Return to the CurtPalme.com main site CurtPalme.com Home Theater Forum
A forum with a sense of fun and community for Home Theater enthusiasts!
Products for Sale ] [ FAQ: Hooking it all up ] [ CRT Primer/FAQ ] [ Best/Worst CRT Projectors List ] [ Setup Tips & Manuals ] [ Advanced Procedures ] [ Newsletters ]

 
Forum FAQForum FAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Photo AlbumsPhoto Albums  RegisterRegister 
 MembershipClub Membership   ProfileProfile   Private MessagesPrivate Messages   Log inLog in 
Blu-ray disc release list and must-have titles. Buy the latest and best Blu-ray titles to show off in your home theater!

Help Me Buy My Seymour AV Screen
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic   Printer-friendly view    CurtPalme.com Forum Index -> Screens
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
greg_mitch



Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 5321



PostLink    Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2010 10:44 pm    Post subject: Help Me Buy My Seymour AV Screen Reply with quote


        Register to remove this ad. It's free!
I am going accoustically transparent and have decided on the SeymourAV DIY material. I have seen the test sample and it has the same gain (apparent) as my BOC screen so I should be good to go on that aspect.

I haven't been up on screen technology as I have a grand total of $60 total in my current screen investment. I sent an email to Chris as SeymourAV and asked about the 15deg tilt and upgrading to an LCD projector in the future (within 5 years, etc.). Here is his response:

Quote:
Hi Greg -

For the CRT you don't need any tilt, but since you're wanting future flexibility with digital projectors and being able to zoom around to size, I'd recommend a tilted cut to make sure it will work perfectly.
It's what we do for our fixed frame screens and have a 0% return rate thus far.

Also, since you're sitting quite close to the screen, tilting it will reduce the apparent texture. We have only one "material", but of the two sizes you'll likely need the 98" to get a 15 degree tilt or whatever you or I can fit from the bulk piece. We offer both shipping the bulk, or can precision cut it to size and tilted angle for a $35 adder.

Cheers,
Chris


So it appears that he is recommedning going with the 15deg tilt. I am not sure the maximum screen size I can get with the 98" wide material (could do the math but too tired right now).

I was thinking of getting the largest height and width I could get in my opening (14' Wide approx) and then just mask off what I don't use with leftover Dazian Expo cloth. Thoughts?
Back to top
ecrabb
Forum Moderator


Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah

TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010


PostLink    Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You could do that, Greg but you'd couldn't use the rotated weave, then... The 98" roll is only going to yield you a ~10'-wide 16:9 piece, or just over 12'-wide scope piece - not including material for wrapping a frame.

There. Decision made. You're doing a slightly-less-twelve-feet-wide scope screen. Wink

Seriously - I think everybody is stuck at around 12' wide (scope) with the 15-deg rotation - which is fine, because unless you're spending big bucks on a projector, you won't want to go bigger than that anyway.

SC
Back to top
View user's photo album (10 photos)
greg_mitch



Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 5321



PostLink    Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 2:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ecrabb wrote:
You could do that, Greg but you'd couldn't use the rotated weave, then... The 98" roll is only going to yield you a ~10'-wide 16:9 piece, or just over 12'-wide scope piece - not including material for wrapping a frame.

There. Decision made. You're doing a slightly-less-twelve-feet-wide scope screen. Wink

Seriously - I think everybody is stuck at around 12' wide (scope) with the 15-deg rotation - which is fine, because unless you're spending big bucks on a projector, you won't want to go bigger than that anyway.

SC


Does a 141" x 60" scope screen (with accommodations for 106.7" x 60" 16x9 screen) sound good? It looks like I will need to mount the Panasonic at 16' in order to accomplish both screen sizes within the zoom range. And that is quite a bit farther back than the XG is currently so it may also mean new cables for the added length (can't remember if I bought 50 footers or 25 footers).



Now this is likely waaay larger than I need but I am rationalizing just buying the extra material now and then toying with it once installed.

Maybe I am missing something.


Last edited by greg_mitch on Mon Apr 19, 2010 4:17 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
ecrabb
Forum Moderator


Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah

TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010


PostLink    Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sounds good to me, Greg!

