently but can only be seen when you walk up really close to the screen.


Though I must say that I am very happy with the screen even if it is the newer material. Black level is superb from my JVC RS2 and it is bright enough for a 122" wide scope screen (eco mode).


I do not think it is worth the hassle exchanging the screen as it did cost 99 shipping it to Germany and who knows maybe I get a screen with other minor defects the next time? Am I being too anal?

















I think I will contact Da-Lite and ask about my order.


Nima


----------



## airscapes

I would say if you are happy with the screen, then forget about what it is made of and enjoy the movie!!


----------



## Nima

Thank you airscapes. But curiosity killed the cat and here is what the Da-lite live chat had to say:


rian : Hello, how may I help you?

you: Hi Brian

you: my name is Nima I ordered a 122" wide PermWall

you: High Power

you: I wanted to have a old 2.8

you: i stated that several times

you: it is also written on the da-lite packing list

you: but seeing the screen I am not 100% sure anymore

you: so question how can I be sure it is the old 2.8 material and not the new 2.4 material

Brian : The Perm wall is a 2.8 gain surface.

Brian : The 2.4 is only in our manuals or electric screens.

you: are you a 100% sure?

Brian : Yes.

you: i heard the old 2.8 material would be phased out at some point?

you: that's what people over at AVSforum say

Brian : Not at this time.

you: ok


Anyway as you said, time to enjoy the movie.










Nima


----------



## bobbijean

Nima, I'm glad you cleared that up for others. Specifying 2.4 or 2.8 is the safest bet. Da-lite has said that the 2.4 is a better fabric. They were fazing 2.8 out earlier this year but because of the demand and desire for 2.8 it appears they're keeping their customers happy by keeping it. It comes down to preference. Glad you're enjoying your room.


----------



## Jason Turk




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nima* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Thank you airscapes. But curiosity killed the cat and here is what the Da-lite live chat had to say:
> 
> 
> rian : Hello, how may I help you?
> 
> you: Hi Brian
> 
> you: my name is Nima I ordered a 122" wide PermWall
> 
> you: High Power
> 
> you: I wanted to have a old 2.8
> 
> you: i stated that several times
> 
> you: it is also written on the da-lite packing list
> 
> you: but seeing the screen I am not 100% sure anymore
> 
> you: so question how can I be sure it is the old 2.8 material and not the new 2.4 material
> 
> Brian : The Perm wall is a 2.8 gain surface.
> 
> Brian : The 2.4 is only in our manuals or electric screens.
> 
> you: are you a 100% sure?
> 
> Brian : Yes.
> 
> you: i heard the old 2.8 material would be phased out at some point?
> 
> you: that's what people over at AVSforum say
> 
> Brian : Not at this time.
> 
> you: ok
> 
> 
> Anyway as you said, time to enjoy the movie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nima



A lot of what is said on this board isn't true. Both are available...if you specifically requested the 2.8 and the packing slip indicated it, then that is what you got. Don't sweat it.


----------



## Blue Rain




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/19042787
> 
> 
> Just wanted to bring this to the same page as the HP review since folks are still ordering 2.8 and getting 2.4 and having a hard time finding this thread.



This site has all their HP screens listed as 2.8 gain .


You think it's safe to think they are 2.8 or just an old listing of the specs ?



http://www.projectorscreenstore.com/...een-31529.html


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Blue Rain* /forum/post/19177691
> 
> 
> This site has all their HP screens listed as 2.8 gain .
> 
> 
> You think it's safe to think they are 2.8 or just an old listing of the specs ?
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.projectorscreenstore.com/...een-31529.html



No idea, but I would HIGHLY recommend getting a quote from Jason at AVS.. look up one post above yours.. just pm or call him.

His prices are the best and you will get what you ask for!


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/19178511
> 
> 
> No idea, but I would HIGHLY recommend getting a quote from Jason at AVS.. look up one post above yours.. just pm or call him.
> 
> His prices are the best and you will get what you ask for!



Strongly agree! I bought my Dalite HP from Jason about 4 yrs ago. There was a mistake in the size of the screen that I received (it was not a standard size, a 110x62 16x9) and Jason arranged for the return and had the correct one sent, all at no cost to me. Could not have been more prompt or efficient service (and the price was as good as I found anywhere). [I've also bought an AVR and two projectors from him, all with similar positive experiences.]


----------



## jkrepner

2.4 vs 2.8? that is the question...


I've read this thread and the feeling is that people prefer the 2.8, but the reps from AV Science said that Da-lite said the 2.4 is the better material. '


Is this a case of he said / she said, or is the new stuff better? I like the idea of better off-axis viewing but as stated in this thread the 2.4 is still dimmer, it just doesn't change as much from the center.


I'm leaning towards a pull-down for the time being. 15x20(sih) light controlled basement. 106" 16x9 screen 12ft throw on an Epson 8350.


I just want to know which is the best material and is the new stuff cheaper for them to make and being sold as "better".


Thanks...(I'm ordering the 2.8 version unless someone can stop me)

-Jeff


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jkrepner* /forum/post/19404707
> 
> 
> 2.4 vs 2.8? that is the question...
> 
> 
> I've read this thread and the feeling is that people prefer the 2.8, but the reps from AV Science said that Da-lite said the 2.4 is the better material. '
> 
> 
> Is this a case of he said / she said, or is the new stuff better? I like the idea of better off-axis viewing but as stated in this thread the 2.4 is still dimmer, it just doesn't change as much from the center.
> 
> 
> I'm leaning towards a pull-down for the time being. 15x20(sih) light controlled basement. 106" 16x9 screen 12ft throw on an Epson 8350.
> 
> 
> I just want to know which is the best material and is the new stuff cheaper for them to make and being sold as "better".
> 
> 
> Thanks...(I'm ordering the 2.8 version unless someone can stop me)
> 
> -Jeff



My opinion is the is cheaper to make, and probably does not show defects (missing beads) as much as the other. If you do not have both next to each other the 2.4 looks great. If you have them next to each other the 2.8 is brighter. I don't think we know how well the 2.4 will do over time as to the wrinkles a non tensioned screen develops. As you saw in the photos linked in the first post, the 2.4 is thinner and not as heavy, suggesting it will wrinkle more. As you know, I kept the 2.8 and am still happy. If you are nut for blacker blacks, and will have off axis seating then maybe 2.4 is the way to go.. if you want the brightest image from your Captain's chair dead center, then 2.8.

Like I said, either on by itself is great.. just don't stick a sample of the one you don't have on it after you get it!


----------



## Richard Berg

There is no such thing as "best" in the engineering world. Pick the material that works better for your situation. Here's the raw data to evaluate any conceivable setup: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post19390549


----------



## jkrepner

Thanks Richard, I did see your chart and it is really helpful.


airscapes, your experiences have (for good or ill) been really great in helping me narrow this screen shopping experience.


If memory serves me correctly, was it you that noted the old material seemed to disappear more, as in perhaps being a smoother surface resulting in a sharper image?


-Jeff


----------



## ScofieldKid

As for New v. Old, I got the Old 2.8. Personally, I think the New 2.5 is probably the right choice for me. The 2.8 is actually just a bit too bright, so I have to fight that by reducing contrast on the projector. Just my 2 cents, and personal impression. I think the 2.5 is probably more on the money in general, and I assume they are making a good 2.5 screen with all the interest in this product.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ScofieldKid* /forum/post/19541770
> 
> 
> As for New v. Old, I got the Old 2.8. Personally, I think the New 2.5 is probably the right choice for me. The 2.8 is actually just a bit too bright, so I have to fight that by reducing contrast on the projector. Just my 2 cents, and personal impression. I think the 2.5 is probably more on the money in general, and I assume they are making a good 2.5 screen with all the interest in this product.



Why not just move your projector to reduce the gain rather than messing up the contrast?


----------



## ScofieldKid

Thanks for the tip. Can't really do that for this room. Not complaining about the 2.8. I'm just saying that I suspect that 2.5 would have been more than enough. 2.8 can be very bright.


----------



## airscapes

Something else you can do is add some bias lighting that does not shine on the screen. You don't have to get fancy with 6500K just some mood lighting on a dimmer that does not hit the screen in any way. This will keep the iris of your eyes from opening so wide during dark scenes and reduce eye fatigue as well as increase perceived contrast (darks look darker cause your eyes do not adjust)

I never watch my small 2.8 in complete darkness it is much better with the bias lighting.


----------



## ScofieldKid

Great suggestion. Thanks!


----------



## dragonbud0

I saw two models (model B), one with 18 inch black cloth on top, and one without. Any disadvantages or advantages?


Thanks.


----------



## Blue Rain




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ScofieldKid* /forum/post/19541770
> 
> 
> As for New v. Old, I got the Old 2.8. Personally, I think the New 2.5 is probably the right choice for me. The 2.8 is actually just a bit too bright, so I have to fight that by reducing contrast on the projector. Just my 2 cents, and personal impression. I think the 2.5 is probably more on the money in general, and I assume they are making a good 2.5 screen with all the interest in this product.



What size is your screen ?


----------



## 68sting

It sounds like a few people just ordered the material and did a diy frame. Is this correct? This seems like it would be the cheapest solution. I can't find a price on this stuff either. Whats a ball park for a 125" diag screen cost?


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *68sting* /forum/post/19578833
> 
> 
> It sounds like a few people just ordered the material and did a diy frame. Is this correct? This seems like it would be the cheapest solution. I can't find a price on this stuff either. Whats a ball park for a 125" diag screen cost?



The material is not available to the DIY'r. People sometimes buy a cheap pull-down (Model B? C?) and cut the material off the roller to mount on a DIY fixed frame.


----------



## rgathright

I received my 133" HP Cinema Contour 2.4 gain screen late Tuesday afternoon and had it up and enjoying it about 3 hours later. This screen met my expectations and has put the "HD" (wife's comment) back into our aging Mits HC6000 projector. I was even able to put the lamp back into low mode. It can only get better when I upgrade to a new and brighter projector next year.


----------



## 68sting

I'm not following how you put the projector in the middle of the screen. Do you tilt it and use keystone to square it up? Seems like they need to be mounted under or over the screen to properly project on the screen.


