Home Theater Forum and Systems banner

Screen mix for Acer h5360 720p 3D projector?

5K views 10 replies 2 participants last post by  staindrocks 
#1 ·
Hey guys. I've been reading up on the Acer h5360 3D projector, and i've finally decided that i can't wait any longer to experience HD 3D in my home theater. I'm just wondering what i should do for a screen, since i've heard a few people recommend HP commercial screens(1.3 to quote 1 guy) to go with this pj for 3D, since 3D substantially darkens the image.

What do you guys think about this? I would like whatever i decide on to be a HTS DIY solution, as i've already done a Black Widow with you guys a few yrs back, and i've been really happy with. However, i recently moved and now i'm starting from scratch again(i actually tried bringing the BW screen painted wall with me from the old house...seriously, not kidding! :bigsmile:).

So i already have a Benq W5000(will still use for 2D) that i was previously shooting on the 120" BW screen. I'm going to add the Acer h5360(will use for 3D), and they will both be mounted in the same HT room. Should these have two different screens, or will one screen work well for both?

PS - I'll have to pretty much build the entire dedicated HT space from scratch, just like i did at my last house. However, because of this i won't have any issues with ambient light. I won't have any windows, and i can paint the room as dark as i want it. 90% of my viewing is with no lights on in the room...for the other 10%, only a small table top lamp w/shade on it about 12ft back from the screen.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Hi Christopher, glad to hear your BW™ screen met your needs up to now. :T

Even though it's late and my brain is getting ready to shut down for the night (I don't usually stay up this late), I'll make a few observations about your new HT. According to PJC's review of the Acer PJ it has about 700 lumens output when in 3D mode. That is enough brightness so you could still use BW™ for your new screen even staying with a 120 incher (that works out to about 16 fL). The problem comes in because the active 3D glasses rob even more brightness from the image and I haven't read how much that is anywhere. If it's as much as 50% then the effective screen brightness would drop to 8 fL which is too dim for BW™ staying with a 120 inch screen. The solution would be to either decrease the screen size or to use a lighter screen mix. What screen size are you shooting for, and what will you accept as a minimum?

It will really help to make a dedicated HT with controlled lighting and dark walls. :T
 
#3 ·
Yeah, i haven't been able to pin down an exact number on how much light is robbed by nvidia's active shutter glasses either. I've read some say it's about 40-50%, but i don't know how accurate that is? I don't have any issues with keeping my HT completely light controlled with dark walls, that's no problem...but i really don't want to go any lower than 120". I guess i could probably go to 110" if there was no other way, but it's not ideal.

I'm not very familiar with HP screens, but could this be an alternative solution for helping with brghtness? And if so, is there a diy mix that can mimic a HP screen?
 
#4 ·
Yeah, i haven't been able to pin down an exact number on how much light is robbed by nvidia's active shutter glasses either. I've read some say it's about 40-50%, but i don't know how accurate that is? I don't have any issues with keeping my HT completely light controlled with dark walls, that's no problem...but i really don't want to go any lower than 120". I guess i could probably go to 110" if there was no other way, but it's not ideal.
You might contact Nvidia to see if you can get a solid answer to how much light is transmitted though those glasses, but I'm betting that 40-50% absorption is a good guess so until you can come up with a more accurate number we'll use 50% as kind of a worse case scenario.

To keep a 120" screen and only be effectively shooting it with 8 fL you probably would have to use our N9 Cream&Sugar™ mix, but since viewable screen brightness is a very subjective thing there is a possibility that a N8.5 (Elektra™ N8.5) or even N8 (Scorpion™, Elektra™ N8) would work as well.

I'm not very familiar with HP screens, but could this be an alternative solution for helping with brghtness? And if so, is there a diy mix that can mimic a HP screen?
You lost me on the 1.3 gain HP screen. :scratch: Several commercial screen companies make 1.3 gain white screens, but as far as I know HP is shorthand for the Da-Lite High Power screen which is only available with gains of 2.8 (older screens) and the new 2.4. The HP screens are also retroreflective (which is why they are so bright) and thus have relatively narrow viewing cones and the PJ can't be ceiling mounted to get the full brightness of the screen (the light from the PJ is reflected back directly toward the PJ).

If you would paint your new screen (I assume you will be using a wall again) with Kilz Premium primer I think you would have a screen close to 1.3 gain since it is a very white primer that has some gloss to it. From there you could begin to judge how much darker your screen needed to be to obtain the black level and color richness you desire.
 
#5 · (Edited)
Sorry, you're right about the HP screen being 2.8. I went back and read thru some posts and realized i either read it wrong or didn't remember it right. Is there anything paint-wise that can even come close?

