Follow Up: Projector Screen vs Wall

[Michael K]

I received my 120" matte white fixed projector screen today and ran a small
test to be able to compare against my feather white (light grey) wall.

There was a lot of ambient light in the room as I dont have fully blacked
out curtains so my tests wernt the best. Upon firing it up I wasnt very
happy to be honest. There didnt seem to be much difference from the screen
and the wall.

In fact I found the contrast on the wall to be higher than the screen.
Colours are 10-15% more vivid on the wall however i did noticed that whites
look more true on the screen but apart from that, the wall looks better.
Would colours on a white screen be less vivid than a light grey wall in a
room with ambient light?

I bought the screen from an ebay store who sells fixed screens in 100" and
120". I knew that the screens were not brand screens but they do claim to be
matte white 1.0 gain and that they are professionally made. I noticed that
the screen material is not a plastic texture as Ive seen on expensive
screens for sale at home theatre stores. Its more of a cotton which is very
thinly weaved. Im not sure if this is professional screen material or not,
im a little concerned to be honest.

I also found the screen to not be as sharp as the wall, although it seems
to reduce SDE a little. Ill test the screen tonight when its completely dark
and make another comparison then. Hopefully the screen looks much better
then.


What do you guys think? Does the material sound like an appropiate material
for screens? Would the things ive seen be caused by the ambient light in the
room? Do you think the screen will be far better in complete darkness?


Thanks

[Mike La Pietra]

"Michael K" <spunkie_wog@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41c8e89a$0$15007$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>I received my 120" matte white fixed projector screen today and ran a small
>test to be able to compare against my feather white (light grey) wall.
>
> There was a lot of ambient light in the room as I dont have fully blacked
> out curtains so my tests wernt the best. Upon firing it up I wasnt very
> happy to be honest. There didnt seem to be much difference from the screen
> and the wall.
>
> In fact I found the contrast on the wall to be higher than the screen.
> Colours are 10-15% more vivid on the wall however i did noticed that
> whites look more true on the screen but apart from that, the wall looks
> better. Would colours on a white screen be less vivid than a light grey
> wall in a room with ambient light?
>
> I bought the screen from an ebay store who sells fixed screens in 100" and
> 120". I knew that the screens were not brand screens but they do claim to
> be matte white 1.0 gain and that they are professionally made. I noticed
> that the screen material is not a plastic texture as Ive seen on expensive
> screens for sale at home theatre stores. Its more of a cotton which is
> very thinly weaved. Im not sure if this is professional screen material or
> not, im a little concerned to be honest.
>
> I also found the screen to not be as sharp as the wall, although it seems
> to reduce SDE a little. Ill test the screen tonight when its completely
> dark and make another comparison then. Hopefully the screen looks much
> better then.
>
>
> What do you guys think? Does the material sound like an appropiate
> material for screens? Would the things ive seen be caused by the ambient
> light in the room? Do you think the screen will be far better in complete
> darkness?
>
>
> Thanks

love to know how you get on Michael... as a newbie it's often something I've
wondered about too. I'd also like to know if there's a *cheap* paint
alternative (I know there are some expensive "solutions out there) that
would do the job.

Mike

[Michael K]

I have now tested the screen at night in pitch black. Im happy to say the
screen now looks good. I wouldnt say there is a huge improvment from the
wall but it very happy with it. I think the fact it has a black border makes
the majority of the difference. Apart from that you can decide if its worth
having a screen.

Next time id probably just try make 1 myself.