Also let me know if my room will work for a HP screen


Seating distance is 12' from screen

room is 14.5' wide 17.5' deep

Present screen is 110" diag but I would like to bump up to at least a 120"

Will the outside seats have issues? The outside left chair is outside of the screen and the outside right chair is right on the edge of the scrreen.


----------



## henrich3

Quote:

Originally Posted by *68sting* 
I'm not following how you put the projector in the middle of the screen. Do you tilt it and use keystone to square it up? Seems like they need to be mounted under or over the screen to properly project on the screen. Also let me know if my room will work for a HP screen


Seating distance is 12' from screen

room is 14.5' wide 17.5' deep

Present screen is 110" diag but I would like to bump up to at least a 120"

Will the outside seats have issues? The outside left chair is outside of the screen and the outside right chair is right on the edge of the scrreen.
Da-Lite's High Power screens (2.8 or 2.4 gain) are retro-reflective so they direct most of the light back towards the light source (your projector). Many projectors have a vertical lens shift feature that allows you to mount the projector closer to eye level without resorting to keystone. Keystone can introduce undesirable picture artifacts so it's best left disabled. If you can't get your projector closer to eye level the HP 2.8 material may not work well for you. Since the HP 2.4 fabric has a much wider sweet spot that may be a good choice however. Contact Da-Lite and request a sample of their High Power 2.4 gain material to see how well it will perform in your room.


If you haven't already done so check out the High Power thread: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=773065&page=1 


If you plug your particulars into FLBoy's screen gain calculator you can check out the gain for different room configurations. (The calculator is preset for the 2.8 material. Change the gain to 2.4 and the minimum gain at large off axis angles to .9 to see the gain figures for the 2.4 fabric.): http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=966057 


I just received a Contour Electrol yesterday (110" diag, HP 2.4). This was an upgrade from a 92" matte white. I'm very impressed with the HP 2.4 fabric. Compared to the matte white, whites and colors are significantly brighter and more vibrant. Images look great even well off axis. Black is also raised a bit of course, but it's not really noticeable when everything else is so much brighter. I feel confident that you'd be happy with this material, especially if you can lower your projector closer to eye level.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *68sting* /forum/post/19582148
> 
> 
> I'm not following how you put the projector in the middle of the screen. Do you tilt it and use keystone to square it up? Seems like they need to be mounted under or over the screen to properly project on the screen.
> 
> 
> Also let me know if my room will work for a HP screen
> 
> 
> Seating distance is 12' from screen
> 
> room is 14.5' wide 17.5' deep
> 
> Present screen is 110" diag but I would like to bump up to at least a 120"
> 
> Will the outside seats have issues? The outside left chair is outside of the screen and the outside right chair is right on the edge of the scrreen.



If your projector does not have lens shift (DLPs under $5000 don't) then I don't think it is a good fit. Looks like your projector is about 3-4 feet over your head if you are reclined. Table mounting seems to works better with fixed offset since your head is normally closer to the bottom of the screen than top..

But try FLboys calculator and see what you get!


----------



## 68sting

I just bought a Acer H5360. It doesn't have lens shift. So is the HP a no go for this unit?


----------



## henrich3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *68sting* /forum/post/19595391
> 
> 
> I just bought a Acer H5360. It doesn't have lens shift. So is the HP a no go for this unit?



The HP 2.8 would be a poor choice for your situation. Run the numbers on the 2.4 & get a sample.


----------



## airscapes

All depends on how close your head is to the projector where you were going to mount it. It is all spelled out in the main High Power review thread. If you are out side the viewing cone (projector 3 ft over your head) you will have a gain of about 1 and your ceiling tiles will need sun glasses







If you table mount the projector about 21 -24" off the floor you will be in good shape...assuming your screen is high enough off the floor to support that .. Your eye are about 44" off the floor when seated in a standard chair depending on your height of course.


Use FLboy's gain calculator and plug in all the numbers to see if it will work.


----------



## henrich3

68sting - Richard Berg had come up with a chart showing the relative gains of the two HP fabrics as you move off axis. The HP 2.8 only has positive gain out to about 18 degrees off axis. The photo of your room looks like your seating would be well outside of that angle. The HP 2.4 fabric has positive gain until you reach 45 degrees off axis. Even with your non-optimal installation you should still see some small gain using the 2.4 material. While this won't benefit you much over a matte white right now, you'd still have a nice image. If you upgrade your projector at some point to one with a vertical lens shift feature, you can then reposition your pj to take better advantage of the high gain fabric.


----------



## newfmp3

Quote:

Originally Posted by *henrich3* 
68sting - Richard Berg had come up with a chart showing the relative gains of the two HP fabrics as you move off axis. The HP 2.8 only has positive gain out to about 18 degrees off axis. The photo of your room looks like your seating would be well outside of that angle. The HP 2.4 fabric has positive gain until you reach 45 degrees off axis. Even with your non-optimal installation you should still see some small gain using the 2.4 material. While this won't benefit you much over a matte white right now, you'd still have a nice image. If you upgrade your projector at some point to one with a vertical lens shift feature, you can then reposition your pj to take better advantage of the high gain fabric.
Where did Richard get these measurements? actual measurements or calculated using this gain calculator?


The entire 2.4 vs 2.8 gain confuses me. The last time I seen it was 5 years ago, and I lived in a different house, different theater setup.


What I am worried about is


1. Do blacks suffer with the 2.8

2. Is it too bright / washed out

3. Is the 2.4 really any brighter at wider angles. I have ceiling mount, lens is 29" from eye level from 2nd couch which is on riser, right now on 2nd couch is see a decent gain, but with the front couch it's almost non-existent. Keep in mind my HP samples are on an old Draper M2500 screen as it is.

4. Is the drop off on the 2.8 really THAT big, or is the the drop off really any different from the 2.4?

5. Is one material any more fragile or harder to clean vs the other?


----------



## gusx

Im still trying to decide if the HP 2.8 is a good option for my setup. I plugged in the numbers of my setup and 1.2 and 1.4 gain depending if I drop the projector lower or raise the screen.


Screen size I want is 119" (104" wide). My ceiling is about 94" high but i can make a box and lower it slightly ... I plan to have the projector about 18ft away from the screen.


The projector I'm using is a HD250. Does lens shift help with the calculations in any way?


Anyone with a similar setup have any input?


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *newfmp3* /forum/post/19651590
> 
> 
> Where did Richard get these measurements? actual measurements or calculated using this gain calculator?
> 
> 
> The entire 2.4 vs 2.8 gain confuses me. The last time I seen it was 5 years ago, and I lived in a different house, different theater setup.
> 
> 
> What I am worried about is
> 
> 
> 1. Do blacks suffer with the 2.8
> 
> 2. Is it too bright / washed out
> 
> 3. Is the 2.4 really any brighter at wider angles. I have ceiling mount, lens is 29" from eye level from 2nd couch which is on riser, right now on 2nd couch is see a decent gain, but with the front couch it's almost non-existent. Keep in mind my HP samples are on an old Draper M2500 screen as it is.
> 
> 4. Is the drop off on the 2.8 really THAT big, or is the the drop off really any different from the 2.4?
> 
> 5. Is one material any more fragile or harder to clean vs the other?



1. If you projector does not do a good job with blacks they will be elevated as much as the brights are.

2. Not for me or any one who as ever seen it.

3. "EDIT" I just read my first few posts and apparently the 2.4 was a bit brighter way off to the side. My conclusion was the fact there were less beads and more white, see first page of thread.

4. The drop off is obvious and if you ask me the 2.4 drops off faster since it does not get anywhere near as bright as the 2.8 EDIT please read the first page or 2 of this thread, it has been a while since I had both screens.

5. The 2.8 is smother the beads are embedded in the backing. The 2.4 seem to be embedded in a white emulsifier and is somewhat more rough since there are larger spaced between beads. (see link to photos on post #1)

The 2.4 is also thinner and smells more strongly when new.


Hope that helps


----------



## Commoncents

How can you tell between the 2.4 and 2.8 screen material? I ordered a 133" 2.8 pull down screen and want to make sure I got the 2.8. To be honest I didn't notice a big jump in brightness over my painted wall.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Commoncents* /forum/post/19688796
> 
> 
> How can you tell between the 2.4 and 2.8 screen material? I ordered a 133" 2.8 pull down screen and want to make sure I got the 2.8. To be honest I didn't notice a big jump in brightness over my painted wall.



Read the first post in this tread and look at the photos in the link. Also read the text under each photo. I had a 2.8 sample and a 2.4 screen which brought the fact they change the fabric to light. You may want to order samples and ask for both 2.4 and 2.8 if the info in the first post and first few pages don't help.

Is your projector set up properly to take advantage of the gain?


----------



## Mark A Gonzalez

I called Da-Lite and they told me that they have no more HP 2.8 gain screens available anymore. I told them that they just stoped making thier best screen.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mark A Gonzalez* /forum/post/19702150
> 
> 
> I called Da-Lite and they told me that they have no more HP 2.8 gain screens available anymore. I told them that they just stoped making thier best screen.



I was told this by a few dealers as well which is one reason I placed my order last week.........sounds like I got one of the last 2.8s!


----------



## Acta7

I just received mine fixed and and putting my nose on the screen the texture seems the right one in this picture: http://96.227.248.64:999/dalitehp/photos/Texture.html


----------



## newfmp3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> I was told this by a few dealers as well which is one reason I placed my order last week.........sounds like I got one of the last 2.8s!



Last week I was told there was no worries yet....so this worries me. They sent me a sample of the 2.8 and I haven't received it yet. So sad if this is true.


----------



## ctviggen

Quote:

Originally Posted by *airscapes* 
If your projector does not have lens shift (DLPs under $5000 don't) then I don't think it is a good fit. Looks like your projector is about 3-4 feet over your head if you are reclined. Table mounting seems to works better with fixed offset since your head is normally closer to the bottom of the screen than top..

