i want a do-over

[mike c]

i'd like to simplify the room by
1) changing the length so it'd be rectangular (and closer to the recommended room ratios)
2) smaller so it'd be easier to pressurize and have more room gain

help?

these are the golden room ratios as it relates to my room height of 9 feet (108")

these are the room's actual measurements

the rectangular thingies on the left and right are doors.

 

[PeterWhite]

I'd forget the ideal room dimensions business. The smaller you make the room, the bigger the peaks and nulls. I would look at the room's irregular shape as an opportunity. The 43" difference in the length means that neither dimension is creating reflections all by itself. They're competing, and canceling each other at many wavelengths. Use the large space for base trapping. The thicker the absorption, the lower in frequency it's effective.

 

[mperfct]

I'd forget the ideal room dimensions business. The smaller you make the room, the bigger the peaks and nulls. I would look at the room's irregular shape as an opportunity. The 43" difference in the length means that neither dimension is creating reflections all by itself. They're competing, and canceling each other at many wavelengths. Use the large space for base trapping. The thicker the absorption, the lower in frequency it's effective.

Seems to make sense to me. Of course, I like to feel a little validation given my 5-sided theater.

 

[agarwalro]

I imagine that the screen size for your picture will also help in narrowing it down. If you want to have a big image, you will need a bigger room so that you can co-locate the optimal viewing and listening distances.

 

[highfigh]

Mike- what drafting program is that?

 

[mike c]

google sketch

 

[agarwalro]

2.0 - 2.1 - 2.2 - 5.1 - 5.2 - 7.1 - 7.2 - x.y

What kind of speaker arrangement are you thinking of?

If you are going multi channel, there seems to be only one option, seating to be perpendicular to the long sides. The short side is about 15ft and if you put your seating parallel to it, that would be too small to get the rears placed for a 7.y arrangement and also make it difficult to place the sides for 5.y or 7.y.

 

[mike c]

i'd like to do 11.1

using the 38% rule, i'd be 131 inches away from the right wall ... too much to have 133" of screen?

i should do the room first, then speakers before buying an audyssey dsx receiver.

 

[bpape]

Most people would kill to have the kind of space you have. While they are not 'perfect' dimensions (there aren't any), there don't appear to be huge problem areas either. If anything, you could wall off the kickout in the rear and maybe build an IB sub in there

I'd rather have the extra space and spend my money on a sub (or subs) that WILL pressurize the space in stead of shrinking the room at a much higher cost.

Bryan

 

[jostenmeat]

i'd like to do 11.1

using the 38% rule, i'd be 131 inches away from the right wall ... too much to have 133" of screen?

I think it's too much screen, as 1.78 AR. OTOH, if you go with a scope 2.35 screen, it might be perfect (about 1.13:1 as distance:width ratio). Still, I would make sure by firing the pic without screen first. Some people do sit at 1:1 ratio with scope, but that's pretty darn immerssive. If 1.78, I'd guess about 110".

 

[mike c]

Most people would kill to have the kind of space you have. While they are not 'perfect' dimensions (there aren't any), there don't appear to be huge problem areas either. If anything, you could wall off the kickout in the rear and maybe build an IB sub in there

I'd rather have the extra space and spend my money on a sub (or subs) that WILL pressurize the space in stead of shrinking the room at a much higher cost.

Bryan

thanks, the room is oriented like so right now:

(those are gik traps)

but i'll tear up the cabinets so i can go wider

I think it's too much screen, as 1.78 AR. OTOH, if you go with a scope 2.35 screen, it might be perfect (about 1.13:1 as distance:width ratio). Still, I would make sure by firing the pic without screen first. Some people do sit at 1:1 ratio with scope, but that's pretty darn immerssive. If 1.78, I'd guess about 110".

i currently have a 108" screen at 156" distance ... if i go 110" again (albeit at 131" distance) i would only be left with a "picture quality" upgrade.

i've see two setups now using dalite high gain (2.8) both at 133" (one is pretty far, the other is 168" or more away)

what are the pros and cons of the 2.8 gain?
i just realized the dalite website is extremely inadequate ... links to good priced online dalite screen vendors?

on the other hand, if you guys convince me not to get the 2.8, i can stick with carada.

 

[jostenmeat]

i currently have a 108" screen at 156" distance ... if i go 110" again (albeit at 131" distance) i would only be left with a "picture quality" upgrade.

I don't quite understand, but your viewing angle is still increased in either case.

what are the pros and cons of the 2.8 gain?

Pros may include zero hotspotting, (superb uniformity from any given seat), invisible screen texture, best material at shedding offaxis ambient light, and of course the gain itself. As a pulldown, it is the best material for making waves as invisible. It is also more resistant to waving because of how stiff the material is.

