Not all acoustically transparent screens can resolve 4K resolution.

[TP1]

Not all acoustically transparent screens can resolve 4K resolution. Some of the better woven types can but perforated ones  don’t. 

[Sinewave]

On 13/10/2020 at 8:28 PM, TP1 said:

Not all acoustically transparent screens can resolve 4K resolution. Some of the better woven types can but perforated ones  don’t. 

Oh really? Definitely did not know that. I’ll start studying up on them.
 

Thanks all for the advice! I love this forum. 
 

yeah if I had the space I’d certainly have a 140” cinema scope screen and have the best of both options but my front wall is only so big I’m afraid. 
 

next is remove the awful lights, Install dimmable downlights and paint my roof black. Then add some more Viacoustic panels on my ceiling. 

 

Edited October 22, 2020 by Sinewave

[Javs]

On 13/10/2020 at 8:28 PM, TP1 said:

Not all acoustically transparent screens can resolve 4K resolution. Some of the better woven types can but perforated ones  don’t. 

You have that totally backwards.

 

Woven screens will 'eat' the pixel grid. MiroPerf will clearly show the pixels. They are still mostly a flat surface after all.

 

Some of the better woven ones may still retain the grid properly.

[TP1]

Just now, Javs said:

You have that totally backwards.

 

Woven screens will 'eat' the pixel grid. MiroPerf will clearly show the pixels. They are still mostly a flat surface after all.

 

Some of the better woven ones may still retain the grid properly.

 

No Javs, you have that  backwards.  I was not expressing an opinion, but quoting researched facts on the matter. If you have a problem with their findings, take the matter up with the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) who did extensive research on the matter.  That carries a lot more weight than forum posts about an individual's opinion.

 

For the record, I did not say all woven screens were better. I did  provide an extract of an article from Widescreen Review that did verify the resolution capable by one of the better woven screens. I have included the main bit below 

 

"The woven (not punched) acoustically transparent Enlightor Neo screen material from Seymour-Screen Excellence revealed the supremely sharp images as well as subtle changes in luminance/shading that make images seem highly natural looking as well. Something I didn’t expect was sharpness to be as obvious with a woven screen compared to a solid-coated screen material. It is worth re-mentioning, that the SMPTE’s testing of perforated cinema projection screens revealed that the additional resolution of 4K images was not visible to the audience when projected onto perforated projection screens as used in most cinemas around the world."

 

 New designs come out all the time and may claim to be different  but I think the best advice for potential purchasers would be not to take a gamble  unless they have had a chanced to compare with a solid screen themselves. 

[Javs]

7 hours ago, TP1 said:

 

No Javs, you have that  backwards.  I was not expressing an opinion, but quoting researched facts on the matter. If you have a problem with their findings, take the matter up with the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) who did extensive research on the matter.  That carries a lot more weight than forum posts about an individual's opinion.

 

For the record, I did not say all woven screens were better. I did  provide an extract of an article from Widescreen Review that did verify the resolution capable by one of the better woven screens. I have included the main bit below 

 

"The woven (not punched) acoustically transparent Enlightor Neo screen material from Seymour-Screen Excellence revealed the supremely sharp images as well as subtle changes in luminance/shading that make images seem highly natural looking as well. Something I didn’t expect was sharpness to be as obvious with a woven screen compared to a solid-coated screen material. It is worth re-mentioning, that the SMPTE’s testing of perforated cinema projection screens revealed that the additional resolution of 4K images was not visible to the audience when projected onto perforated projection screens as used in most cinemas around the world."

 

 New designs come out all the time and may claim to be different  but I think the best advice for potential purchasers would be not to take a gamble  unless they have had a chanced to compare with a solid screen themselves. 

 

I dont have it backwards, I knew you were going to reply in a quite dismissive manner, to the point I almost didn't even bother posting in the first place, however you have slightly misunderstood the article you are quoting, I found the article and quote referencing the SMTPE 'observations' (a few people sitting in a commercial cinema???) and they are talking about PERF not MICROPERF. There is a huge difference between the two. !

 

I take issue mostly with the 'matter of fact' nature of your comment, its simply not correct whatsoever.

 

Quote

Not all acoustically transparent screens can resolve 4K resolution. Some of the better woven types can but perforated ones  don’t. 

 

You act like any perf screens cant resolve 4k at all, you are talking like only some Woven screens can, patently untrue, almost ALL microperf screens resolve 4k and above, how many times have you heard that people need to hold a sheet of A4 paper in front of a woven screen to focus their projector? Its because you generally cannot see the clear pixel grid whatsoever with most woven screens, which means it cannot resolve 4k resolution, sure, the info is kinda there, but its not 'resolved'.