But try FLboys calculator and see what you get!
I only paid $900 for my Samsung 710 DLP and it has lens shift. My project is directly above my head (only position that worked in this room) and I sit about 3.5 feet below the lens (that is, my eyes are about 3.5 feet below the centerline of lens). I've moved my head from near the projector to where my head should be, and I'll be darned if I can see any difference using my 2.8 gain screen. According to calculations, there should be a difference, but I do not see one.


----------



## zombie10k




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mark A Gonzalez* /forum/post/19702150
> 
> 
> I called Da-Lite and they told me that they have no more HP 2.8 gain screens available anymore. I told them that they just stoped making thier best screen.



Take that call a bit up the food chain at Dalite.. ask to speak with a marketing or sales manager. The reason I say is, Dalite sales reps (and their dealers) have been giving me wrong information for 2 years.


I wanted a fixed frame Dalite Cinema Contour 2.8 HP which was 124.5 x 70 = 142" diagonal in 16:9 format. I was told over and over - it's not possible. Everyone said there would be a seam over 133".


I called and spoke with the VP of Marketing. She said the HP can be made as tall as 72", just a bit larger than my request. She created a custom order # and sent it to AVS for the order. The screen is fantastic and there is definitely no seam in this material.


my point is, if you want to find out for sure, call someone who really knows. Their own reps gave me the runaround for 2 years and didn't give the correct information to their dealers either.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *newfmp3* /forum/post/19708112
> 
> 
> Last week I was told there was no worries yet....so this worries me. They sent me a sample of the 2.8 and I haven't received it yet. So sad if this is true.




This is just what I was told by 2 different dealers, but it could turn out to be bad info.......who knows. I hope it is since people seem to love this screen! Take Zombies advice and get someone higher up the chain to find out for sure.


----------



## 68sting

I received a sample a few weeks ago.


----------



## newfmp3

EDITED:look at these guys - Both these were simply marked High Power not indicating which was which. These are 12x12 samples. The first one I am thinking is the OLD MATERIAL . My Second sample sent mid Dec is what I am calling the New. Am I right?


here is the back of the OLD?



















And this is what I got today which is supposed to be the New?










Here is the back











New on left











led flashlight

OLD?









NEW?

















Is this right, or do I have this backwards? I ask because with a quick test on my screen today, The Da-lite guys have been great to deal with, but I think their marketing guys should have called the new material something else or at least indicated the gain on each.


----------



## airscapes

That last picture sure does look like 2.4 and the 2.8 is WAY brighter than 2.4, your eyes don't lie!

Here is what I posted way back when this thread started.


----------



## newfmp3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> That last picture sure does look like 2.4 and the 2.8 is WAY brighter than 2.4, your eyes don't lie!
> 
> Here is what I posted way back when this thread started.



Agreed


What I am seeing is that the rough material has NO advantage over the other. Viewing angle, brightness, nothing. A week ago I was all set to get the new stuff, but it turns out I had the old sample all along I think


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *newfmp3* /forum/post/19726397
> 
> 
> Agreed
> 
> 
> What I am seeing is that the rough material has NO advantage over the other. Viewing angle, brightness, nothing. A week ago I was all set to get the new stuff, but it turns out I had the old sample all along I think



Imagine how I felt when I hung that 2.8 sample up on my nice new screen!


----------



## Almost60

Who knows why the HP 2.8 is no longer produced?


----------



## newfmp3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine how I felt when I hung that 2.8 sample up on my nice new screen!



Well I am sad now because they sent me the wrong sample back in November. If the darn thing was labeled 2.8 I would have known what I had instantly and just ordered a screen back in nov. Now because I had to wait for more samples to arrive, I am told I can't get it anymore.


----------



## gusx

I was able to order a 2.8 this week so looks like they are still shipping them. I ordered a fixed screen ... perhaps its the pull downs they arent making anymore.


----------



## newfmp3

The more I play with the samples the more confusing it gets. Depending on where I position the two samples on my screen, I get different results from each. Say top left corner vs center vs bottom center vs bottom right and so on. I put them in each area, walk around room, head close and far from light source and sometimes the difference between the two sample is huge, others it's negligible at best and even favors the new sample at times. The old seems to be brighter overall, but the new seems to have better blacks. Samples are not really a good full idea what the final entire picture would be though. I do not know how anyone could get a real measurement of either material though as it is easy to move a little and see changes in gain. I can say one thing for certain though, after handling these samples for a few sessions now, they are easily marked and damaged. my m2500 is far more durable then both.


----------



## newfmp3

Well it's official, 2.8 is done, poof


Tried today, can not get it. I am pissed


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *newfmp3* /forum/post/19764043
> 
> 
> Well it's official, 2.8 is done, poof
> 
> 
> Tried today, can not get it. I am pissed



In the beginning of this thread it was reported by me and other that talked to supposed middle management that the 2.8 would be available for an unknown time as special order in retractable screens. I was told until the stock was gone, other were told other things. We were also told it would always continue to be available with a fixed frame screen. Did you try and order a pull or a fixed screen?


----------



## newfmp3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/19765394
> 
> 
> In the beginning of this thread it was reported by me and other that talked to supposed middle management that the 2.8 would be available for an unknown time as special order in retractable screens. I was told until the stock was gone, other were told other things. We were also told it would always continue to be available with a fixed frame screen. Did you try and order a pull or a fixed screen?



Fixed screen. Perm wall, 110"


I was told on Dec 30th that there was some left. But my dealer was closed for xmas and new years. Went to order on next business Day - Jan 4th, none left, forget it. I was quite pissed.


It seems the last roll was damaged, and they pulled the plug on it. Entire roll ruined.


I'm seriously going to write to Da-Lite and stress my disappoinment here. Because of their mistake, I can't get the material I wanted. IF I had known that what I was looking at all along back in November was the 2.8 material, I would have just ordered it. But everytime I tried to check with them as to what I was holding in my hand, they said it was the 2.4. Yet reading online here told me something wasn't right with it, so I ordered another sample and sure enough, I got a 2.4 sample.


If they actually bothered to label their samples better, all this could have been avoided.


----------



## airscapes

If you read the initial post you will see Dalite does not do things.. how shall I say it.. very well organized.. seems like none of the fingers know what the others are doing...


Sorry you missed out, but once you get the new screen, DO NOT put that 2.8 sample on it!!! I know you want to, but save your self the pain and Don't do it!

The 2.4 will be very nice and you will enjoy it for many years to come.


Keep you eye on the used market, people dump their pull downs for AT and other fabrics, you may be able to pick something up and tuck it way for later!


----------



## millerwill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/19767809
> 
> 
> If you read the initial post you will see Dalite does not do things.. how shall I say it.. very well organized.. seems like none of the fingers know what the others are doing...
> 
> 
> Sorry you missed out, but once you get the new screen, DO NOT put that 2.8 sample on it!!! I know you want to, but save your self the pain and Don't do it!
> 
> The 2.4 will be very nice and you will enjoy it for many years to come.
> 
> 
> Keep you eye on the used market, people dump their pull downs for AT and other fabrics, you may be able to pick something up and tuck it way for later!



I am one: have had a 110x62 (126" diag 16x9) HP 2.8 for ~ 4 yrs, and am thinking about going to a 2.4 screen, and will thus be interested in selling it.


PS It's a fixed frame Da-Snap.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/19767941
> 
> 
> I am one: have had a 110x62 (126" diag 16x9) HP 2.8 for ~ 4 yrs, and am thinking about going to a 2.4 screen, and will thus be interested in selling it.
> 
> 
> PS It's a fixed frame Da-Snap.



Why are you thinking of changing? And have you called dalite to see if you can get new fabric without a new frame? Or are you changing size?


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/19767941
> 
> 
> I am one: have had a 110x62 (126" diag 16x9) HP 2.8 for ~ 4 yrs, and am thinking about going to a 2.4 screen, and will thus be interested in selling it.
> 
> 
> PS It's a fixed frame Da-Snap.



I'm curious as well: why the change?


The newer material has me mildly intrigued, especially if it produces subjectively "wider" viewing angles.


----------



## newfmp3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/19768145
> 
> 
> I'm curious as well: why the change?
> 
> 
> The newer material has me mildly intrigued, especially if it produces subjectively "wider" viewing angles.





get a sample before you waste your time and money.


Here's a video comparing the 2.4 and 2.8. Bet you can't guess which is which.







excuse the screen being kinda angled...getting ready to strip this theater and was trying pj at different heights


----------



## Almost60

The 3 samples attached are all 2.8?

Is screen where are atached 2.4?


----------



## newfmp3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Almost60* /forum/post/19768378
> 
> 
> The 3 samples attached are all 2.8?
> 
> Is screen where are atached 2.4?



There are only two 12" samples. You might be confusing the PS3's interface as the 3rd sort of large rectangle one, this is just indicating what file is highlited and looks like a sample.


There is a piece of tape in the middle of the screen indicating center point. The other mark on the screen is damage...hence why I'm replacing it.


I only took this very quickly one night, thought it was interesting.


I'm not telling which of the two samples is which







but one is 2.4, the other is 2.8. The back sreen is a M2500, old version. I have moved it a few times and restretched it. I find the material loses some of it's gain when stretched a lot. So it was 2.5 I think, but now I am guessing it's ~1.8-2. I wouldn't focus too much on the back material as the camera is doing something funky with it. But the camera did capture what I am seeing with my eye when walking about 3 feet left and right from projector while standing with a ceiling mounted PJ about 10" down from 7'5" ceiling


----------



## Almost60

Ok... I understand.


----------



## millerwill

Quote:

Originally Posted by *airscapes* 
Why are you thinking of changing? And have you called dalite to see if you can get new fabric without a new frame? Or are you changing size?
I'm thinking of going from a 16x9 screen to a 2.4 one. The present 16x9 is 110"x62", and I'm thinking of going to a 2.4 screen that is 132" wide.


----------



## Hughman

Quote:

Originally Posted by *newfmp3* 
There are only two 12" samples. You might be confusing the PS3's interface as the 3rd sort of large rectangle one, this is just indicating what file is highlited and looks like a sample.


There is a piece of tape in the middle of the screen indicating center point. The other mark on the screen is damage...hence why I'm replacing it.


I only took this very quickly one night, thought it was interesting.


