| Author |
Message |
draganm
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 8990
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark_A_W wrote: | | and samples held over a painted blockout cloth 4m wide screen with a G90. |
holding up a little swatch of fabric will tell you almost nothing.
| garyfritz wrote: | | I'm amazed you say adjustable masking makes such an enormous difference. Yes, I'm sure it's nice not to have the not-quite-dead-black bars above & below a scope film image, but is it really THAT huge a deal? |
Only if it's motorized and CIH 2.35:1. Then when you switch from 16:9 to 2.35 and the screen grows about 3 or 4 feet wider then yes, it's impressive. I imagine if it was masked the other way with CIW, and switching to a 2.35 movie actually made the screen shrink it would be rather anti-climactic.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jkruger
Joined: 24 Oct 2007
Posts: 2435
Location: Carlsbad, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
What does the screen masking size have to do with the quality of the reflected image from the screen material? Having an automatic masking system is a different type of wow factor that to (me at least) is unrelated to the actual image.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garyfritz
Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 12088
Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Masking doesn't affected the reflected 2.35:1 image at all, as far as I know -- just the visibility of the bars above/below the 2.35:1 image.
The "ooh ahh" factor of the *actual switch* from 16:9 to 2.35:1 is a total don't-care to me. I'm just interested in the viewing experience once the screen is masked.
With a properly blacked-out cave of a room, the top/bottom bars will still be visible, especially with an AC projector. Masking them would be better, no question. But I have no trouble ignoring them once the movie is going. Is it really THAT big a deal to black them out completely??
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark_A_W
Joined: 15 Mar 2006
Posts: 3068
Location: Sunny Melbourne Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It is far and away the biggest tweak you can make. The difference is ASTOUNDING.
You won't understand till you've tried it.
CRT's, even LC, have crappy ANSI contrast - they REALLY need adjustable masks.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark_A_W
Joined: 15 Mar 2006
Posts: 3068
Location: Sunny Melbourne Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, and I don't necessarily mean "automatic" - that's just a nice to have.
It is the masks themselves that make the image pop.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
draganm
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 8990
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark_A_W wrote: | Oh, and I don't necessarily mean "automatic" - that's just a nice to have.
It is the masks themselves that make the image pop. |
I can see where this could be true for a 2.35 movie on an unmasked screen. When I switched to a commercial screen with 4 inch velvet border it really helped the image by delineating it from the wall. A very dark wall is also key here
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garyfritz
Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 12088
Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 4:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
On my wall it's black sound panels to the left right & bottom, and dark purple above. I haven't looked closely but I doubt I can even see my black frame against the wall. The center speaker, right below the screen, is FAR more visible. I put some black grille cloth on it which helps -- it's matte black so it reflected badly off the screen -- but it's much more noticeable than the black bar areas.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
draganm
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 8990
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garyfritz wrote: | | On my wall it's black sound panels to the left right & bottom, and dark purple above. I haven't looked closely but I doubt I can even see my black frame against the wall. The center speaker, right below the screen, is FAR more visible. I put some black grille cloth on it which helps -- it's matte black so it reflected badly off the screen -- but it's much more noticeable than the black bar areas. |
your screen wall is done very well, I bet if you get a decent screen surface the projected image will just jump into the room. I have been very bad about actually upgrading my theatre for years now, always working on other people's stuff. However that Draper screen has really inspired me,and I've got the new Moome card coming and I'm going to mod my LVPS for noise too.
What I found is that a nice improvement to the theatre helps bring back some of that feeling you got when you first built the room, the excitement and satisfaction. So that's my pep-talk, now go down there and get busy 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garyfritz
Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 12088
Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Damn you Mark!! I just watched Star Wars VI last night, and *especially* in the space scenes, all I could see was the bars above & below the image area!!  
Guess it's time to get some Wilsonart **AND** some masking fabric.......
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MikeEby
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 5237
Location: Osceola, Indiana
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garyfritz wrote: | Damn you Mark!! I just watched Star Wars VI last night, and *especially* in the space scenes, all I could see was the bars above & below the image area!!
Guess it's time to get some Wilsonart **AND** some masking fabric....... |
Gary this a copy and paste from this thread you might have missed.
https://www.curtpalme.com/forum_archived/viewtopic.php@t=17642.html
Don't laugh....Here are a few picture of my primitive mask. Cost was about $50, built it just to see if I liked it…Now I can’t watch a scope movie without…The good part is it only takes about 30 seconds to put up or take down…Not as cool as an electric mask but it took longer to take the images and post this information than to build the mask.
The material I used was a cedar lap siding...It's light and fairly cheap and clear of bad knots, about $10 for a 10' long piece, this is what was left over.