"Michael K" <spunkie_wog@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41c8e89a$0$15007$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>I received my 120" matte white fixed projector screen today and ran a small
>test to be able to compare against my feather white (light grey) wall.
>
> There was a lot of ambient light in the room as I dont have fully blacked
> out curtains so my tests wernt the best. Upon firing it up I wasnt very
> happy to be honest. There didnt seem to be much difference from the screen
> and the wall.
>
> In fact I found the contrast on the wall to be higher than the screen.
> Colours are 10-15% more vivid on the wall however i did noticed that
> whites look more true on the screen but apart from that, the wall looks
> better. Would colours on a white screen be less vivid than a light grey
> wall in a room with ambient light?
>
> I bought the screen from an ebay store who sells fixed screens in 100" and
> 120". I knew that the screens were not brand screens but they do claim to
> be matte white 1.0 gain and that they are professionally made. I noticed
> that the screen material is not a plastic texture as Ive seen on expensive
> screens for sale at home theatre stores. Its more of a cotton which is
> very thinly weaved. Im not sure if this is professional screen material or
> not, im a little concerned to be honest.
>
> I also found the screen to not be as sharp as the wall, although it seems
> to reduce SDE a little. Ill test the screen tonight when its completely
> dark and make another comparison then. Hopefully the screen looks much
> better then.
>
>
> What do you guys think? Does the material sound like an appropiate
> material for screens? Would the things ive seen be caused by the ambient
> light in the room? Do you think the screen will be far better in complete
> darkness?
>
>
> Thanks
>

[Trevor Lees]

best screens use the german plastic (grey coloured back) from Herma and they
are a great improvement on a cooton material..!and don't exhibit any 'hot
spots'

cheers Trevor Lees
"Michael K" <spunkie_wog@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41c95446$0$14995$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> I have now tested the screen at night in pitch black. Im happy to say the
> screen now looks good. I wouldnt say there is a huge improvment from the
> wall but it very happy with it. I think the fact it has a black border
makes
> the majority of the difference. Apart from that you can decide if its
worth
> having a screen.
>
> Next time id probably just try make 1 myself.
>
>
> "Michael K" <spunkie_wog@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:41c8e89a$0$15007$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> >I received my 120" matte white fixed projector screen today and ran a
small
> >test to be able to compare against my feather white (light grey) wall.
> >
> > There was a lot of ambient light in the room as I dont have fully
blacked
> > out curtains so my tests wernt the best. Upon firing it up I wasnt very
> > happy to be honest. There didnt seem to be much difference from the
screen
> > and the wall.
> >
> > In fact I found the contrast on the wall to be higher than the screen.
> > Colours are 10-15% more vivid on the wall however i did noticed that
> > whites look more true on the screen but apart from that, the wall looks
> > better. Would colours on a white screen be less vivid than a light grey
> > wall in a room with ambient light?
> >
> > I bought the screen from an ebay store who sells fixed screens in 100"
and
> > 120". I knew that the screens were not brand screens but they do claim
to
> > be matte white 1.0 gain and that they are professionally made. I noticed
> > that the screen material is not a plastic texture as Ive seen on
expensive
> > screens for sale at home theatre stores. Its more of a cotton which is
> > very thinly weaved. Im not sure if this is professional screen material
or
> > not, im a little concerned to be honest.
> >
> > I also found the screen to not be as sharp as the wall, although it
seems
> > to reduce SDE a little. Ill test the screen tonight when its completely
> > dark and make another comparison then. Hopefully the screen looks much
> > better then.
> >
> >
> > What do you guys think? Does the material sound like an appropiate
> > material for screens? Would the things ive seen be caused by the ambient
> > light in the room? Do you think the screen will be far better in
complete
> > darkness?
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
>
>

[Michael K]

Was i right, is it cotton?

Is this a bad type of screen material or is it common?