What's your viewing angle at those two screen widths?

SC
Back to top
View user's photo album (10 photos)
greg_mitch



Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 5321



PostLink    Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 4:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ecrabb wrote:
Sounds good to me, Greg!

What's your viewing angle at those two screen widths?

SC


What exactly are you asking? I must be having a brain fart here.

I was concerned about light output for such a large screen but the panasonic calculators say that I will get the following illumination on screen:

2.35 - 222 lux or 20 ft*c
http://www.panasonic.net/avc/projector/calc/html/aspct169/ae4000_235.html

16x9 - 387 lux or 36 ft*c
http://www.panasonic.net/avc/projector/calc/html/aspct169/ae4000.html

I'm sure those are a bit off for real world. I have no real grasp of light levels in ft*c or lux (or really any measurement).

Do those light levels sound reasonable?
Back to top
garyfritz



Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 11084
Location: Fort Collins, CO


PostLink    Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 2:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The AE4000 has a native AR of 16:9 (1920:1080) and a stated (uncalibrated) light output of 1600 ANSI lumens. Yow, that's about 6x more ANSI lumens than most CRTs. I doubt brightness will be a problem, even after calibration.

16:9 ftL = lumens / sq-ft = 1600 / 44.46 = 36 ftL. That's comparable to a direct-view CRT, if I remember right. You could probably watch it in a fully-lit room, though obviously your black levels would suffer. That figure assumes you use the entire 1920:1080 panel.

If you have an anamorphic lens and use the entire 1920:1080 panel for 2.35:1, the lumen output is the same and the screen area is 58.75 sq ft, resulting in 27.23 ftL. Still plenty bright.

If you DON'T use the full panel, you get less light output because of all the black pixels. E.g. if you letterbox the 2.35:1 image to 1920:817, you're using about 25% fewer pixels so you get 25% less light output. Then if you pillarbox 16:9 within that 1920:817 area, resulting in 1452:817, you're using about 25% less pixels than the letterboxed area, so your 16:9 light output is 0.75 * 0.75 = 56% as much as the 36 ftL above.

56% of 36 ftL is still 20.25 ftL. Even if you lose another 25% to calibration, you're still at 15 ftL, which is still better than most CRTs.

However you also lose resolution when you letterbox/pillarbox the image. That, and increased brightness, is why people use anamorphs.
Back to top
ecrabb
Forum Moderator


Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah

TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010


PostLink    Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 4:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gary... First of all, the AE4000 has a zoom lens... You get full panel resolution on both 16:9 material AND scope material. You do lose a chunk of the brightness in scope mode, but there is no resolution loss or scaling either way. Even with an anamorph lens, you have scaling and some light loss, so it's actually a great (and very inexpensive) alternative to a lens.

Next, your brightness numbers are right on paper but they're way off reality. Calibrated brightness on these digitals is WAY below the spec sheet brightness, and the AE4000 is no exception. In the main mode people run this machine to actually watch movies on it, calibrated light output is down in the 500 lumens ballpark!!!

Then, consider that while the Seymour and SMX materials are spec'd a 1.2 gain material, they're supposedly closer to unity gain. So...

16:9
44.5 sqft / 500 lumens = 11.2 ftL

2.40
58.75 sqft / 500 lumens (*.75 for using center 3/4 of panel) = 6.4 ftL

Ouch. This whole time I was thinking of 10'-wide screen for the AE4000, not a 12'-wide screen. Sorry, Greg! Once you run the numbers, you can see the 16:9 pic would look great, but the scope screen would be on the dim side. That's why people are staying at a more sensible 10' wide scope screen with these lower-end machines... a 120x50 screen should give you about 9 ftL. I've seen that, and it's very nice. In reality, it's probably what a lot of us are watching in our theaters most of the time with real source material as opposed to a 20% 100 IRE window.

SC
Back to top
View user's photo album (10 photos)
ecrabb
Forum Moderator


Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah

TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010


PostLink    Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 4:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Greg... I was asking about viewing angle to try to get a sense for the size of your screen in your field of view from your seating position. Screen size is meaningless without knowing how close to it or how far from it you sit.