I'm not telling which of the two samples is which







but one is 2.4, the other is 2.8. The back sreen is a M2500, old version. I have moved it a few times and restretched it. I find the material loses some of it's gain when stretched a lot. So it was 2.5 I think, but now I am guessing it's ~1.8-2. I wouldn't focus too much on the back material as the camera is doing something funky with it. But the camera did capture what I am seeing with my eye when walking about 3 feet left and right from projector while standing with a ceiling mounted PJ about 10" down from 7'5" ceiling
I hope this isn't how you've evaluated and ultimately formed and reported your impressions of the two screens. Unless the camera is playing tricks and the whites on each side of the screen are similar levels then the 2.8 is on the left, 2.4 on the right, if the brightest whitest whites are at different levels then the 2.8 is on the right the 2.4 on the left. Without knowledge of the levels on each side of the screen or the angles the two samples reside from center (they are not equal) it's near impossible to say which is which. Apart from the physical exercise walking from one side of the screen to the other this is completely void of anything useful.


The 2.4 seems to be sucking the hind teet on these threads but imo, overall, it's a better material.


----------



## Almost60

According to you , why 2.4 is better than 2.8?


----------



## Hughman

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Almost60* 
According to you , why 2.4 is better than 2.8?
My biggest beef with the 2.8 has been a paisley type artifact especially obvious when viewing bright scenes. I've photographed this artifact and posted on this site somewhere. The photos fairly accurately depict what I've been seeing for many years and has been consistent over two full blown screens and two samples of the material I've had in in my possession. The 2.4 gained screen has a base material weave pattern which is also evident but as viewing distance increases the weave pattern of the 2.4 screen become less evident while the paisley effect of the 2.8 becomes more, imo, evident. From an optical artifact POV the 2.4 at typical viewing distances offers a purer relatively more optical artifact free image than the 2.8.


To put this into perspective I also feel that for screens of any gain including the Stewart ST130 the HP 2.8 provides the most optical artifact free image available.


----------



## Almost60

These artifacts may be the result of a video noise of projector or grain in the Blu ray highlighted by a gain so high?


----------



## Hughman

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Almost60* 
These artifacts may be the result of a video noise of projector or grain in the Blu ray highlighted by a gain so high?
Nope, ruled that out ad nauseum The artifacts I'm referring to are due to the screen only. I'll try to locate the photos and repost.


Here it is: Pay attention to the lower right quarter of the photo as this is what I often see when viewing the 2.8 and has been consistent from 4 different 2.8 screens I've had on hand. Most have indicated they don't see this but it's there and I'm only concerned with I see which I've provided photographic evidence of.


__
Sensitive content, not recommended for those under 18
Show Content


----------



## airscapes

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Hughman* 
Nope, ruled that out ad nauseum The artifacts I'm referring to are due to the screen only. I'll try to locate the photos and repost.
looks like a dark texture on bright white scenes? Noticed that after about a year of use on mine the other night when I found a couple of bugs that had been trapped when I had the screen all the way open in the summer. I turned the White screen on in the menu to see what I was doing while cleaning the bugs. Also notice a line where the unexposed screen was pure white and the exposed area had that texture to it under bright white. Since yours is a Fixed frame I guess the idea of black form the backing when rolled is not what is causing this.. Maybe this is one of the reason they changed the type of surface and what the manager meant by "better quality control" ..


----------



## Almost60

Ok ... Thanks. Now I understand.









Fortunately, I was obliged to order the 2.4.

The 2.8 is finally finished.


----------



## Almost60

Quote:

Originally Posted by *airscapes* 
...I guess the idea of black form the backing when rolled is not what is causing this.. Maybe this is one of the reason they changed the type of surface and what the manager meant by "better quality control" ..


So in a flawless HP, there are no artifacts?


----------



## Hughman

Quote:

Originally Posted by *airscapes* 
looks like a dark texture on bright white scenes? Noticed that after about a year of use on mine the other night when I found a couple of bugs that had been trapped when I had the screen all the way open in the summer. I turned the White screen on in the menu to see what I was doing while cleaning the bugs. Also notice a line where the unexposed screen was pure white and the exposed area had that texture to it under bright white. Since yours is a Fixed frame I guess the idea of black form the backing when rolled is not what is causing this.. Maybe this is one of the reason they changed the type of surface and what the manager meant by "better quality control" ..
My two fixed screen were both cut from a model b roll-downs and as such I don't believe this issue can be correlated to the backing. I do perceive the issue getting worse as time progresses however so feel it's either an application problem a substrate issue or a combination of both. My initial knee jerk reaction (which is often incorrect) is the change to the 2.4 was precipitated by this and has been tentatively resolved.


----------



## airscapes

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Hughman* 
My two fixed screen were both cut from a model b roll-downs and as such I don't believe this issue can be correlated to the backing. I do perceive the issue getting worse as time progresses however so feel it's either an application problem a substrate issue or a combination of both. My initial knee jerk reaction (which is often incorrect) is the change to the 2.4 was precipitated by this and has been tentatively resolved.
Well I can tell you with 100% certainly the 2.4 is not manufactured the same as the 2.8. A microscope make the fact very apparent when comparing the 2 products. It is impossible to tell how the micro beads are applied to the 2.8 surface just looking at them, maybe I will break up the edge of my sample to see if I can tell. Just wondering if the adhesive or whatever is working it's way up the sides of the beads as they age. Was my description accurate as to what you are seeing?


----------



## Hughman

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Almost60* 
So in a flawless HP, there are no artifacts?
There's no such thing as a flawless HP but if you walk into a house and can't pick up on how the screws on the switch and outlet face plates are aligned then there's still hope for you.


----------



## Hughman

Quote:

Originally Posted by *airscapes* 
Well I can tell you with 100% certainly the 2.4 is not manufactured the same as the 2.8. A microscope make the fact very apparent when comparing the 2 products. It is impossible to tell how the micro beads are applied to the 2.8 surface just looking at them, maybe I will break up the edge of my sample to see if I can tell. Just wondering if the adhesive or whatever is working it's way up the sides of the beads as they age. Was my description accurate as to what you are seeing?
I remember viewing your photos and was a little perplexed by what was depicted. Your photos indicated the opposite to what I saw and photographed, the 2.4 showed less uniformity from which I presumed your photos were a little too micro and didn't pick up on the more perceivable macro application of the beads to the surface.


----------



## Almost60

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Hughman* 
There's no such thing as a flawless HP but if you walk into a house and can't pick up on how the screws on the switch and outlet face plates are aligned then there's still hope for you.








Sorry , i don't understand. My english sucks and Google translator does not always work well.


----------



## Hughman

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Almost60* 
Sorry , i don't understand. My english sucks and Google translator does not always work well.








It would appear, that for most, these obvious signs of dereliction are not an issue.


----------



## Almost60

Ok...









I hope that my electric 2.4 (Contour Electrol) has a certain duration.

I use it every day.


----------



## newfmp3

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Hughman*
I hope this isn't how you've evaluated and ultimately formed and reported your impressions of the two screens. Unless the camera is playing tricks and the whites on each side of the screen are similar levels then the 2.8 is on the left, 2.4 on the right, if the brightest whitest whites are at different levels then the 2.8 is on the right the 2.4 on the left. Without knowledge of the levels on each side of the screen or the angles the two samples reside from center (they are not equal) it's near impossible to say which is which. Apart from the physical exercise walking from one side of the screen to the other this is completely void of anything useful.


The 2.4 seems to be sucking the hind teet on these threads but imo, overall, it's a better material.
First off, the video was for fun, that's it. Relax. It was't a scientific experiment with exact and precise measurements (nothing here ever is) but the samples were inline with each other. I do indeed put the samples in various positions to take a look at them, and there's nothing wrong with that.


As for you liking the 2.4 better, interesting points, thanks. Without a full screen to stare at, I wouldn't see these things on samples.


----------



## Hughman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *newfmp3* /forum/post/19770512
> 
> 
> First off, the video was for fun, that's it. Relax. It was't a scientific experiment with exact and precise measurements (nothing here ever is) but the samples were inline with each other. I do indeed put the samples in various positions to take a look at them, and there's nothing wrong with that.
> 
> 
> As for you liking the 2.4 better, interesting points, thanks. Without a full screen to stare at, I wouldn't see these things on samples.



Sorry, it wasn't my intent to come off like that. I was probably more frustrated that I couldn't definitively tell which was which at a glance and blamed a non-controlled setup which would make the determination near impossible without measurements.


To audition screen samples taped to an existing screen, the samples should be bordered with a fairly wide black border which will help mitigate the perceptual anchoring effect and provide a truer reflection of it's attributes or failings.


You and I aren't too far apart geographically, if I ever get my theater re-finished once again we should plan a evening.


Hugh


----------



## newfmp3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughman* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, it wasn't my intent to come off like that. I was probably more frustrated that I couldn't definitively tell which was which at a glance and blamed a non-controlled setup which would make the determination near impossible without measurements.
> 
> 
> To audition screen samples taped to an existing screen, the samples should be bordered with a fairly wide black border which will help mitigate the perceptual anchoring effect and provide a truer reflection of it's attributes or failings.
> 
> 
> You and I aren't too far apart geographically, if I ever get my theater re-finished once again we should plan a evening.
> 
> 
> Hugh



It's all good buddie! Didn't realize another newf was on board. I agree with the black border, I usually have some large black bristle board lying around to do such test but thanks to the Xmas rush and limited time can not seem to locate any. I'd like to think that I have trained my eye to not stare at the screen in the background, but maybe the reality is more like I am just getting lazy! Truth is when you sample samples







like this your eyes can easily trick you. You might think one is brighter then the other when in fact its just the screen in the back is actually darker on one side vs the other. In theory , if it were true that both samples were indeed similar or exact, which they are not, then the screen in the back would actually have an issue with angles, hot spotting and create this odd illusion. In this case, the camera is doing something funky with the back screen. As I always say, screen shots are practically useless for home theater comparisons. This is why.


It's interesting you should bring up the paisley type effect in the high power actually. It does remind me of the tire track issue on some draper screens years back.I do see it with the sample when looking at it from inches away, but I do not see it with a pj shined on it. Maybe my eyes are getting old, but I can not see any pattern on either sample with pj shining on them. But my projector is getting dim, hence why I am replacing it. A better pj would surely show something like this more.