This is back side with showing the velvet stapled to back side. The velvet was about $25
Attached to the screen frame with this 1" aluminum angle stock, cut and attached to the velvet wrapped cedar siding. I did counter sink the screws.
Here is the bracket attached to the screen frame...The pin at both ends are just finish nails with an oversized hole to remove and insert at one end. The pin (nail) at the other end is permanently attached… Just slide the mask off the pin at the opposite end then place the pin into the frame other end. The second hole in the bracket wasn't needed because the mask hangs fine with one pin at each end. I store the masks when not in use behind the drapes.
Mike
_________________
Doing HD since the last century!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garyfritz
Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 12088
Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Looks like that would work nicely. I was thinking of something even simpler: Just some black fabric with something rigid (narrow lath, something like that) sewn into a "loop" on the top & bottom. That way the mask is very light and easy to attach (especially to my not-terribly-strong frame) and easy to collapse to toss in a corner.
Or maybe use some rigid pink foam wrapped in fabric? Not sure how you'd attach the fabric or the hanging bracket to foam, though.
I have honestly never considered doing masking so I know almost nothing about it. I assume you mask to a 2.35:1 AR? With my 49" high screen area, 16:9 is 49" x 87". So I would mask to an 87" / 2.35 = 37" high image area? So each mask would have to be (49-37)/2 = 6" high, plus overlap on the frame. Huh. I thought they'd be wider than that.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
draganm
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 8990
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I would really want something on hinges and a Velcro "latch" to secure the mask in both up and down positions. the thought of adding/ removing something every time the AR changes sounds tedious
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MikeEby
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 5237
Location: Osceola, Indiana
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Absolutely...It was just a quick and dirty way to find out if I liked it.
Mike
_________________
Doing HD since the last century!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garyfritz
Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 12088
Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I couldn't / wouldn't want to have something rigid that swings up/down from the screen. My center speaker would be in the way, among other things. Now if I did the "rigid stuff sewn into fabric" approach, I could leave the fabric attached to the top/bottom and just attach it to the frame when needed. I think it'd look kind of cheesy when it wasn't in use, but...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AnalogRocks
Forum Moderator
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 26706
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
TV/Projector: Sony 1252Q, AMPRO 4000G
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| draganm wrote: | | I would really want something on hinges and a Velcro "latch" to secure the mask in both up and down positions. the thought of adding/ removing something every time the AR changes sounds tedious |
Well maybe if you're watching Batman.
_________________
Tech support for nothing
CRT.
HD done right!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spanky Ham
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 5643
Location: Comedy Central
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| draganm wrote: | | birdman wrote: | I could use a bit of gain but would like to do this with paint I can get localy.
Any suggestion?
Ernie |
honestly Ernie there is no piant out there that can compare to a proper screen. If your not running on a shoe-string and can you spare a few sheckles a pro screen is worth every penny. You will gain anywhere from 20 to 50% more light output,better color balance,and a sharper image. |
| draganm wrote: | | Mark_A_W wrote: | | I've seen Studiotek 130's a number of times, and I don't think my Gesso on Blockout Cloth screen is particularly lacking in comparison.It's not that big a difference, |
Well it's a matter of opinion. I don't nkow what you pianted your cloth with but I had the opprotunity to see the dim,gray picture of straight blackout cloth and It was pretty bad. The PJ was cranked up 20% over contrast default and putting out 20% less light off the screen.
I had a Goo painted screen too and it sucked. Behr Ultra white from home depot was OK,and the only thing I would consider if I was broke and couldn't buy a nice screen. |
I call BS. I have seen the 130 and it is nice, but I think a properly painted screen is more than comparable and can beat it. I am not sure how the Behr was applied, but if it was sprayed it should have looked pretty good and at least comparable to the other white screens on the market.
| picree wrote: | | MikeEby wrote: | What was that crack-pot guy's name on AVS that invented Screen Goo?....He was a character, I have no idea if the stuff is any good.
Mike |
His name was algol and the thread was "Mommy, Daddy's Painting the Screen... Again!". It's in the archives now. I wish people who haven't actually compared a properly done Gesso screen with a Stewart would quite saying how much a painted screen sucks. That is just plain false and misleading.
I used a modified algol formula using the iridescent mica flakes. I later got a great deal on a Stewart screen so I switched. In the process I put the Stewart screen on half the image in front of the Gesso. There was a VERY slight difference (mostly in color shift but NOT so much in gain). I would roughly estimate the gain was almost the same. And given the fact that the Stewart was around 1.3 I estimated the Gesso was also about 1.3.