So, for instance, in my theater, my eyeballs are about 10' from my 8'-wide screen, so my viewing angle is about 43-degrees. That's about is big of a viewing angle as most people around here have. I really like the immersion - very much. I love that viewing angle. I couldn't go back to something a lot smaller. If I get a bigger room with a longer viewing distance, I'll have to go much bigger.

Anyway, let's talk about your seating distance and viewing angles and see what you really need in terms of screen size.

SC
Back to top
View user's photo album (10 photos)
garyfritz



Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 11084
Location: Fort Collins, CO


PostLink    Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 4:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ecrabb wrote:
Gary... First of all, the AE4000 has a zoom lens... You get full panel resolution on both 16:9 material AND scope material.

?? How could you get full resolution on two different ARs without an anamorph!? The zoom lets you size the image, but the 2.35:1 image will still take up only about 75% of the panel. And unless you're going to re-zoom when you switch between 16:9 and 2.35:1, the 16:9 will be height-limited by (pillarboxed inside) the 2.35:1, no?

Quote:
Next, your brightness numbers are right on paper but they're way off reality. Calibrated brightness on these digitals is WAY below the spec sheet brightness, and the AE4000 is no exception. In the main mode people run this machine to actually watch movies on it, calibrated light output is down in the 500 lumens ballpark!!!

Yow. I knew calibration caused some lumen loss, but I had no idea they lost 2/3 of their advertised brightness.

So if we assume 66% lumen loss to calibration, my 27 ftL (full-panel 2.35:1) goes to 27 * .75 (letterbox loss) * .33 (calibration loss) = 6.7 ftL -- just about where you ended up. The 16:9 ftL depends on whether you use the full panel.

Quote:
So, for instance, in my theater, my eyeballs are about 10' from my 8'-wide screen, so my viewing angle is about 43-degrees.

Greg, you might have seen people describing this as the viewing-distance / screen-width ratio. SC's setup is 10'/8' = 1.25x. Most of us run in the 1.0x - 1.4x range. "Normal" people watch their "big screens" at something closer to 3x-4x -- e.g. watching a 50" LCD (43.6" wide) from 12' away would be 3.3x.
Back to top
ecrabb
Forum Moderator


Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah

TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010


PostLink    Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 5:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

garyfritz wrote:
? How could you get full resolution on two different ARs without an anamorph!? The zoom lets you size the image, but the 2.35:1 image will still take up only about 75% of the panel. And unless you're going to re-zoom when you switch between 16:9 and 2.35:1, the 16:9 will be height-limited by (pillarboxed inside) the 2.35:1, no?

Motorized zoom, baby. Yes, the scope image only uses 75% of the panel with the zoom, but the scope image only uses 75% of the frame in a 1080p Blu-ray. Scope is "letterboxed" on the Blu-ray... So, displaying it at native resolution on the panel with black bars is displaying the source 1:1 pixel mapped... which is ideal. That's the beauty of the zoom setup... It's cheap AND simple... You just have take some light loss in the process.

The trickery actually comes in when you use an anamorph lens in a constant-height setup... In that case, a processor has to take the 1920x800 scope source video, and crop and scale (interpolate) it vertically up to the 1080p panel... So things are tall/skinny... Then the expansion lens widens everything back out optically. So, along with the better brightness, you get both scaling artifacts AND optical artifacts like CA, soft corner focus, and a reduction in ANSI contrast (elevated blacks).

Pick your poison.

SC
Back to top
View user's photo album (10 photos)
garyfritz



Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 11084
Location: Fort Collins, CO


PostLink    Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I see what you're saying. Blu-Rays have a native 1920x1080 resolution, so matching that source resolution on the panel is the best solution even if it means only using part of the panel for scope images.

So that maps the full width of the panel to the full width of the screen, and the letterbox bars fall above/below the screen. (And you hope you don't have any subtitles in the black bars. Smile) Cool so far.

But since you're going for CIH, you have to zoom out to reduce the full 16:9 image height to the screen height.

I didn't realize anybody actually zoomed back & forth. I thought people just zoomed to fit their screen, then left it alone. Do the zooms have presets so it's easy to hit the two desired zoom points, or do you have to futz with it every time you switch?
Back to top
ecrabb
Forum Moderator


Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah

TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010


PostLink    Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 8:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

garyfritz wrote:
But since you're going for CIH, you have to zoom out to reduce the full 16:9 image height to the screen height.