The reason I was told today for dalite replacing the 2.8 was to get a material with higher quality consistency and larger rolls, and easier to get larger screens without seams. Go figure.


Btw, I am on the west coast of NL


And the 2.8 sample was on the left!


----------



## timjuliani

I also just ordered a new HP Model C (106") that was delivered today. Previously had the 2.8 (92"), and requested it again this time in my December order, but they weren't able to fulfill it. So it goes. So now I convince myself that the 2.4 was better anyway, and luckily I no longer have the 2.8 to which to compare it...


Also, my projector has been ceiling mounted, so I didn't take full advantage of the 2.8 while I had it. With a new RS-40, I imagine it will look plenty bright.


----------



## Toe

Wow, I guess I really did get one of the last 2.8s










Just wanted to hop in and say that I am LOVING this screen so far for both 2d and 3d! I have never owned a perfect screen out of the 5 (Severtsen HC grey, Carada CCW and BW, Stewart ST130 G3 and now the HP 2.8)I have purchased including this HP, but overall, so far, this 2.8 HP definitely is the best and most impressive screen I have seen/owned.


I bought this screen with 3d in mind more than 2d, but the funny thing is I am actually a bit more impressed with it for 2d than 3d compared to my ST130. 3d is still a noticeable upgrade over the 130 dont get me wrong, but 2d just has so much more punch, impact and WOW factor now! It really is impressive!


Anyway, I am very happy so far and have only found a few extremely minor things I dont like which I find with every screen I have purchased







Overall though, this is my favorite screen yet for my setup.


----------



## gusx

I'm supposed to be getting mine tomorrow ... hopefully it is the 2.8 like I ordered.


----------



## GoCaboNow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/19772482
> 
> *I bought this screen with 3d in mind more than 2d, but the funny thing is I am actually a bit more impressed with it for 2d than 3d compared to my ST130*. 3d is still a noticeable upgrade over the 130 dont get me wrong, but 2d just has so much more punch, impact and WOW factor now! It really is impressive!
> 
> 
> Anyway, I am very happy so far and have only found a few extremely minor things I dont like which I find with every screen I have purchased
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overall though, this is my favorite screen yet for my setup.



Wow! That is quite a statement. Have had my 116" wide 2.8 for almost two years and it, and my AVR, are the only things I have not upgraded, or plan to upgrade, since then.







Glad it is working out for you.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GoCaboNow* /forum/post/19775720
> 
> 
> Wow! That is quite a statement. Have had my 116" wide 2.8 for almost two years and it, and my AVR, are the only things I have not upgraded, or plan to upgrade, since then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glad it is working out for you.




Not saying the HP is perfect as I have found slight imperfections in the material (very slight and its a non-issue IMO..........I have found imperfections in all 5 screens I have owned though and this HP is 2nd only to my ST130 as far as this particular thing goes...........Carada is the worst!) and in this way the ST130 is slightly better, but OVERALL this HP 2.8 is definitely the most impressive and best screen I have owned as of right now(assuming I dont find any major issues which I doubt I will) out of the 5 different screens I have owned.







My 2d collection feels like it has new life!


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/19779621
> 
> 
> My 2d collection feels like it has new life!



That is how I felt about Standard DVDs when I got a BP and saw what up conversion looked like! Glad you are happy with your new screen!


----------



## rana_kirti

can any long time owners of 2.4 share how it is faring as far as waves go... ?


----------



## rana_kirti




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/17898010
> 
> 
> Complex and varied? My glass beaded was random size placed everywhere, it was not complex and varied.
> 
> 
> I understand your a da-lite fan, i was to, the old highpower is still my favorite, but try looking at it from our perspective.
> 
> 
> Your missing the point that what we ordered and paid good money for was not what we received.
> 
> 
> Also I really dont get how the old fabric is still going to be used in fixed frame yet, if the new stuff is better.
> 
> 
> Also the fabric is quite a bit thinner and feels much more flimsy then the sample, not sure how the new stuff can be considered better. Doug confirmed this when he measured the thickness, but i can literally feel a large difference comparing my sample to the screen.
> 
> 
> People did complain about the viewing cone, but come on, not at the expense of this much brightness, i dont think when they had the viewing cone in mind, they wanted the gain dropped that much, and thinner rougher fabric.
> 
> *I also went with the old fabric because it was smooth and easier to clean, this is rougher, and reminds me of my glass beaded really, and if you clean it, it looks like it would wreck like my glass beaded. Which got wrecked when i tried to clean something off of it.*
> 
> 
> The old highpower sample did not wreck when i tried to clean the sample, it was smooth, sturdy, and cleaned well. A big reason i also chose the highpower and da-lite.



is it ok to clean the newer 2.4 screen ? or does it get wrecked ?


----------



## airscapes

It should be fine to clean. I use hydrogen peroxide followed up with denatured alcohol to clean bug marks off my 2.8 with good resulted. If I were you, I would call dalite for a sample so you can test it out. The 2.4 is not as smooth as the 2.8 but I could see (looking at it with a microscope) (see first post) no reason it would not clean. The micro beads are embedded in an emulsify and as long as you do not use something that lease residue behind or rub to hard and physically damage the surface it should be fine.


----------



## Fabricator

bugs ? how do you get bugs on it ?


----------



## airscapes

It is a portable and rolls .. pull downs and electrics have this issue.. bugs like bright light.. They can be on the back as well, and when you close the screen.. they are on the front! you would be surprised at how big a nat is when it is squished on your screen!


----------



## deimh

All


I have just stumbled into this issue manyu of you seem to have been struggling with for months - and I was hoping some of the more knowledgable of you could help me out.


I plan to buy one of the new JVC X3's that will be ceiling mounted (2.4m from the floor) about 5.5m back from the screen and 20cm off set to one side and the main viewing will be 4.5m from the screen.


I was planning on a 165cm x 295cm screen and was wondering whether the new 2.4 gain HP would be my best bet?


I have used the online gain calc tool and it seems that the gain across the screen is between 1.21 centre, 1.28 right and 1.22 left - which doesnt really make sense to me why the gain at the edges is higher than the centre so I am not sure I made a mistake!


Any help would be really appreciated!



BASIC SETUP (Change the green values as needed to fit your situation.)

What is the type of screen? Specify A for angular reflective or R for retro reflective. (Do not guess at this parameter--it makes a huge difference!) R

What is the manufacturer-published on-axis centerscreen gain of your screen? 2.40

What is the published maximum viewing angle (to one side in degrees off-axis)? 20

What is the centerscreen gain at the published maximum viewing angle? (Don't guess at this either. Consult manufacturer if necessary) 1.00

What is the minimum gain of your screen at large off-axis angles, e.g., 60 degrees? (OK, you may guess here, but make it


----------



## Fabricator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/19833355
> 
> 
> It is a portable and rolls .. pull downs and electrics have this issue.. bugs like bright light.. They can be on the back as well, and when you close the screen.. they are on the front! you would be surprised at how big a nat is when it is squished on your screen!



i guess i am lucky. my 2.8 119" manual has no such issues.

my issue is waves. but when a movie is on, they can't be seen, so its really not an issue.


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deimh* /forum/post/19835023
> 
> 
> All
> 
> 
> I have just stumbled into this issue manyu of you seem to have been struggling with for months - and I was hoping some of the more knowledgable of you could help me out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any help would be really appreciated!
> 
> 
> 
> How high above the room floor is the center of your projector's lens? *230*
> 
> 
> How high above the floor are the viewer's eyes when seated at the viewing position? *90*



Those 2 measurements are your problem, they need to be much closer to being the same number if you want to get any value from this screen. So the projector needs to come down or your head needs to come up..


----------



## deimh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/19835909
> 
> 
> Those 2 measurements are your problem, they need to be much closer to being the same number if you want to get any value from this screen. So the projector needs to come down or your head needs to come up..



Hi Doug


Firstly, many thanks for helping out a complete newbie - very much appreciated!


I'm afraid that its not possible to increase head-height or reduce the height of the projector and hence I'm trying to work out what the best screen is for this comprimise - ie whether to go with the new 2.4 gain HP material (retro-reflective), or just get a tensioned "normal" gain white screen (angular reflective)?


The next questions are whether its better to have the projector closer to the screen (say 4m) which makes the angle from projector-screen-viewing position larger, but the lamp brighter (I assume). Or have the projector further back (say 6.5m) which makes the angle from projector-screen-viewing position smaller (better for retro reflective), but the lamp less bright (I assume)?


The final question is whether I can / should go for such a big screen, say 3m wide - or whether this would make the image too dim / be uncomfortale to view from a position 4.5m back?


I have now read all threads related to this on this and AVForums sites, but I still dont know - perhaps I'm just a bit thick










As you can see I'm quite confused










Please please help!!!


Thanks

Dave


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deimh* /forum/post/19837821
> 
> 
> Hi Doug
> 
> 
> Firstly, many thanks for helping out a complete newbie - very much appreciated!
> 
> 
> I'm afraid that its not possible to increase head-height or reduce the height of the projector and hence I'm trying to work out what the best screen is for this comprimise - ie whether to go with the new 2.4 gain HP material (retro-reflective), or just get a tensioned "normal" gain white screen (angular reflective)?
> 
> 
> The next questions are whether its better to have the projector closer to the screen (say 4m) which makes the angle from projector-screen-viewing position larger, but the lamp brighter (I assume). Or have the projector further back (say 6.5m) which makes the angle from projector-screen-viewing position smaller (better for retro reflective), but the lamp less bright (I assume)?
> 
> 
> The final question is whether I can / should go for such a big screen, say 3m wide - or whether this would make the image too dim / be uncomfortale to view from a position 4.5m back?
> 
> 
> I have now read all threads related to this on this and AVForums sites, but I still dont know - perhaps I'm just a bit thick
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see I'm quite confused
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please please help!!!
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Dave



Taking a look at the projector central calculator, with that projector and a 133" diag screen you would be at 19fl with a 1 gain screen with a fresh lamp which is not a lot of head room once the lamp ages.
http://www.projectorcentral.com/JVC-...ulator-pro.htm 

Smaller will be brighter, but size is a personal preference. You would be better off waiting to get the screen after you have the projector. Use it on a white wall or sheet to figure out what size is comfortable for you from your seating distance.