Cons may include that the given brightness can vary from one seat to another, depending on how widely the seating is arranged. In your case, it is totally a non-issue. Comparos have been done where the reviewer(s) say there is more color shift with the HP, but sometimes that might be just a head to head comparison with an extremely expensive screen.

Overall, your absolute blacks will be raised. However, you lose no contrast at all, as the dynamic range of the contrast is simply moved up proportionately.

i just realized the dalite website is extremely inadequate ... links to good priced online dalite screen vendors?

No. Call AVS. (Or just send a PM to Jason Turk; tell him I sent you.) Call Projector People. They both sell it. Make sure to specify 2.8, as there is also 2.4, if that is what you want.

on the other hand, if you guys convince me not to get the 2.8, i can stick with carada.

In your situation, I would save the money, and keep the 108" Carada at the new viewing distance. Even if you went HP, I'd vote for fixed frame (whether ordered, or DIY with the fabric). Fixed frames from the known companies like Dalite, Draper, or even Stewart, will be considerably more expensive than Carada.

 

[mike c]

I don't quite understand, but your viewing angle is still increased in either case.



Pros may include zero hotspotting, (superb uniformity from any given seat), invisible screen texture, best material at shedding offaxis ambient light, and of course the gain itself. As a pulldown, it is the best material for making waves as invisible. It is also more resistant to waving because of how stiff the material is.

Cons may include that the given brightness can vary from one seat to another, depending on how widely the seating is arranged. In your case, it is totally a non-issue. Comparos have been done where the reviewer(s) say there is more color shift with the HP, but sometimes that might be just a head to head comparison with an extremely expensive screen.

Overall, your absolute blacks will be raised. However, you lose no contrast at all, as the dynamic range of the contrast is simply moved up proportionately.


No. Call AVS. (Or just send a PM to Jason Turk; tell him I sent you.) Call Projector People. They both sell it. Make sure to specify 2.8, as there is also 2.4, if that is what you want.



In your situation, I would save the money, and keep the 108" Carada at the new viewing distance. Even if you went HP, I'd vote for fixed frame (whether ordered, or DIY with the fabric). Fixed frames from the known companies like Dalite, Draper, or even Stewart, will be considerably more expensive than Carada.

i didn't know how to describe it til you mentioned it, but "screen texture" is my complaint with my existing screen (it's not carada, it's some crappy screen i bought for 400 bucks)

 

[bpape]

A high gain screen can cause a couple of issues.

1. Very difficult to get good blacks

2. Hotspotting

Why such a high gain? If you match a proper light output and screen size for what you want, you can eliminate the issues above with something more like a 1.3 gain. The only time you need a really high gain like that is if your PJ doesn't have enough light output - or - if you're trying to do too big a screen for the light output you do have.

Bryan

 

[AVRat]

Are these screen sizes diagonal or width?

 

[jostenmeat]

A high gain screen can cause a couple of issues.

1. Very difficult to get good blacks

2. Hotspotting

Why such a high gain? If you match a proper light output and screen size for what you want, you can eliminate the issues above with something more like a 1.3 gain. The only time you need a really high gain like that is if your PJ doesn't have enough light output - or - if you're trying to do too big a screen for the light output you do have.

Bryan

Hotspotting is a definite issue with very high gain angular reflective screens. The Dalite HP simply does not suffer hotspotting. This particular retroreflector is very uniform (from any given seat). Some say it's the best they've ever seen in this regard. A 1.3 angular will very likely have more hotspotting than the Dalite 2.8.

Personally, I think 133" is too big with the new distance, but if he was going that big, well it is big. IIRC, Mike uses a Pana 2000u, and Feierman said that in best mode (cinema1), it outputted 388 lumens, with brand new bulb. IOW, a light cannon it is not.

However, I do believe I'm in general agreement with you.

Are these screen sizes diagonal or width?

Diagonal, I presume, as 133" is one of the "standard" Dalite 16:9 screen sizes.

i didn't know how to describe it til you mentioned it, but "screen texture" is my complaint with my existing screen (it's not carada, it's some crappy screen i bought for 400 bucks)

You know, it seems to me, you might have the perfect setup for AT. I would consider the SeymourAV CenterStageXD DIY material. You will see two PDF solutions for framing at the link below. Hire the guy you know who is decent with wood, should take him an afternoon, and even if you paid him quite well, would you still have a lot of money in the pocket.

http://www.seymourav.com/screensDIY.asp

 

[mike c]

Are these screen sizes diagonal or width?

diagonal

You know, it seems to me, you might have the perfect setup for AT. I would consider the SeymourAV CenterStageXD DIY material. You will see two PDF solutions for framing at the link below. Hire the guy you know who is decent with wood, should take him an afternoon, and even if you paid him quite well, would you still have a lot of money in the pocket.

http://www.seymourav.com/screensDIY.asp

i am now heavily considering the AT screen.

i am also considering moving my HT into another room ...

above are the dimensions ... following the 35-40 degree rule, i'd have a +-100" screen if there is a 24" space behind the screen.

any ideas?