"Trevor Lees" <tlee3842@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:5Udyd.84811$K7.80950@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> best screens use the german plastic (grey coloured back) from Herma and
> they
> are a great improvement on a cooton material..!and don't exhibit any 'hot
> spots'
>
> cheers Trevor Lees
> "Michael K" <spunkie_wog@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:41c95446$0$14995$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> I have now tested the screen at night in pitch black. Im happy to say the
>> screen now looks good. I wouldnt say there is a huge improvment from the
>> wall but it very happy with it. I think the fact it has a black border
> makes
>> the majority of the difference. Apart from that you can decide if its
> worth
>> having a screen.
>>
>> Next time id probably just try make 1 myself.
>>
>>
>> "Michael K" <spunkie_wog@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:41c8e89a$0$15007$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> >I received my 120" matte white fixed projector screen today and ran a
> small
>> >test to be able to compare against my feather white (light grey) wall.
>> >
>> > There was a lot of ambient light in the room as I dont have fully
> blacked
>> > out curtains so my tests wernt the best. Upon firing it up I wasnt very
>> > happy to be honest. There didnt seem to be much difference from the
> screen
>> > and the wall.
>> >
>> > In fact I found the contrast on the wall to be higher than the screen.
>> > Colours are 10-15% more vivid on the wall however i did noticed that
>> > whites look more true on the screen but apart from that, the wall looks
>> > better. Would colours on a white screen be less vivid than a light grey
>> > wall in a room with ambient light?
>> >
>> > I bought the screen from an ebay store who sells fixed screens in 100"
> and
>> > 120". I knew that the screens were not brand screens but they do claim
> to
>> > be matte white 1.0 gain and that they are professionally made. I
>> > noticed
>> > that the screen material is not a plastic texture as Ive seen on
> expensive
>> > screens for sale at home theatre stores. Its more of a cotton which is
>> > very thinly weaved. Im not sure if this is professional screen material
> or
>> > not, im a little concerned to be honest.
>> >
>> > I also found the screen to not be as sharp as the wall, although it
> seems
>> > to reduce SDE a little. Ill test the screen tonight when its completely
>> > dark and make another comparison then. Hopefully the screen looks much
>> > better then.
>> >
>> >
>> > What do you guys think? Does the material sound like an appropiate
>> > material for screens? Would the things ive seen be caused by the
>> > ambient
>> > light in the room? Do you think the screen will be far better in
> complete
>> > darkness?
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

[Byron Forbes]

"Mike La Pietra" <LaFroggy@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:41c91125_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
>
> "Michael K" <spunkie_wog@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:41c8e89a$0$15007$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> >I received my 120" matte white fixed projector screen today and ran a
small
> >test to be able to compare against my feather white (light grey) wall.
> >
> > There was a lot of ambient light in the room as I dont have fully
blacked
> > out curtains so my tests wernt the best. Upon firing it up I wasnt very
> > happy to be honest. There didnt seem to be much difference from the
screen
> > and the wall.
> >
> > In fact I found the contrast on the wall to be higher than the screen.
> > Colours are 10-15% more vivid on the wall however i did noticed that
> > whites look more true on the screen but apart from that, the wall looks
> > better. Would colours on a white screen be less vivid than a light grey
> > wall in a room with ambient light?
> >
> > I bought the screen from an ebay store who sells fixed screens in 100"
and
> > 120". I knew that the screens were not brand screens but they do claim
to
> > be matte white 1.0 gain and that they are professionally made. I noticed
> > that the screen material is not a plastic texture as Ive seen on
expensive
> > screens for sale at home theatre stores. Its more of a cotton which is
> > very thinly weaved. Im not sure if this is professional screen material
or
> > not, im a little concerned to be honest.
> >
> > I also found the screen to not be as sharp as the wall, although it
seems
> > to reduce SDE a little. Ill test the screen tonight when its completely
> > dark and make another comparison then. Hopefully the screen looks much
> > better then.
> >
> >
> > What do you guys think? Does the material sound like an appropiate
> > material for screens? Would the things ive seen be caused by the ambient
> > light in the room? Do you think the screen will be far better in
complete
> > darkness?
> >
> >
> > Thanks
>
> love to know how you get on Michael... as a newbie it's often something
I've
> wondered about too. I'd also like to know if there's a *cheap* paint
> alternative (I know there are some expensive "solutions out there) that
> would do the job.
>

Just use ceiling white. I have one here and the image is excellent. I
have heard plenty of people say that a wall painted with ceiling white is as
good or even better than screens they've owned. I think all but the really
high end stuff is likely a scam and doubt the high end stuff is worth it
either - I'd need a side by side b4 parting with that sort of cash!