If the projector can not be placed closer to eye level with and extension pole I would think you will be better off with some other screen technology.


Price wise the HP is probably less expensive than a tensioned screen and you will always have the options of lowering the projector at a later time. If your choice is matte white 1.1 tensioned and HP 2.4, I would got with the least expensive option since your image will be about the same on both. The HP is not tensioned and will get waves over time. These will be less noticeable than if it were a matte white screen.


So in a nut shell, you are outside the required parameters for any benefit of the HP, you will run the risk of waves if it is not a fixed frame vrs the tensioned screen. However, you do have the option of making your image brighter in the future by moving your projector. Most folks put the projector in the middle or towards the close to the screen end of the throw but room layout can play into that as well.


----------



## rana_kirti

excellent answer airscapes.... !!!


which screen would be 2nd best for deimh after the 2.4 ? how about video spectra ?


----------



## deimh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/19837880
> 
> 
> Taking a look at the projector central calculator



Doug


This is great - many thanks for the link!


Do you have a feel of how much I would need to lower the projector to get any impact from the HP?


I actually used the screen gain tool on this forum to calculate the gain with the HP and got the following results:


Not sure if I messed up though.


Dave




BASIC SETUP (Change the green values as needed to fit your situation.)

What is the type of screen? Specify A for angular reflective or R for retro reflective. (Do not guess at this parameter--it makes a huge difference!) R

What is the manufacturer-published on-axis centerscreen gain of your screen? 2.40

What is the published maximum viewing angle (to one side in degrees off-axis)? 20

What is the centerscreen gain at the published maximum viewing angle? (Don't guess at this either. Consult manufacturer if necessary) 1.00

What is the minimum gain of your screen at large off-axis angles, e.g., 60 degrees? (OK, you may guess here, but make it


----------



## rana_kirti

i had a queston... the screen gain calculator is by default set for 2.8


if we had to change it for 2.4 what else do we have to change from default values other than 2.8 to 2.4 ?


Thanks


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *airscapes* /forum/post/19837880
> 
> 
> The HP is not tensioned and will get waves over time. *These will be less noticeable than if it were a matte white screen*.



I wonder if the highlighted claim is justified? Brightness of a point on a matte white screen should not be sensitive to either angle of incidence or viewing angle (within a scale caused by waves). Also, at large error angles the HP acts pretty much like a matte white screen, anyway.


For some time I've been of the opinion that noticeable waves were associated mainly with angular reflective gain screens, which are very sensitive to angle of incidence and viewing angle. Is my opinion misinformed? I'm curious as to what others think about this.


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rana_kirti* /forum/post/19838090
> 
> 
> i had a queston... the screen gain calculator is by default set for 2.8
> 
> 
> if we had to change it for 2.4 what else do we have to change from default values other than 2.8 to 2.4 ?
> 
> 
> Thanks



Please see the lower section of post #2 in the Screen Gain Calc thread.


----------



## darinp2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/19838229
> 
> 
> I wonder if the highlighted claim is justified? Brightness of a point on a matte white screen should not be sensitive to either angle of incidence or viewing angle (within a scale caused by waves).



Maybe those screens aren't as lambertian as they would need to be, or maybe there is something else going on, but in my experience a Da-Lite Matte White screen showed much worse waves than the HP.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/19838229
> 
> 
> Also, at large error angles the HP acts pretty much like a matte white screen, anyway.



But the angle that is relevant to the gain math isn't the big angle from the wave on the screen, it is still the difference between the line from the projector to the point on the screen and the viewer's eyes to the point on the screen. That angle should basically not change any more than a very small amount. The screen itself likely has slightly different gain when turned far enough, but doesn't seem to be much of an issue with normal waves.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/19838229
> 
> 
> For some time I've been of the opinion that noticeable waves were associated mainly with angular reflective gain screens, which are very sensitive to angle of incidence and viewing angle. Is my opinion misinformed? I'm curious as to what others think about this.



I think you are right that those would be the worst. Consider the extreme angular-reflective case of a wavy mirror.


--Darin


----------



## DrMark

I have a 120" diagonal 16x9 2.8 gain high-power screen that I really like. I've been considering going to a CIH 120" wide 2.4:1 screen for a while now (with my room configuration, the current height of a 16x9 image is a little big, but the width of a 2.4:1 letter boxed on the screen is a little small. A 120" wide 2.4:1 would be perfect).


Anyway, I procrastinated and missed the 2.8 high-power availability. Today I entered all of the numbers for my room into FLBoy's excellent screen gain calculator and these are the results it gave me. Boy am I surprised!


Current 2.8 gain HP in my room:

Screen Left: 1.35

Screen Center: 1.39

Screen Right: 1.35


Proposed 2.4 gain (2.4:1) HP in my room:

Screen Left: 1.75

Screen Center: 1.80

Screen Right: 1.75


So, it looks like my procrastination may have paid off!


----------



## DrMark

Looking at the data provided by Da-Lite, there might not be as much of a difference between the two screens as the screen gain calculator predicted. I'm looking into it.


--Mark


----------



## DrMark

Deimh,


I noticed the following in your calculations:



> Quote:
> OPTIONAL SETUP (You may not need to change these values.)
> 
> How far is your projector offset to the right or left of your screen center? (Enter positive distance for right; negative distance for left.) 0
> 
> Want instead to calculate the gain of screen points above or below mid-screen height? Enter positive distance for above; negative distance for below.) 80



Why did you enter a distance of 80cm for the height offset? It appears that you are trying to measure the gain at the top center of the screen. Most people measure it at the center-center of the screen.


Also, the numbers you entered for the 2.4 gain screen are not correct (at least not according to this post by FLBoy (the spreadsheet's author): http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post12697268 ).


You should be using the following values for the high-power 2.4 gain screen:

ON-AXIS GAIN: 2.4

MAX VIEWING ANGLE (ONE SIDE): 30 DEGREES (AT ONE-HALF THE ON-AXIS GAIN)*

GAIN AT MAX VIEWING ANGLE: 1.2

MIN OFF AXIS GAIN: 0.9


I plugged your screen info into the spreadsheet using the corrected 2.4 gain high-power numbers above, and I get the following for your center of the screen (vertically) gain:

Left: 1.82 Center: 1.79 Right: 1.78


However, I have also found what I think *might* be an issue with the original spreadsheet for high-power material (I sent FLBoy a PM about it).


With a modified spreadsheet, I came up with the following gain for the 2.4 high-power for your room:


Left: 1.55 Center 1.52 Right: 1.51


In either case, this is a very nice gain.


----------



## newfmp3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DrMark* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I have a 120" diagonal 16x9 2.8 gain high-power screen that I really like. I've been considering going to a CIH 120" wide 2.4:1 screen for a while now (with my room configuration, the current height of a 16x9 image is a little big, but the width of a 2.4:1 letter boxed on the screen is a little small. A 120" wide 2.4:1 would be perfect).
> 
> 
> Anyway, I procrastinated and missed the 2.8 high-power availability. Today I entered all of the numbers for my room into FLBoy's excellent screen gain calculator and these are the results it gave me. Boy am I surprised!
> 
> 
> Current 2.8 gain HP in my room:
> 
> Screen Left: 1.35
> 
> Screen Center: 1.39
> 
> Screen Right: 1.35
> 
> 
> Proposed 2.4 gain (2.4:1) HP in my room:
> 
> Screen Left: 1.75
> 
> Screen Center: 1.80
> 
> Screen Right: 1.75
> 
> 
> So, it looks like my procrastination may have paid off!



See, I just do not know how much weight to put into this calculator. How accurate is it? Where did the calculations come from? Get a sample and test, its really the only sure way


----------



## DrMark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deimh* /forum/post/19837821
> 
> 
> 
> The final question is whether I can / should go for such a big screen, say 3m wide - or whether this would make the image too dim / be uncomfortable to view from a position 4.5m back?



Deimh,


There is a very nice room layout spreadsheet available here: http://carltonbale.com/home-theater/...ter-calculator 


You enter all of the info about your room and it tells you if you are too close or too far away from the screen for various viewing standards. I plugged in your info, and I found the following:


For this screen size, the THX standard recommends that you sit no further away than 454cm (right where you will be sitting).


The advertised brightness of the JVC X3 is 1300 Lumens. If you believe this number (I don't), then given the screen gain numbers I computed for you, you will have a screen brightness of 37.5 foot-Lamberts (128.5 cd/m^2). This is plenty bright.


The reason that I don't believe the advertised brightness of the projector is that you need to have it calibrated, and you might not want to run it at the maximum iris setting (stopping down the iris will improve the contrast ratio). I found at least one post claiming to have measured the light output of the projector at 800 Lumens (calibrated to D65; high-lamp, wide iris). With this brightness, you would be at 23.1 foot-Lamberts (79.1 cd/m^2). Still plenty bright.


However, you bulb will probably lose half of its brightness as it ages: 400 Lumens (11.5 foot-Lamberts; 39.5 cd/m^2). This is just under the acceptable threshold for a fully darkened room.


Also, if you want to use this projector for 3-D, then you will have less than half of the effective brightness (because of the way shutter glasses work). So, you are more realistically looking at 11.5 foot-Lamberts with a brand new bulb, and 5 foot-Lamberts with a well loved bulb; way too dim).


My recommendation is that if you are buying this projector for 2-D viewing, you will be fine with the high-power 2.4 material. However, if you are buying it for 3-D viewing, you should consider going with a screen that has about half of the area (200cm X 112cm). Since we all want the big-screen look, you can adjust for the smaller screen by sitting closer. If you sit 300cm from the screen, it will appear to be the same size as it would have with the larger screen at a distance of 450cm. You might even be able to put in a second row of seats with this configuration.


--Mark


----------



## rana_kirti




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *newfmp3* /forum/post/19854027
> 
> 
> See, I just do not know how much weight to put into this calculator. *How accurate is it? Where did the calculations come from?* Get a sample and test, its really the only sure way





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DrMark* /forum/post/19854021
> 
> 
> Deimh,
> 
> 
> I noticed the following in your calculations:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you enter a distance of 80cm for the height offset? It appears that you are trying to measure the gain at the top center of the screen. Most people measure it at the center-center of the screen.
> 
> 
> Also, the numbers you entered for the 2.4 gain screen are not correct (at least not according to this post by FLBoy (the spreadsheet's author): http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post12697268 ).
> 
> 
> You should be using the following values for the high-power 2.4 gain screen:
> 
> ON-AXIS GAIN: 2.4
> 
> MAX VIEWING ANGLE (ONE SIDE): 30 DEGREES (AT ONE-HALF THE ON-AXIS GAIN)*
> 
> GAIN AT MAX VIEWING ANGLE: 1.2
> 
> MIN OFF AXIS GAIN: 0.9
> 
> 
> I plugged your screen info into the spreadsheet using the corrected 2.4 gain high-power numbers above, and I get the following for your center of the screen (vertically) gain:
> 
> Left: 1.82 Center: 1.79 Right: 1.78
> 
> 
> However, I have also found what I think *might* be an issue with the original spreadsheet for high-power material *(I sent FLBoy a PM about it)*.
> 
> 
> With a modified spreadsheet, I came up with the following gain for the 2.4 high-power for your room:
> 
> 
> Left: 1.55 Center 1.52 Right: 1.51
> 
> 
> In either case, this is a very nice gain.



Has the calculator be updated or is it going to be updated by FLBoy ? Do i need to re-download or change any preset values in it ?


Thanks


----------



## airscapes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *prkrshawn* /forum/post/19862119
> 
> 
> This is really amazing and more over I do believe that I will be rethinking getting an HP. As per my opinion it will be interesting to know the gain on the new HP. I am looking at a manual as well so if this change has to do with manual screens.



Not sure how much you read, but the old 2.8 is no longer available as of 2011, the new 2.4 is the only HP. There is still nothing else in the same price range that is anything like it. It does not fit everyone's needs but in the proper setup it is a great screen.


----------



## gusx

Looks like I got lucky and received one of the last 2.8 (ordered on DEC 29th and received Jan 7th). The picture is definately a huge jump in brightness compared to my old HCCV. I'm also impressed with the build quality of the Cinema Contour from Dalite.


My only regret is not getting the 133" instead of the 119"


----------



## newfmp3

Just got mine, 2.4 oh joy. It's a perm wall. I started tearing down my old frame and screen, mounted new frame, and started the snaps,,,,,holy crap. I got the four corners on and a few more then gave up for the night


----------



## DrMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by *DrMark* 
Looking at the data provided by Da-Lite, there might not be as much of a difference between the two screens as the screen gain calculator predicted. I'm looking into it.


--Mark
Hello everybody,


I was using the now well known All Screen Gain calculator developed by FLBoy, to compare the difference between a 2.4 gain Da-Lite High-Power screen and a 2.8 gain Da-Lite High-Power screen for my theater. It just happened that my viewing angles line up with measured points on the original gain graph published by Da-Lite (see attached). Unfortunately, the gains listed on the graph didnt match those predicted by the spreadsheet.


After exchanging PMs with FLBoy, I found that the problem came from his attempt to provide a spreadsheet that would work for literally any screen. However, as can be seen from the Da-Lite graph, the high-power material isnt just any screen. So, I decided to develop a customized version of the calculator that will work much more accurately for high-power screens.


I have attached my new spreadsheet to this message. You use it in much the same way as the previous calculator except that because this calculator is customized for high-power screens only, some of the previous inputs are now hard-coded into the spreadsheet.


The next posting will describe how I developed this new spreadsheet so that others can double check my work.


I want to again acknowledge FLBoys work on the original calculator. Without it, I never would have attempted to provide this version.


--Mark

 

High-Power Screen Gain Calc.zip 14.748046875k . file


----------



## DrMark

Hello everybody,


In this posting, I will describe how I implemented the new high-power screen gain calculator. I want to go into some technical detail here so that others can double-check my work.


I decided to protect and hide the formulas used in the spreadsheet simply to make it simpler for people to use. The spreadsheet does not use a password. To get access to the formulas, simply do the following:

Click on Review and then on Unprotect Sheet
Select rows 30-64 and right-click; select Unhide from the pop-up menu.

The vector calculation math is unchanged from the original all-screen gain calculator.


To better model the change in gain by angle for the high-power screen material, I decided to piece-wise curve fit the measured data. For the following discussion, see the High-Power curve fitting spreadsheet attached to this posting.


To accurately read the data from the Da-Lite graph, I saved a copy of the graph to my PC and opened it in Photoshop. I then turned on the ruler tool and set it up for millimeters. With this tool, I was able to read off the location of each sample point in the Y (gain) dimension. By measuring the location of the origin of the graph, I was able to easily compute how many millimeters in the Y (gain) dimension each data point is. Finally, I derived the gain/mm by measuring the full range of the graph (3.0 gain). Because the data points were measured at even multiples of 5 degrees (e.g., 5, 10, 15 degrees), the X axis values were trivial to determine.


You can see the measurements I took at the top of the spreadsheet.


As a double check of my math, I plotted these points in Excel. This is the first plot in the spreadsheet. You can easily see that the shape of the lines corresponds to the original plot.


I then analyzed each material (2.4 gain and 2.8 gain) separately. By using Excels curve fitting tool, I was able to curve fit polynomials to sections of the measured graph. In the case of the 2.4 gain material, I fit three segments, and in the case of the 2.8 gain material, I only needed to fit two segments. This is shown in the next two graphs.


In order to make sure that the curves are well behaved at the ends of each segment, I fit additional points on both sides, and extended the fit lines so that they can be visually inspected. For example, in the high-power screen gain calculator, I use one curve for the range 0-10 degrees for the 2.4 gain material. In order to make sure that the curve is well behaved at 0 and 10 degrees, I fit the curve from 0-15 degrees, and plotted this fit curve from -5 degrees to 20 degrees. You can see that the R^2 for 0-10 degrees is 1.0 (this is not a surprise, as you can fit any four points perfectly to third degree polynomial.) What is important is that the shape of the red curve looks right beyond the region for which it is being used (0-10 degrees).


For the 2.4 gain material, I used three polynomials (shown on the graph), the first for the range 0


----------



## rana_kirti

so is Flboy's calculator flawed and all the measurements we've been getting till now been wrong all along...?


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DrMark* /forum/post/19889242
> 
> 
> Hello everybody,
> 
> 
> I was using the now well known “All Screen Gain” calculator developed by FLBoy, to compare the difference between a 2.4 gain Da-Lite High-Power screen and a 2.8 gain Da-Lite High-Power screen for my theater. It just happened that my viewing angles line up with measured points on the original gain graph published by Da-Lite (see attached). Unfortunately, the gains listed on the graph didn’t match those predicted by the spreadsheet.
> 
> 
> After exchanging PMs with FLBoy, I found that the problem came from his attempt to provide a spreadsheet that would work for literally any screen. However, as can be seen from the Da-Lite graph, the high-power material isn’t just any screen. So, I decided to develop a customized version of the calculator that will work much more accurately for high-power screens.
> 
> 
> I have attached my new spreadsheet to this message. You use it in much the same way as the previous calculator except that because this calculator is customized for high-power screens only, some of the previous inputs are now hard-coded into the spreadsheet.
> 
> 
> The next posting will describe how I developed this new spreadsheet so that others can double check my work.
> 
> 
> I want to again acknowledge FLBoy’s work on the original calculator. Without it, I never would have attempted to provide this version.
> 
> 
> --Mark



How exactly do I open this? My CPU wont let me do it, but I am sure it is a user (me) error!


----------



## FLBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/19891131
> 
> 
> How exactly do I open this? My CPU wont let me do it, but I am sure it is a user (me) error!



It's a zipped (compressed) file. You need WinZip or some other compatible software to unzip it. (WinZip is a free download.)


----------



## FLBoy

@DrMark: Nice job, Mark! I haven't had a lot of time to play with your improved version specifically for the HP 2.4 and 2.8, but it looks good to me so far. The accuracy appears to be much better than that of the general purpose All Screen Gain Calculator, as one should expect for a calculator optimized for one (or in this case two) particular screen gain curves. I highly recommend that those considering the HP and desiring the best possible accuracy in gain estimation should download and use this new version generously provided by DrMark.


This does not mean that the original All Screen Gain Calculator is "flawed," as one poster has suggested. It does mean that a calculator designed for estimating the gains of lots of different kinds of screens will likely be less accurate than one that is optimized for one or two screens. By all means continue to use the original ASGC for non-HP screens to get a sense of how they will perform in your environment.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/19891549
> 
> 
> It's a zipped (compressed) file. You need WinZip or some other compatible software to unzip it. (WinZip is a free download.)




Thanks.


----------



## DrMark

In my opinion, the original All Screen Gain calculator is fine for what it does, which is allow you to compare several different screen materials to see what best fits your viewing situation. The problem with the high-power material is that it doesn't exactly act like other material when the viewing angle changes, so it is hard to have a one size fits all calculator that includes this material.


Since there is a lot of use of this calculator for trying to determine how the high-power screen will work in individual viewing environments, I decided to spend some time trying to come up with a more precise version. Also, since there is a lot of discussion about 2.4 vs 2.8 material, I thought it would be nice to allow people to compare these two materials in the same calculator. Admittedly, it would have been of more use to everybody if I had done this a year ago, but I wasn't all that tuned into the discussion back then.


Everybody should realize that the calculator is only as good as the data I pulled off of the Da-Lite gain chart I attached. Although I do have a 2.8 gain high-power, I do not have accurate enough measuring equipment to be able to collect my own data(*). If somebody can independently confirm the measurements, it would be a good double check.


In reality, you are not going to notice the difference between a 1.2 and a 1.3 gain screen unless you see them side by side, so I wouldn't put too much stock in the last couple decimal points of precision. I think the real use of the calculator is for somebody to see if they use this material with their setup, will the gain for their seating positions be higher, the same, or lower than other material they are considering. This is particularly important with 3D setups because the nature of 3D *really* sucks away the light and you need all of the gain you can get.