 

[highfigh]

thanks, the room is oriented like so right now:

(those are gik traps)

but i'll tear up the cabinets so i can go wider



i currently have a 108" screen at 156" distance ... if i go 110" again (albeit at 131" distance) i would only be left with a "picture quality" upgrade.

i've see two setups now using dalite high gain (2.8) both at 133" (one is pretty far, the other is 168" or more away)

what are the pros and cons of the 2.8 gain?
i just realized the dalite website is extremely inadequate ... links to good priced online dalite screen vendors?

on the other hand, if you guys convince me not to get the 2.8, i can stick with carada.

2.8 is awfully high- if you don't have a lot of ambient light, it's not really necessary unless the projector isn't very bright. If you're able to keep outside light from entering the room, a screen with this much gain can cause the white to be excessively bright. Black levels will never really be true black and that's one thing that makes video look realistic.

 

[jostenmeat]

mike, I vote to be seated at the farther 38% point (closer to back wall), if only to further reduce the chance of seeing any funky effect with the screen material. I think there may be other pros, and other cons, but just that alone could make it decisive for me.

As you remember, I was buggin' rmk with 20 questions, and I'm sure you remembered his response to the minimum distance desired from screen. In your case, now that I think about it, I think you must use the second line with AT. No choice in the matter.

It is no longer relevant to the discussion here, but none to extremely few actually get 2.8 gain with the HP. And it's not just about lumens, and ambient light, but also screen size. To find your FL, simply divide lumens by sq footage of screen.

Example:

388 lumens (Pana 2000 in best mode, as measured by Feierman) /

52.5 sq ft (approximate sq ft of a 133" 16:9) =

a very measly 7.4 FL.

Now, if you take that 7.4, and multiply that by two (about what most HP users are roughly getting), then now you have a shade under 15 FL, and yeah, that's more like it, thank you very much.

However, critics of this material might say the best way is always to use natural power/lumens to light up a larger screen. This basically means your only choice is DLP, or to spend very large sums, or both.

I am sure my PQ is poor compared to some of the high end systems that you and I have come across on forums. But, the PQ is still good enough where all of my guests think it's the greatest PQ they have ever seen. That includes 3 film people (DGA director, stage/production manager, comic book creator/ playwright), a former employee of ToddAO, a few employees of Panasonic, etc. I mean: everybody. I use the HP in a dark room.

 

[mike c]

mike, I vote to be seated at the farther 38% point (closer to back wall), if only to further reduce the chance of seeing any funky effect with the screen material. I think there may be other pros, and other cons, but just that alone could make it decisive for me.

As you remember, I was buggin' rmk with 20 questions, and I'm sure you remembered his response to the minimum distance desired from screen. In your case, now that I think about it, I think you must use the second line with AT. No choice in the matter.

It is no longer relevant to the discussion here, but none to extremely few actually get 2.8 gain with the HP. And it's not just about lumens, and ambient light, but also screen size. To find your FL, simply divide lumens by sq footage of screen.

Example:

388 lumens (Pana 2000 in best mode, as measured by Feierman) /

52.5 sq ft (approximate sq ft of a 133" 16:9) =

a very measly 7.4 FL.

Now, if you take that 7.4, and multiply that by two (about what most HP users are roughly getting), then now you have a shade under 15 FL, and yeah, that's more like it, thank you very much.

However, critics of this material might say the best way is always to use natural power/lumens to light up a larger screen. This basically means your only choice is DLP, or to spend very large sums, or both.

I am sure my PQ is poor compared to some of the high end systems that you and I have come across on forums. But, the PQ is still good enough where all of my guests think it's the greatest PQ they have ever seen. That includes 3 film people (DGA director, stage/production manager, comic book creator/ playwright), a former employee of ToddAO, a few employees of Panasonic, etc. I mean: everybody. I use the HP in a dark room.

hmmm, i didn't get that last part was that in english? all the numbers flew over my head. omg, i think if i'm not as obsessed as before about this stuff, my head won't process it.

anyway, assuming a 2 foot distance from the back wall and the second 38% line (btw, is this still the rule of thumb? i did this in my current HT, and i'm not satisfied with the sound or location) i'd have a distance of about 124" ... i'm thinking of at least a 120"? is that a good idea?