Sure plain white paint is 1.0 but please, if someone is willing to mix up $60 in Gesso paint they can get a VERY close second to a $2,000 Stewart screen.
BTW, we just had this argument not more than a month ago...OP...please do a search before posting such questions. |
Ummm, no his name was Ken (KBK). Yes, he was a character. I think he had someone heres 1292 for a long time with a promise to radically improve the performance. I don't think anything ever materialized.
I am curious if this was the only thread you read over there as there were a lot more than that.
| ecrabb wrote: | You're probably all right - sorta. I'll throw a few facts out for the sake of discussion:
- Plain blackout cloth is less than 1.0 gain - probably closer to .9 than 1.0. IMHO, no CRT projector user should be using an unpainted BOC screen, unless he's running a really small screen size.
- I've never seen a gesso-painted screen, but if it's matte, then the gain can't be much beyond 1.0 - maybe 1.1 at most.
- StudioTek 130 is a true 1.3 gain material.
- Wilsonart was measured at ~1.3 gain.
- No matte white painted screen will exceed 1.0 gain - maybe 1.05 or 1.1 at the outside if it has some sheen to it.
Mark, the StudioTek 130 you saw... Did you compare it at the same size as your screen and with your projector? If not, I can't see how it's a meaningful comparison to say your gesso screen isn't lacking in comparison. Your frame of reference is what's lacking. You'd need to see them side-by-side or at least have samples side-by-side or overlaid. I think you can get away with your ~1.0-1.1 gain screen because your screen size is on the small side. Hardly anybody here runs a screen that small.
| Mark_A_W wrote: | | It's not that big a difference, not like adjustable masking, for instance. |
I couldn't disagree more. A 1.3 gain screen will be noticeably brighter than a 1.0 gain screen. That added brightness (and contrast!) will give the image more "pop" - more "life". Whites are whiter, colors are richer. To use a metaphor, if the projector is like an amplifier, then the screen is like a speaker. It's a critical component of the projection system!
Anybody who's running a plain BOC screen (Gary... Gary... Are you listening?) would do well to replace it. Even a WilsonArt screen would be a big upgrade in image quality/brightness.
Cheers,
SC |
The Wilsonart is getting its gain from gloss. Also, I believe the gain wasn't measured with a light meter.
This is not rocket science or even designing a game for 70's mainframes. You are basically looking at white, which is either titanium dioxide or barium sulfate. If you want to increase the gain, then up the gloss. That will bring problems, but they can be mitigated if one desires to do a Torus. Personally, I just didn't see a big difference between 1.3 and 1.1
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spanky Ham
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 5643
Location: Comedy Central
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mike,
An elegant solution for a more civilized age.
Another option would be to use wooden rod or dowel sewn into the fabric. You could just hang it down and up when in use and pull it back when not in use.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MikeEby
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 5237
Location: Osceola, Indiana
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Spanky Ham wrote: |
Ummm, no his name was Ken (KBK). Yes, he was a character. I think he had someone heres 1292 for a long time with a promise to radically improve the performance. I don't think anything ever materialized.
I am curious if this was the only thread you read over there as there were a lot more than that.
|
That's it...He was hoot to read...He had HUGE ego...Lots of people said he was brillant...Including himself...Seem like he was one of the first people to Mod Marquees, he even modded some early digitals too.
Mike
_________________
Doing HD since the last century!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garyfritz
Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 12088
Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 12:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Back to the Wilsonart: I just stopped by Home Depot and they'll order the 4x8 sheets for only about $75. Can't beat that. 5x8 is only about $10-15 more.
I've heard the 4x8 sheets are actually 49" wide -- true? With my 48.5" high screen (duh), I think even 49" would be pushing it. I think I'll get the 5x8. Now I just have to figure out how to attach it to the frame. I'm thinking I'll do the "adhesive-spray some rigid pink foam to the back of the Wilsonart" trick -- rigid and light -- and either drill some holes in the Wilsonart or just overlap it with a piece of something that I screw to the back of the frame.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark_A_W
Joined: 15 Mar 2006
Posts: 3068
Location: Sunny Melbourne Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| garyfritz wrote: | Damn you Mark!! I just watched Star Wars VI last night, and *especially* in the space scenes, all I could see was the bars above & below the image area!!
Guess it's time to get some Wilsonart **AND** some masking fabric....... |
MWHAHAHAHA!!
It's too late for Mike, and you're next 
Masks really are the number 1 tweak. Better than AC to LC, or 8" to 9". Hell, better than 1251 to G90.
My adjustable masks are just rolled around a 20mm dowel at the top, and hang from a string around the dowel at the bottom.
Really simple - one pull of a drawer string and they move.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