[Mike La Pietra]

"Byron Forbes" <chocolate@caramel.com.au> wrote in message
news:41c98e96$0$31706$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
>
> "Mike La Pietra" <LaFroggy@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
> news:41c91125_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
>>
>> "Michael K" <spunkie_wog@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:41c8e89a$0$15007$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> >I received my 120" matte white fixed projector screen today and ran a
> small
>> >test to be able to compare against my feather white (light grey) wall.
>> >
>> > There was a lot of ambient light in the room as I dont have fully
> blacked
>> > out curtains so my tests wernt the best. Upon firing it up I wasnt very
>> > happy to be honest. There didnt seem to be much difference from the
> screen
>> > and the wall.
>> >
>> > In fact I found the contrast on the wall to be higher than the screen.
>> > Colours are 10-15% more vivid on the wall however i did noticed that
>> > whites look more true on the screen but apart from that, the wall looks
>> > better. Would colours on a white screen be less vivid than a light grey
>> > wall in a room with ambient light?
>> >
>> > I bought the screen from an ebay store who sells fixed screens in 100"
> and
>> > 120". I knew that the screens were not brand screens but they do claim
> to
>> > be matte white 1.0 gain and that they are professionally made. I
>> > noticed
>> > that the screen material is not a plastic texture as Ive seen on
> expensive
>> > screens for sale at home theatre stores. Its more of a cotton which is
>> > very thinly weaved. Im not sure if this is professional screen material
> or
>> > not, im a little concerned to be honest.
>> >
>> > I also found the screen to not be as sharp as the wall, although it
> seems
>> > to reduce SDE a little. Ill test the screen tonight when its completely
>> > dark and make another comparison then. Hopefully the screen looks much
>> > better then.
>> >
>> >
>> > What do you guys think? Does the material sound like an appropiate
>> > material for screens? Would the things ive seen be caused by the
>> > ambient
>> > light in the room? Do you think the screen will be far better in
> complete
>> > darkness?
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks
>>
>> love to know how you get on Michael... as a newbie it's often something
> I've
>> wondered about too. I'd also like to know if there's a *cheap* paint
>> alternative (I know there are some expensive "solutions out there) that
>> would do the job.
>>
>
> Just use ceiling white. I have one here and the image is excellent. I
> have heard plenty of people say that a wall painted with ceiling white is
> as
> good or even better than screens they've owned. I think all but the really
> high end stuff is likely a scam and doubt the high end stuff is worth it
> either - I'd need a side by side b4 parting with that sort of cash!
>

Thanks. I'd imagined a flat white would be ok... I just wondered whether you
could find some sort of "reflective additive" you could add to the paint.
I've often thought the whole area was a bit difficult to swallow. I agree -
i've yet to see any screens that warrant parting with $1000 - $3000, esp
when they're now costing as much as the projectors themselves. A bit like
people insisting the "valve sound" in hifi was intrinsically "better"
because it sounded "warmer" (or as i see it, not as accurate a sound as a
solid state amp could deliver at 10% of the price).

Mike

[Ian McLean]

Mike wrote:

> A bit like people insisting the "valve sound" in hifi was intrinsically
> "better" because it sounded "warmer" (or as i see it, not as accurate a
> sound as a solid state amp could deliver at 10% of the price).

The valve is "better" came about becuase the even order harmonic distortion
of valves were simply natural to the ear vs. the odd order harmonic of solid
state which is not. There were also other reasons, the phase (and other)
anomolies of transistor switching being hard on the ear. It was not until
solid state got all of this under control, especially in the world class
Australian Halcro amplifiers, and when so much tubed amplification from many
companies became 'solid state' sounding, that the valves is better statement
was made moot. Well, unless an inaccurate romanticising of the sound is what
you want from, say a poorly executed 300B amp. And many people prefer that,
especially to expunge the ugliness of sources like CD. So, for them valves
are "better" because those valve amps are deliberately inaccurate but this
permits them to enjoy what they would otherwise not.

If you've got efficient speakers, another 'sound' is that of the pure
digital amplifier like the Tact Millenium series. Now that is "better" than
analogue solid state. But only for digital sources, of course.

I am yet to see any wall being the equal of a decent screen, unless it is
coated with the same material as a screen.

What valves being better has to do with screens completely escapes me.
Thankfully, unlike audio where, art, science, mysticism, and using amps as
tone or digital glare controls, meet and get confused, video projection and
screen reflection is pure physics.

Ian

[Mike La Pietra]

"Ian McLean" <solotibia@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1czyd.86035$K7.67157@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Mike wrote:
>
>> A bit like people insisting the "valve sound" in hifi was intrinsically
>> "better" because it sounded "warmer" (or as i see it, not as accurate a
>> sound as a solid state amp could deliver at 10% of the price).
>
> The valve is "better" came about becuase the even order harmonic
> distortion of valves were simply natural to the ear vs. the odd order
> harmonic of solid state which is not. There were also other reasons, the
> phase (and other) anomolies of transistor switching being hard on the ear.
> It was not until solid state got all of this under control, especially in
> the world class Australian Halcro amplifiers, and when so much tubed
> amplification from many companies became 'solid state' sounding, that the
> valves is better statement was made moot. Well, unless an inaccurate
> romanticising of the sound is what you want from, say a poorly executed
> 300B amp. And many people prefer that, especially to expunge the ugliness
> of sources like CD. So, for them valves are "better" because those valve
> amps are deliberately inaccurate but this permits them to enjoy what they
> would otherwise not.

romantic notions of what was perceived to be better didn't correlate with
what was scientifically measurable in the lab. The fact everyone from the
recording chain onwards needed to clean up their acts testified to the fact
many "warm" amps simply covered poor techniques.

> If you've got efficient speakers, another 'sound' is that of the pure
> digital amplifier like the Tact Millenium series. Now that is "better"
> than analogue solid state. But only for digital sources, of course.

> I am yet to see any wall being the equal of a decent screen, unless it is
> coated with the same material as a screen.

is that possible? this is an area i know very little about...

> What valves being better has to do with screens completely escapes me.

nothing, apart from the observation that to ME it seems to be and area of
mystical "interpretation" - as you yourself mention below - just like the
golden-eared experts that write in hifi mags about things we can't humanly
hear.

> Thankfully, unlike audio where, art, science, mysticism, and using amps as
> tone or digital glare controls, meet and get confused, video projection
> and screen reflection is pure physics.

so back to the point - is there a *cheap* alternative that would give you,
say, 95% of the reflective viewing qualities of an expensive screen? No
mumbo jumbo - just the quantifiable facts...?

Mike

[Ian McLean]

"Mike La Pietra" <LaFroggy@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:41cb6db3_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
> is there a *cheap* alternative that would give you, say, 95% of the
> reflective viewing qualities of an expensive screen? No mumbo jumbo - just
> the quantifiable facts...?

No.

[atec]

Ian McLean wrote:
>
> "Mike La Pietra" <LaFroggy@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
> news:41cb6db3_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
> > is there a *cheap* alternative that would give you, say, 95% of the
> > reflective viewing qualities of an expensive screen? No mumbo jumbo - just
> > the quantifiable facts...?
>
> No.
Bullshite , my wall works very well (+ special coating though)

[Byron Forbes]

"Mike La Pietra" <LaFroggy@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:41cb6db3_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
>
> so back to the point - is there a *cheap* alternative that would give you,
> say, 95% of the reflective viewing qualities of an expensive screen? No
> mumbo jumbo - just the quantifiable facts...?
>
A buddy of mine just parted with $750 for a 100" white screen and says
the screen is about 30% brighter or so. But he also says the blacks aren't
quite as black.

My advice is simple - whack some ceiling white on the wall with a black
timber surround and if you're happy you're happy. If you run into some money
you have no plans for then maybe consider a dedicated screen then.