Zoom in, actually - make the image smaller - but, yeah.

Most of the guys with manual zooms do just set it and leave it. But, the Pannys have a servo zoom with presets you can run right from the remote (and automate). Click... zoom out: wide... scope. Click... zoom in: long... 16:9. That's what so great about the Panny AE3000/4000. I have to say - the first time you see it, it's damn slick. A scope screen is magical to me - kinda like projection in the first place. Something about the screen working like it does in the theater, where scope is bigger and 1.85 is smaller - just like it should be.

As for the subtitle issue, that screws all the scope/CIH guys equally (regardless of method/projector). Then, there's changing AR's... You should have seen the gnashing of teeth over in the CIH forum with Dark Knight came out last year on BD with the 1:78 IMAX shots!!! There were some seriously bent out of shape people over that! I found it pretty hilarious, actually... That movie looked kick-ass on my setup! Wink

SC
Back to top
View user's photo album (10 photos)
MikeEby



Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 5236
Location: Osceola, Indiana


PostLink    Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 12:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ecrabb wrote:
As for the subtitle issue, that screws all the scope/CIH guys equally (regardless of method/projector). Then, there's changing AR's... You should have seen the gnashing of teeth over in the CIH forum with Dark Knight came out last year on BD with the 1:78 IMAX shots!!! There were some seriously bent out of shape people over that! I found it pretty hilarious, actually... That movie looked kick-ass on my setup! Wink

SC


I have a simple masking system and subtitles are a problem for me too. I haven't seen a Blu-ray that I have NOT been able to move the subs into the image area by ripping the movie to an MKV with my GUI and playing it with one of the free players available on an HTPC, it was actually a major driving force for writing the app. I understand the OPPO BDP-83 will also move the subtitles into the image area.

Dual aspect ratio Movies like the Dark Knight would still be a problem however a simple application running on the PC could blank out the unwanted image in the rare case like a movie that does AR shifting. The CIH guys were freaking out about 1 movie, it was pretty funny.


Mike

_________________
Doing HD since the last century!
Back to top
greg_mitch



Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 5321



PostLink    Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ecrabb wrote:
Greg... I was asking about viewing angle to try to get a sense for the size of your screen in your field of view from your seating position. Screen size is meaningless without knowing how close to it or how far from it you sit.

So, for instance, in my theater, my eyeballs are about 10' from my 8'-wide screen, so my viewing angle is about 43-degrees. That's about is big of a viewing angle as most people around here have. I really like the immersion - very much. I love that viewing angle. I couldn't go back to something a lot smaller. If I get a bigger room with a longer viewing distance, I'll have to go much bigger.

Anyway, let's talk about your seating distance and viewing angles and see what you really need in terms of screen size.

SC


My screen currently sits about 12'-6" from front row eyeballs. I had planned to bring the screen wall forward to accommodate the space for speakers without modifying any existing walls. This will put the screen to front row distance at about 8' or 9' approximately.

It is starting to seem like I don't really have a need to go any bigger than 10'-6" or 11' wide for scope. Just stay with a 54" or 56" tall screen.

Am I giving in too easy?
Back to top
garyfritz



Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 11084
Location: Fort Collins, CO


PostLink    Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh geeze. If you keep the screen-to-eyeball distance at 9', your 141" scope screen would be at 9*12 / 141 = 0.76x !!! Unless you like sitting in the front row of a commercial theater, I do NOT think you'd like that. That's a VERY wide viewing angle. Even your 16:9 screen would be 9*12 / 106.7 = 1.01x. That's pretty wide too -- I don't know of anybody here on the forum who's watching any closer than about 0.9-1.0x. Most are around 1.2x.

So your 16:9 would be about as wide as the widest screen I know of on the forum, and the scope screen would be considerably wider. And it would be even wider if you end up at 8'. I'd absolutely agree you don't "need" to go any bigger than say 11' -- that's still 9*12 / 11*12 = 0.81x. If it was me I'd probably go smaller than that. And you'll benefit from significantly higher light levels with the smaller screen.