 

 

 

A microperf is 0.4mm in size. lets do some math, when you display 8 million pixels on a screen 120" diagonal, your horizontal image size is 2670mm and you have 3840 pixels wide, but you have so you have a pixel size of 0.69mm in size, am I wrong? If the pixel is a fair bit bigger bigger than the perf size, there is no problem.? Not to mention only 7% open area, the other 93% of the pixels dont fall on any perfs and are completely perfect pixels as they would be on a totally flat matte surface! This is amplified if you have larger than 120" diagonal screens, the bigger you go, the more resolving power you will have. At 150" your 4k pixel is now 0.86mm in size, double that of a single perf.

 

Have you not seen a woven and microperf screen sample at the same time? You can hardly discern the pixel grid with Woven, yet almost all Microperf will easily show you the pixel grid, this is very clearly resolving power,  this is not some internet opinion, SMPTE is not studying microperf materials because generally they are not used in cinema because the audience sits so far back.

 

Why dont YOU ask Stewart why they dont seem to make any woven screens right now but dozens of perfed? Are they not a high end enough brand for you? They are literally the biggest screen manufacturer in the world so much so that other brands actually use it as the baseline for screen gain measurements against the known reference standard.

 

https://www.stewartfilmscreen.com/en/news/stewart-screens-are-16k-ready-but-what-does-that-mean

 

Also read here:

 

http://severtsonscreens.com/severtson-microperf-technology/

 

• Nearly invisible perforations from six feet away.
• Non-square perforation pattern and small holes significantly reduces moiré effect.
• Optimal performance for 4K, 8K, and higher resolutions.
• Improved image quality when viewing at close range.
• 15% better sound transfer than standard perforated screens.

 

Perhaps you should also talk about light scatter and its affects on real on screen contrast that woven is known for and a huge Con IMO. Stewart has a white paper:

 

https://www.stewartfilmscreen.com/en/news/defining-the-difference-in-perforated-screens

 

https://www.stewartfilmscreen.com/en/news/acoustically-transparent-screens-heard-not-seen

 

I Have a sample right here of OZTS Woven (Old and New one), Severtsons Microperf (almost exactly the same as the Stewarts MP), also their Fabric Sat4K material which looks to be at the very least almost identical as a 'barely any weave' type material that Seymour is using and there is no mistake, the Microperf is sharper than all of them...

 

The Sat4K is good though too, this will have no problem with 4K either.

 

 

Thats not to say that the very best and most recent examples of Woven are not great and cant resolve 4k pixels properly, because they can, but its completely incorrect to try and state that no microperf can do it, its factually false.  Instead of a dismissive reply you could perhaps clarify your position a bit?

 

Its probably better to say that good examples of both screen technologies can resolve 4k+.  Older larger weave woven and old larger perf are both the kind to stay away from.

 

One thing thats 100% true and factors highly into your screen choice is gain. For a certain screen size you may need to go higher gain over 1.0, for that NO Woven screen on the market will do it, you must go microperf. In the HDR era, this is highly important if you ever want something like 150+ inches. Unless you have a light cannon projector. The best woven screens max out at something like 0.85 gain if you are lucky.

 

Audio is better on Woven, but Stewart has a whitepaper on that too, proper placement behind Perf will yield no real issues with Audio. Woven has known light scatter with light hitting the fibres on angles as they are round and bounce all around lowering your contrast and appearance of colour.

 

There are pros and cons on each, resolving power on the better woven and better perf is generally not an issue if you use the type of woven above, certainly NOT only one sided.

 

So, how is my post backwards?

 

Edited October 20, 2020 by Javs

[TP1]

 

1 hour ago, Javs said:

I knew you were going to reply in a quite dismissive manner,

 

You set the tone with your post which was in itself totally dismissive of SMPTE findings.  If you want a more nuanced discussion,  you should start with a less bombastic approach.

 

1 hour ago, Javs said:

Instead of a dismissive reply you could perhaps clarify your position a bit?

 

 I reported the findings of research conducted by SMPTE , which is completely independent and doesn't rely on claims from manufactures or dealers.  I have no skin in the game  so I don't really care how bad or good acoustically transparent screens are.  However, with the advent of 4K resolutions and with 8k being forecast, the performance of acoustically transparent screens should rightly be scrutinised. 