If i can find a substrate large enough, i'd rather paint the screen on a portable substrate then a stationary wall. Painting on the substrate would also give me the ability to move it around at different placements if neeeded. And finally, it would be nice to paint 3-4 differents screens and then compare them with my BenQ 2D and Acer 3D, but the only way i could do this is by using substrates to paint on. What are the largest sustrates currently available that i could try some mixes on? I know 4x8(ft) is the most common on the large side of things, but has anyone discovered something you can get in 4x9 or 4x10?

EDIT:
Ok, i've been reading through the wealth of information here as fast as i can absorb it, and it looks like Wilson Art laminate(Designer White 354-60) is one of the few choices for larger than normal cuts(5x10 or 5x12). However, it seems like it could be a good choice because i could start with a non-painted laminate with the option to paint on it.

Honestly, i was really hoping to do a CIH 2.35 setup this time around. My last screen i did(120" BW), i decided to go the 16/9 route, and it really frustrated me to lose so much size when watching 2.35/2.40 bluray movies(which seemed to be the majority). I'm still looking into what all that entails and if it's even possible with the Acer. If doable, my ideal size would be 140" 2.39, which would be masked down to a respectable 110" 16/9 screen. My next to best option would be 130" 2.39, which would be masked down to 102" 16/9. These are the figures i got from the calculator @ pj central.
 
#6 ·
Sorry, you're right about the HP screen being 2.8. I went back and read thru some posts and realized i either read it wrong or didn't remember it right. Is there anything paint-wise that can even come close?
Sorry no, there are no DIY mixes that are retroreflective. There is a place in the U.K. that sells a nice retroreflective paint that would do for making a screen, but it is very expensive, and this time of year I would be concerned about it freezing during shipment and ruining the paint. We actually had "our man in the U.K." do some testing with this paint, but again the cost was very prohibitive for doing a large screen. Also, a glass-beaded screen mix is very difficult to put on and get even reflection over the whole screen.

If i can find a substrate large enough, i'd rather paint the screen on a portable substrate then a stationary wall. Painting on the substrate would also give me the ability to move it around at different placements if neeeded. And finally, it would be nice to paint 3-4 differents screens and then compare them with my BenQ 2D and Acer 3D, but the only way i could do this is by using substrates to paint on. What are the largest sustrates currently available that i could try some mixes on? I know 4x8(ft) is the most common on the large side of things, but has anyone discovered something you can get in 4x9 or 4x10?
It's my understanding that, depending on your location, some plywood sheets and MDF can be ordered in oversize dimensions. Plastic sheet-goods are usually used for screens over 4'x8' and they work well, but usually are quite expensive compared to wood products. Two brand names of foam boards are Gatorboard and Sintra. Gatorboard is light, but can be damaged relatively easily by bumping it which leaves a divot. Sintra is a brand of expanded closed-cell PVC that makes excellent screens, but is more expensive. Look for business selling plastic sheet-goods or sign making supplies.

Another method of making a screen just about as large as one might want is to attach inexpensive vinyl flooring FACE DOWN to a frame and then paint the BACK of the vinyl. A member here made one of these and was very happy with it.
 
#7 · (Edited)
I found another screen calculator to punch some numbers into, and this is what i got:

Acer 3D PJ @ 350 Lumens

138" CIH Cinescope
Screen Height: 54"
Screen Width: 128"
1.0 Gain = 7.3ftL
1.24 Gain = 9ftL
1.6 Gain = 12ftL (recommended min brightness)

Masked down to:

110" 16/9 HDTV
Screen Height: 54"
Screen Width: 96"
1.0 Gain = 9.7ftL
1.24 Gain = 12ftL (recommended min brightness)
1.6 Gain = 15.6ftL (recommended max brightness)

So it looks like it would take a 1.6 Gain screen to achieve the min recommended brightness for a HT, or do you think with the room painted dark and/or black and kept completely light controlled i could get away with the 1.24 Gain.

Where i got the 1.24 Gain figure from is that somewhere on this site i read the gain on the Wilson Art Laminate(Designer White 354-60) is 1.24. If that's true, then the question to be asked is whether 9ftL in a dark, light-controlled dedicated HT is enough. Keep in mind these particular figures are supposed to be for 3D content only(ie - 9ftL is supposed to be what i'll see when viewing 3D thru the active shutter glasses). I still have my BenQ w5000 for all 2D viewing.