The high-power material isn't "magic" in that it doesn't amplify light or anything; it just concentrates the reflected light in a smaller area. This makes the screen look brighter in some places and darker in others. The calculator lets you determine if you will be sitting in a brighter area or a darker area.


For what it is worth, I really like my high-power screen. When watching a movie, I can stand up from my prime seat and not really notice much of a change in brightness at all even though the gain changes considerably from the seated position to the standing position. This is because the human eye is really good at adapting to changing illumination levels. I'm just saying this to try to put to rest some of the concerns that if you have a high-power screen, you will see all kinds of changes in brightness just by moving your head around; you won't. The only point I'm trying to make is that the high-power is great for some setups and not as good as other material for other setups. Hopefully the new version of the calculator will help some people figure out if they are one of the people who can make use of it.


I hope the new version helps some people out.


(*) I do have a 2.8 screen, an i1D2 and an i1Pro. I suppose I could take some measurements to see how well they align. The problem would be getting the angles right.


--Mark


----------



## DrMark

I just realized that the version of the calculator I posted is in Excel 2007 format, and some people may have older versions of Excel. Since I don't think I made use of any of the newer Excel features, I'll see if I can convert it to an older format that more people can use.


--Mark


----------



## newfmp3

now that I got my 2.4 screen, of course I stuck the 2.8 sample near it (not on it) to compare - it's interesting to say the least.


The 2.8 is pretty much brighter with my setup at every seat in the room. Now, saying that. My room is 19' long, 12.3' wide. I have two couches that seat 3 people each. second couch is on a 6" riser. 7.5' ceilings. Ceiling mounted Projector with 20" drop. 54x96 screen @ 110". Giving details as each room should be different.


There is a better viewing angle with the 2.4. BUT, I need to be up close to screen, like 5' from it, and to the side of it, and at that point, the 2.4 is clearly brighter. But I'll never sit there.


The 2.4 doesn't really have a sheen or paisley look to it in bright scenes with normal watching. But if I take a flashlight, lamp etc and observe from inches away, there is a noticeable reflective type pattern to it, almost like marks from rollers. Again, it's something you can't see unless inches away from it. I can however see a paisley type effect in bright scenes with my 2.8 sample. Barely.


Coming from an Angular screen. The M2500 with a +2 gain. I am surprised at the amount of light the 2.4 catches from other sources in the room. Windows, I have night lights near the floor, if I keep my pot lights low etc, you can clearly see the screen effected by it. It's got kind of a cool glow effect when not using the screen though as it just sits there picking up lights in the house.


My M2500, old version was clearly better at black levels. It's a no contest, painfully obvious scenario. I am now curious to see the new m2500 on it and will try it later on.


Now the good. Just talking about the 2.4 now. I see no hot spotting, no real color shifting as I walk around room. There is a slight brightness shift as you get to the sweet spot, but honestly only "we" would notice. Average users are just going to sit down and say whoa! regardless of where they sit. Its actually quite amazing how even the gain is across the screen. After looking at the samples you would think there would be a larger more noticeable difference but there isn't. Blacks are a touch, and I mean very minor touch better then the 2.8 that I can see.


For a long and narrow room like mine, I still say the 2.8 is better. In fact, I think I was happier with the old m2500 despite it's minor flaws over the 2.4. Too bad you can't get either anymore. I have already contacted Da-Lite with my "opinion" on the 2.4. It should have been a seperate product, not a replacement.


For a Wide room, the 2.4 may work out better for you.


----------



## rana_kirti




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rana_kirti* /forum/post/19891005
> 
> 
> so is Flboy's calculator flawed and all the measurements we've been getting till now been wrong all along...?





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FLBoy* /forum/post/19891818
> 
> 
> @DrMark: Nice job, Mark! I haven't had a lot of time to play with your improved version specifically for the HP 2.4 and 2.8, but it looks good to me so far. The accuracy appears to be much better than that of the general purpose All Screen Gain Calculator, as one should expect for a calculator optimized for one (or in this case two) particular screen gain curves. I highly recommend that those considering the HP and desiring the best possible accuracy in gain estimation should download and use this new version generously provided by DrMark.
> 
> 
> This does not mean that the original All Screen Gain Calculator is "flawed," as one poster has suggested. It does mean that a calculator designed for estimating the gains of lots of different kinds of screens will likely be less accurate than one that is optimized for one or two screens. By all means continue to use the original ASGC for non-HP screens to get a sense of how they will perform in your environment.




i guess flawed was a wrong choice of word on my part.... so my apologies there to FLboy.... I'm grateful for the All Screen Gain Calculator that you came up with and so are many others here....


----------



## Toe

I ended up getting a sample of the 2.4 since I was curious how it would do in my room/setup vs the 2.8 I have now. According to the old calculator, the 2.4 should have given me better brightness at the extreme left and extreme right seats of my couch compared to the 2.8, but after throwing the 12" x 12" 2.4 sample up 6" in front of my 2.8 (so the 2.4 was actually getting more brightness from the projector slightly vs the 2.8) the results showed otherwise. The 2.8 was still brighter in every seat on my couch and I had to stick my head way off the end of the couch (where nobody would ever sit) to get both screens to match up in brightness. So, the old calculator is definitely a bit off as far as trying to compare the old/new material with brightness.


The other thing that I noticed right off the bat is how much thinner and more flimsy the new 2.4 material is. The 2.8 has a thicker and more sturdy quality to it that is obvious when holding both.


Having said all that, the 2.4 still seemed like a great screen and the brightness difference was not huge (but again, it was noticeable).


I guess my question though is why in the world did DaLite get rid of the 2.8????







From my tests, you would really need a wide seating area to get ANY advantage out of the 2.4 (like I said, I had to stick my head way off the side of the couch just to get them to match) and even then, it would only have the slight advantage in these FAR off to the side seats........all the seats closer to center will still be brighter with the 2.8. Bummer the 2.8 is no longer available


----------



## R Harkness

Excellent reports on the new HP material guys!


Toe,


What I would be interested in is not so much whether the 2.8 version remains brighter overall from various angles, but _whether the 2.4 changes brightness_ less obviously from on and off-axis viewing angles. Could you comment on that? Thanks.


----------



## Toe

Quote:

Originally Posted by *R Harkness* 
Excellent reports on the new HP material guys!


Toe,


What I would be interested in is not so much whether the 2.8 version remains brighter overall from various angles, but _whether the 2.4 changes brightness_ less obviously from on and off-axis viewing angles. Could you comment on that? Thanks.


It was kind of hard to tell, but I would have to say that the 2.4 would be better in this way simply from the fact that I could get the 2.4 to be a bit brighter when leaning my head WAY off the end of my couch............considering the 2.4 starts dimmer (and is still dimmer in my end couch seats) and then gets slightly brighter near the boundary width of my room, I think its safe to say the brightness change is more subtle/gradual. Considering your findings with the 2.8, this 2.4 might be the ticket for your setup if you were wanting to roll the dice moving away from the ST130 (which is hard to do since that is such a great screen!). I would suggest ordering a 12"x12" sample and checking it out for yourself so you can see what I am talking about.


One thing I would like to reiterate though is that the 2.4 sample was ~1' closer (I thought it was ~6", but its more like 1' after I messed with this sample again yesterday for a bit) to my projector vs the 2.8 sample which actually gave the 2.4 a slight advantage as far as lumens it was getting from my RS40. Even with this advantage, the 2.8 was still brighter in every seat on my couch (again though, not a night/day difference by any means, but noticeable). Chances are, if I put the 2.4 at the exact same distance as the 2.8, I would probably run into my wall before I could get the 2.4 to be even *slightly* brighter than the 2.8, and even then, it might only match the 2.8 at that point.


----------



## R Harkness

Thanks Toe. Maybe I'll get a sample.


I had what was close to a neutral gain screen and the HP. The HP was obviously brighter from my center seats, but from my side seats the neutral gain was obviously brighter.


----------



## Toe

Quote:

Originally Posted by *R Harkness* 
Thanks Toe. Maybe I'll get a sample.


I had what was close to a neutral gain screen and the HP. The HP was obviously brighter from my center seats, but from my side seats the neutral gain was obviously brighter.
I dont doubt it........I can get my ST130 sample and HP to match up in brightness if I stand next to the side wall in my room.........If I had just a little more width, it would not even be as bright at the 130. I would be curious how the 2.4 does in your room since it definitely seems to not lose as much brightness at the extreme sides of my room vs the 2.8.


----------



## millerwill

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Toe* 
I dont doubt it........I can get my ST130 sample and HP to match up in brightness if I stand next to the side wall in my room.........If I had just a little more width, it would not even be as bright at the 130. I would be curious how the 2.4 does in your room since it definitely seems to not lose as much brightness at the extreme sides of my room vs the 2.8.
This is of course one attractive feature of the 2.8 HP: it doesn't light up the side walls (and ceiling, if the pj is mounted low) as much as other screens, thus helping to minimize light reflected from these surfaces.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerwill* /forum/post/19931661
> 
> 
> This is of course one attractive feature of the 2.8 HP: it doesn't light up the side walls (and ceiling, if the pj is mounted low) as much as other screens, thus helping to minimize light reflected from these surfaces.



I agree Millerwill and this is another thing I LOVE about this 2.8 vs my ST130 screen. When you combine the MUCH brighter 2.8 image and the fact that my room is not lighting up as much at the same time vs the 130, the end result is spectacular







The room disappears better now than it did with my 130 which is amazing considering how much brighter the image is. For my particular setup the 2.8 is pretty ideal and I would not want the wider viewing angle of the 2.4 since I could not use it anyway (with my narrow viewing area) and all it would do is light my room up slightly more.


Having said that, I can certainly see certain room/setups where the 2.4 would be a better choice overall. Rooms where there is a wider viewing area I would think the 2.4 might be a better overall choice assuming you regularly have people sitting in those further off seats.


I do think DaLite should offer both screens though since they definitely have differences compared to one another and one might be better than the other depending on the room/situation.


----------

