|
As this forum is rarely used anymore, we've locked it. Feel free to browse and read. Questions? Please reach out to us directly. Cheers! |
|
 |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
perisoft
Joined: 29 Aug 2007 Posts: 2920 Location: Ithaca, NY
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:27 pm Post subject: Roll down vs. rotate down, and buy vs. DIY |
|
|
I'm setting up an HT in a downstairs room. It's mostly dedicated but the wall the screen is against has a door and a window which we'll want to access.
The plan is to have uber-thick multilayer velvet curtains backed with blackout material cover the entire wall, either set up like giant drapes or similar. That takes care of the back surface.
The screen is another issue. I'd like something pretty damn big - probably pushing the limits of what my 808s can do, but I'll take a bit bigger over a bit sharper. Plus, it's easier to upgrade the projector...
Since I'm on a tight budget, first thought is to make a 'solid' framed screen and have it rotate down from the ceiling. I'm planning on treating the ceiling and walls so I can even make it match. But it's kind of a pain to do, and it means if there's anything accidentally in the way of the sweep when it rotates down, POKE. Ergh.
So I thought I'd see if anybody knows of ways to DIY a rolldown that doesn't wrinkle/bulge/skew. The room's 12' wide, so I'm thinking something around 120" horizontal (yes, too big, I know. Blah blah *blah*). Any suggestions?
One possibility is to roll (ha ha) my own rolldown, maybe making it easier by having a couple of tensioned guide wires on each side so it would basically stretch itself to a form as it unrolled. This would leave me with guide wires that people could garrot themselves on if they walked too close to the walls, but hey, better them than the screen.
If I could find some really stretchy material, I could put the guide wires on movable tracks horizontally, and stretch/shrink the screen itself to switch between 2.35 and 16:9 instead of masking! That would rock, but even though I've got a lot of servos and controllers around it might still be tricky to pull off mechanically along with limiting the screen surface options. But it would be freaking cool.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Moose
Joined: 09 Mar 2006 Posts: 788 Location: Minnesota
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The plan is to have uber-thick multilayer velvet curtains backed with blackout material cover the entire wall |
I have a similar problem without, fortunately, a door. I found some blackout cloth at Walmart (real cheap, too, on a closeout). I went through all their black cloth and held each to the ceiling lights and found one that totally blocked all light. Made curtains out of it (well, my sister-in-law did) and hung 'em. Works perfectly - no light from the windows can get through.
_________________ In the real world, I am alan halvorson, King of the Wild Frontier and Swell Guy.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
nautikal
Joined: 31 Jul 2006 Posts: 116 Location: Rockville, MD
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Try the Wilsonart Designer White laminate (search for a thread here titled "Screen choices"). It's around $120 for a 5x12 sheet or if you're in MD it's around $50 from Reico.
And I'll just bring up the size issue. Yes, 120" is too big, and there's not just the issue of sharpness as you mentioned, but brightness as well. A 120" wide screen has 56% more area than a 96" wide screen and will therefore be 56% less bright than a 96" wide screen. Of course it is your choice, but you'll be driving that barco real hard.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
perisoft
Joined: 29 Aug 2007 Posts: 2920 Location: Ithaca, NY
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 12:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
That 120" is intended for 2.35:1, though... I'm thinking - lemme do some calculations.
A 96" wide 16:9 screen is 5184 square inches, and a 120" wide 2.35 screen is 6127 square inches. So in this case I'm not driving 56% more area; I'm driving 18% more area. Significant still, but not nearly as bad as if I were trying to do 16:9 at that width.
Of course, if you're usually running letterboxed content in your 16:9 screen it's a moot point.
I'm not sure I'd end up going with 120 anyway. I need to see what feels right in the space; 120 would be the absolute maximum I'd want to run.
I guess there's also two separate ways to drive the PJ harder - you can demand more overall light output from the PJ, which pounds the power to the guns, and you can demand the same power jammed into a smaller area of phosphor, which wears the phosphor harder.
What's the limiting factor here, I wonder?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
nautikal
Joined: 31 Jul 2006 Posts: 116 Location: Rockville, MD
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 2:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Sorry, I thought you were using a 16:9 screen.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
paw
Joined: 08 Mar 2006 Posts: 1176 Location: Arvada, CO
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Check out this site
http://www.seymourav.com/
They have electric screens for decent price. You can get the without cases for less $. This is good for in ceiling installs.
I notices that electric screen prices are going up on 11/1/07
This is similar if not the same material as SMX.
http://www.smxscreen.com
Both are acoustically transparent screen materials. Cliffy here has SMX
_________________ Aubrey
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CRT_Ben
Joined: 28 Aug 2006 Posts: 1684 Location: Northern Virginia
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| paw wrote: | Check out this site
http://www.seymourav.com/
They have electric screens for decent price. You can get the without cases for less $. This is good for in ceiling installs.
I notices that electric screen prices are going up on 11/1/07
This is similar if not the same material as SMX.
http://www.smxscreen.com
Both are acoustically transparent screen materials. Cliffy here has SMX |
Wow, am I glad you posted that! If I'm reading the chart right, 63" wide material is $20.32/linear foot. So an 8-foot wide 16x9 screen could be had for about $160! Awesome.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Spanky Ham
Joined: 22 Mar 2006 Posts: 5643 Location: Comedy Central
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| perisoft wrote: | That 120" is intended for 2.35:1, though... I'm thinking - lemme do some calculations.
A 96" wide 16:9 screen is 5184 square inches, and a 120" wide 2.35 screen is 6127 square inches. So in this case I'm not driving 56% more area; I'm driving 18% more area. Significant still, but not nearly as bad as if I were trying to do 16:9 at that width.
Of course, if you're usually running letterboxed content in your 16:9 screen it's a moot point.
I'm not sure I'd end up going with 120 anyway. I need to see what feels right in the space; 120 would be the absolute maximum I'd want to run.
I guess there's also two separate ways to drive the PJ harder - you can demand more overall light output from the PJ, which pounds the power to the guns, and you can demand the same power jammed into a smaller area of phosphor, which wears the phosphor harder.
What's the limiting factor here, I wonder? |
I am not sure I am understanding your math. You are shrinking the raster, so 120" wide 2.35 is the same as 120" wide 16x9.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
Forum powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
|
|