 

Stewart's latest iteration of their  Micro-perforation technology does look good, but I don't think that necessarily translates into all perforated screens  performing just as well.   Given that  all AT screens offer some degree of compromise over  equivalent solid screens, there is no real way of knowing how each type compares  to the other, except  through personal comparisons or independent reviews.  

 

 

Edited October 20, 2020 by TP1

[Javs]

8 hours ago, TP1 said:

You set the tone with your post which was in itself totally dismissive of SMPTE findings.  If you want a more nuanced discussion,  you should start with a less bombastic approach.

 

 I reported the findings of research conducted by SMPTE , which is completely independent and doesn't rely on claims from manufactures or dealers.  I have no skin in the game  so I don't really care how bad or good acoustically transparent screens are.  However, with the advent of 4K resolutions and with 8k being forecast, the performance of acoustically transparent screens should rightly be scrutinised. 

 

Stewart's latest iteration of their  Micro-perforation technology does look good, but I don't think that necessarily translates into all perforated screens  performing just as well.   

 

There is no convincing you, especially if it comes from me as history would show, but lets be clear, you made a ridiculous statement without actual substantiation and I called you on it.

 

You haven't submitted findings and research of the SMTPE, you have quoted a comment from the comments section on the bottom of an internet article which is exactly the thing you were initially condemning and took it totally at face value without fact checking, where is the link to the white-paper of this 'study'? I gave you several white-papers some of which are actually done by 3rd party not the manufacturer, and also presented some simple math to you which proves there is no issue at all, and I talked about first hand experience with several woven and perf samples in my possession. From reading this internet comment (which I had actually read some years ago also) you quoted, they were clearly sitting in a commercial cinema looking at standard perforated commercial screen which has massive holes.

 

Stewarts and others Microperf screens have been around for years now, not just one brand either, hence my reaction to your post, you would have to be living under a rock to not know about them and comment to the contrary so matter of factly.

 

Quote

Given that  all AT screens offer some degree of compromise over  equivalent solid screens, there is no real way of knowing how each type compares  to the other, except  through personal comparisons or independent reviews. 

 

^ This is more in line with what you probably should have initially said and just left it there... big difference to hide behind the SMTPE (without citing any substantiating evidence) and calling it fact.

 

Lets leave it at that, unless you present some evidence to support your prior claim.

[TP1]

4 hours ago, Javs said:

You haven't submitted findings and research of the SMTPE,

 

SMPTE make it available to members - I am not a member. Pretending it doesn't exist reflects more on you than anything else. 

 

5 hours ago, Javs said:

This is more in line with what you probably should have initially said and just left it there... big difference to hide behind the SMTPE (without citing any substantiating evidence) and calling it fact.

 

Lets leave it at that, unless you present some evidence to support your prior claim.

 

Hide behind SMPTE? are you kidding??  The ONLY reason I made the post was to share some objective information on  the subject.  Unlike you, I have no commercial interest in this so. I really don't care about the results.  I would not  have made a comment had it not been for an independent review done by experts, which to any normal thinking person would seem noteworthy.  The fact that Stewart  have a very good perforated product is obviously good news.

 

You may choose to ignore SMPTE findings, but Stewart would not.   SMPTE set standards for projection screens and Stewart has made no secret that they work closely with SMPTE. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Javs]

1 hour ago, TP1 said:

Unlike you, I have no commercial interest in this so. I really don't care about the results.

 

I dont sell projectors mate, have not for a couple years... even then at the time it was maybe a dozen, might want to reconsider the pigeon hole you seem to put me in.

 

Thats all from me, I made my point so others can hopefully see the errors in your original statement, even though you refuse to accept it and wont walk back on your comments.

[oztheatre]

I think one of the biggest problems is the fact that these 4k projectors can't even resolve themselves to begin with. 

 

I use Javs quick brown fox and some of Tony Dummetts test patterns to put projectors thru the torture session and in the past couple of years only the JVC N7 and Epson 9400 passes. 

 

I think Javs is right, there are pro and cons of each type of material. We may be moving back to microperf at some point or at least have it as an option. Trouble is getting a twin layered microperf with some gain, most are single layered white vinyls with no gain at all which is kind of pointless. 

[TheDigitalPicture]

I am agreeing with Javs here.  The older "Perf" screens had much larger holes and became a problem above 1080p.  The newer "micro-perf" screens are significantly more proficient at resolving a 4K pixel and out-perform woven screens by some margin.

 

I would take a micro-perf screen any day over a woven when image quality is of primary concern.  There are other factors at play here such as audio quality, but given the right conditions the micro-perf screens perform just as well for sound quality.