If i really do need a higher gain screen such as 1.6 Gain, then what about this from the "Gain and other confusing topics" thread:
wbassett said:
There is a newer solution and way around this prism effect and to increase gain without introducing color shifting other than 1954 technology and methods, and that is by the use of non-interference pigments. Instead of being based on mica, the key particle is aluminum oxide. It is thick enough so that it is opaque and will not allow light to pass through it as mica flakes (Pearlescent) do. It is then coated with the same thin layer of titanium dioxide that the interference pigment was but the optical results are much different. The reflections are reduced and the degree of color separation is minimized. Also the prism effect is eliminated, which in turn eliminates or greatly reduces any color shifting.
Have you guys done any mixes yet utilizing this aluminum oxide? What kind of gain numbers are we talking about that might be possible? Also, do you guys know the gain numbers for the different mixes here? If i understand correctly i think the BW is 0.9, but what about C&S and Scorpion N8/8.5, or any others i might be leaving out?

Anyways, those are my most recent thoughts and figures for my setup. I'm leaning towards getting some WA Laminate, but i'm not too confident that the 9ftL will be enough. What do you guys think? If i were to keep those sizes, what would you guys recommend i do for the screen to make up some brightness? :dontknow:

Harpmaker, i appreciate all the help you've been giving me! I really am trying to put in the work of researching/reading as much as i can, but i'd be a fool not to tap into some direct advice from the experts. But i just wanted to say that i do appreciate it! :T
 
#8 ·
WA DW does have a peak gain that Mech measured at 1.25-1.26 (http://www.mechman.net/gain/Compilation.htm then slide the bar all the way to the right to get WA DW) and it would probably make an excellent screen for you, but you would be getting no help with black levels from the screen.

Something to keep in mind about screen gain is that ANY screen that has a gain over 1.0 will have a viewing cone, luckily (for white screens) it takes having a peak gain over 1.3 before this becomes visible to the naked eye. DW is right on the verge of hot spotting a little bit, some people see it and others don't. As I believe Wbassett points out in the gain article, screen gain is not a knob one can just turn up or down; gain is a zero-sum quantity, if the peak gain (meaning on-axis with the PJ) of a white screen is over 1.0 (less than this for a gray screen, but I won't go there right now ;)) the gain off-axis will be less than 1.0, this is simple reflective physics. A white screen with a peak gain of 1.6 would almost certainly hot spot, but even if it didn't it would have a very discernable viewing cone. This might not matter if only one or two people are watching the screen and are on-axis.

Don't get too excited about a 0.2 or even 0.3 difference in gain; these would equate to a 20% and 30% difference in on-axis brightness (less of a difference in off-axis viewing). 20-30% may sound like a lot of difference, but most digital cameras have 1/3 stop aperture and shutter speed adjustments because this is about the smallest difference in relative brightness that the human eye can see! 1/3 stop equates to 33% or a gain difference of 0.33.

I honestly can't tell you if 9 fL is too dim an image for you or not. Image brightness is truly quite subjective. I personally could live with that, it was only when my image brightness dropped to 6 fL that I thought the image was too dim for my tastes on a C&S™ screen (which has a peak gain of 0.98). 12 fL is normally considered the minimum image brightness.

Since it seems you are quite serious about your DIY HT, you might give some thought to getting your own light meter. They are not that expensive. I would recommend this one for $30 from Amazon. These inexpensive light meters are actually MORE accurate in measuring the output of devices like flashlights and projectors than most meters designed for photographic use because of the 1/3 stop sensitivity (or lack thereof) of the photographic meters which can cost hundreds of dollars more.

No, we haven't experimented with the type of coated aluminum oxide Wbassett mentioned in that post. We do intend on trying to make higher gain mixes in several ways, but we simply haven't had the time. BTW, that type of pigments are called Xyrellic pigments and are usually listed as Xyrellic pearls.

I appreciate being appreciated, :yes: but we really are just here to help.
 
#9 ·
I guess the most obvious thing to do would be to go with a smaller screen, but my biggest issue with doing this is that i've been watching everything on a 120" for close to 2 yrs. I'd be more than happy with a 120" Cinescope, but the thing that gets me is how much it shrinks when masked to fit HDTV and other 16/9 material. It goes from 120" Cinescope down to 95" Widescreen(16/9), which i could live with for HDTV. However, there are still a decent amount of Bluray titles released in 1.78/1.85 and i don't know if i'd be happy with that.

I guess what i could do is buy a large enough cut of WA laminate to do the 138" Cinescope CIH, and then if it ends up being too dark i could always cut it down to 130", then 120", etc. until i'm happy with the brightness. Kind of a "shoot for the stars, land on the moon" way of doing things. :ponder:

How bad are the issues that come with using the WA laminate? It sounds as if the hotspotting might not be a big problem if the eye can't discern it below 1.3 gain, especially with real world content. The bigger thing that concerns me is what you said about off-axis viewing being less than 1.0 gain/the viewing cone issue.

In my HT the seating will be 3 per row w/2 rows, the back row being elevated about 12". So without know the exact measurement, i'd guess for both rows i'll have a person in the center directly on-axis, and then 1 person about 36"-42" off-axis on either side. The 1st row will be approx 14ft from screen, with the 2nd row being approx 18ft. So as far as the viewing cone goes, will there be a 84" viewing cone @ 156" away from screen from a 127" wide screen? :huh:
Sorry, i don't know how you go about measuring/estimating the viewing cone and translating degree of angles into inches. :scratch:
Is there even a way to know how big or small the viewing cone will be without setting everything up and testing it?
 
#10 ·
I guess the most obvious thing to do would be to go with a smaller screen, but my biggest issue with doing this is that i've been watching everything on a 120" for close to 2 yrs. I'd be more than happy with a 120" Cinescope, but the thing that gets me is how much it shrinks when masked to fit HDTV and other 16/9 material. It goes from 120" Cinescope down to 95" Widescreen(16/9), which i could live with for HDTV. However, there are still a decent amount of Bluray titles released in 1.78/1.85 and i don't know if i'd be happy with that.
If you have enough zoom range on your PJ you might be able to compensate for this, but I guess that would make it Constant Image Width instead of Constant Image Height and you would have to mask top and bottom when in Cinescope. :huh:

I guess what i could do is buy a large enough cut of WA laminate to do the 138" Cinescope CIH, and then if it ends up being too dark i could always cut it down to 130", then 120", etc. until i'm happy with the brightness. Kind of a "shoot for the stars, land on the moon" way of doing things. :ponder:
That seems to be a hard way to do it, but it would work.

How bad are the issues that come with using the WA laminate? It sounds as if the hotspotting might not be a big problem if the eye can't discern it below 1.3 gain, especially with real world content. The bigger thing that concerns me is what you said about off-axis viewing being less than 1.0 gain/the viewing cone issue.
More people have liked DW than disliked it.

In my HT the seating will be 3 per row w/2 rows, the back row being elevated about 12". So without know the exact measurement, i'd guess for both rows i'll have a person in the center directly on-axis, and then 1 person about 36"-42" off-axis on either side. The 1st row will be approx 14ft from screen, with the 2nd row being approx 18ft. So as far as the viewing cone goes, will there be a 84" viewing cone @ 156" away from screen from a 127" wide screen? :huh:
Sorry, i don't know how you go about measuring/estimating the viewing cone and translating degree of angles into inches. :scratch:
Is there even a way to know how big or small the viewing cone will be without setting everything up and testing it?
We generally use simplified calculations which may be a little simplistic for the truly mathematically astute out there, but it's about the best us "regular" folk can do without our brains exploding. :dizzy:

Assuming that your PJ is pointing dead center to the screen and perfectly on-axis to it, you can use the calculator here to figure your viewing angles.



Using the figures from your post, side b would be the distance from the front row to the screen in inches (14 times 12 = 168) and side a would be the farthest seating position to the right or left of center, in your case 42 inches. Enter the values for side a and side b into the calculator and click on "calculate". Angle A is the viewing angle of that seat. In this case that would be 14.03624346 degrees, but I think we can round that down to 14 degrees. ;) Assuming the back row seat is directly behind the front row seat it's viewing angle would be 11 degrees (b = 216 and a = 42).

Mech's gain measurement of DW shows that at 15 degrees the gain has only dropped from 1.25 to 1.19, this would not be visible to the human eye.

 
#11 ·
Harpmaker said:
If you have enough zoom range on your PJ you might be able to compensate for this, but I guess that would make it Constant Image Width instead of Constant Image Height and you would have to mask top and bottom when in Cinescope.
This is exactly what i did with my old setup at my previous house and it worked fairly well. However, the zoom on the Acer 3D pj is absolutely atrocious. It's placement flexibility is it's biggest shortcoming, one of the worst i've seen on modern-day projectors. I think it has about 5 or 6 inches of zoom in it, which isn't very useful for anything but small adjustments during installation.


Harpmaker said:
That seems to be a hard way to do it, but it would work.
Yeah, that would definitely suck to have to do that, and i'm really hoping i won't have to. However, with the uncertainty around the 3D w/active shutter glasses and playing with such a low # of ftL, i probably won't know for sure until i get everything set up and test it.


Harpmaker said:
We generally use simplified calculations which may be a little simplistic for the truly mathematically astute out there, but it's about the best us "regular" folk can do without our brains exploding.
My brain just about expoded just trying to ask how to do it in my previous post...so that works for me! :T


Harpmaker said:
Mech's gain measurement of DW shows that at 15 degrees the gain has only dropped from 1.25 to 1.19, this would not be visible to the human eye.
That's great, it sounds like it might actually work...in theory, anyways. Thanks so much for taking the time to figure that all up! You've been a great help! :clap: :T
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top