I suggest you mark out a 141" wide area on your wall, move your chair up to the 8-9' area, and see what that screen size feels like. Or, even better, move your chair up to 0.76 times the width of your current screen and watch a few movies. I suspect you'll decide a smaller screen will be a lot more comfortable.
Back to top
ecrabb
Forum Moderator


Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah

TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010


PostLink    Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh, yeah - lordy, that would be huge.

In my room, I could actually stand a little wider scope picture, but my 16:9 image feels too big... In fact, my back-row viewing angles suck for any taller aspect ratios than scope.

If I were going to go to an AE4000 and a scope screen, I think I'd go a little wider, say 1.0x or 1.1x. That would be perfect, as my scope image would be bigger than it is now, but my 16:9 or 1.85 image would smaller that it is now. Perfect. Unfortunately, I'm out of horizontal width for an opaque screen, and I don't have the depth for an AT screen wall.

You've got room, though. If you gave up a little on crazy screen size, you'd still have an awesome viewing angle, but would have a much brighter, punchier picture.

If you went to a 10'-wide scope screen, that would give you .8-.9x viewing angle for scope (which is huge) AND 9+ ftL on your scope images. That's as big as I'd go, personally. A 10' screen is huge, dude. Yeah, your 16x9 images will be smaller than they are now, but your scope images will be HUGE compared to what they are now... 120x50 vs 96x40... That's 10 inches taller, and two FEET wider.

SC
Back to top
View user's photo album (10 photos)
greg_mitch



Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 5321



PostLink    Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 2:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very Happy
Now you see why I came here asking about it...this is huge!

I will undoubtedly be disappointed when my 16x9 material gets smaller since I won't be getting a new projector for quite some time...but now that I think of it...I didn't want to drop the projector and move it so since my raster is maxed out my image will HAVE TO shrink. Crying or Very sad

I guess since I am sitting closer to it it may seem larger since my seating distance to screen width will also be changing.

The whole intent is to "futureproof" this screen by buying the material now...since it seems like these DIY options don't stick around very long.

I am leaning toward purchasing 140 x 60 (plus what is required to mount it?) and then setting it up and masking it for the current CRT projector setup now (likely for 16x9 still). Then whenever I buy the new projector, I can revise my masking as required.

Savvy?
Back to top
ecrabb
Forum Moderator


Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah

TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010


PostLink    Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Go for it, Greg! Just don't be surprised if something isn't exactly right and you want to do something different in a year or two when you do switch projectors... You know how we are! Wink

On your whole 16:9 is smaller thing... Think about it. If the 16:9 screen size goes from 96"x54" to 89"x50", then yes - it will be physically smaller. But, like we said, what's important is the viewing angle. So, if your screen wall comes out a foot and pushes viewing distance from 10' to 9', then, you'll be going from about 1.25x SW to about 1.21x... Your new 16:9 screen image is actually going to be practically identical in your field of view! If you push the screen wall out to 18-24", it's going to appear bigger than it does now... Only, it will be brighter because you'll be lighting up a little less screen.

What screen material are you using now, BTW?

SC
Back to top
View user's photo album (10 photos)
greg_mitch



Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 5321



PostLink    Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ecrabb wrote:


What screen material are you using now, BTW?

SC


Blackout cloth for the last three years. Been fine...I ordered it from RoseBrand and it came with a stain on the roll...when I unrolled it the stain repeated itself every roll of the material...I have been living with it for 3 years so anything will be an improvement!

I like the brighter screen aspect as well if I end up losing any gain going AT.

I realize you can't futureproof anything...and I likely won't want the Panny 4000 when I do upgrade (it will be old news) but it would kill me to not at least think about it.

For $255 I don't think I can go too wrong!
Back to top
ecrabb
Forum Moderator


Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah

TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010


PostLink    Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

greg_mitch wrote:
For $255 I don't think I can go too wrong!

Agreed. And even if the gain on the Seymour material is only between unity and 1.1, it should be better than BOC. IIRC, BOC's gain is below unity, so you should get some more brightness from both the material and the smaller screen size.

SC
Back to top
View user's photo album (10 photos)
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic   Printer-friendly view    CurtPalme.com Forum Index -> Screens All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum