Preferred silver screen

[Darin Steffl]

For regular 2D screens, who is best? Our dealer recommends Severtson and we're using them for our small VIP room. Then next year we want to replace our main auditorium screen with something larger so we're wondering who makes a good 2D screen. We'll go 4K laser so I assume it's recommended to go with Micro Perf or the SAT-4K the Severtson has which is a woven material that is supposed to let even more sounds through than a Perf.

[Carsten Kurz]

Severtson and Harkness are the best.

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

We need to purchase a new silver screen for Avatar this year. Do any of you have a preferred screen for 3D? Do you think it would be possible to install the silver in front of the existing white screen? We plan to re-install the white screen when Avatar finishes its run.

You could really only have both available if you have a fly that the screen not being used can be raised up into. Also, removing a screen, especially a silver screen, is for sure going to cause damage of some sort to it. The silver surface is extremely fragile. You would be far better off looking into the electronic 3-D glasses that work with a white screen. You would also have far superior 3D than you would get with a polarized system.

[Marcel Birgelen]

For regular 2D screens, who is best? Our dealer recommends Severtson and we're using them for our small VIP room. Then next year we want to replace our main auditorium screen with something larger so we're wondering who makes a good 2D screen. We'll go 4K laser so I assume it's recommended to go with Micro Perf or the SAT-4K the Severtson has which is a woven material that is supposed to let even more sounds through than a Perf.

Not that much experience with Severtson, but Harkness screens should do the trick. Order a sample to see if the perforation (micro v.s. normal) works for your setup. Most smaller screens really should use micro-perf to avoid the annoyance of a visible dot-pattern in the first rows.

If possible, avoid all screens with a high gain factor.

[Harold Hallikainen]

For regular 2D screens, who is best? ... We'll go 4K laser so I assume it's recommended to go with Micro Perf or the SAT-4K the Severtson has which is a woven material that is supposed to let even more sounds through than a Perf.

Woven screens are interesting. I saw one at a dub stage. They are nearly acoustically transparent. This requires the equalization be set to simulate the HF loss of a perforated screen. I believe woven screens are also "low gain" since a lot of light passes through it. This can give a good picture quality (no hot spots), but requires more light from the projector.

See https://f.hubspotusercontent00.net/h...14.pdf#page=83 . Cinema A used a perforated screen and has very little equalization applied. Dub stage F is the one I saw with the woven screen. Note the high frequency rolloff applied through equalization to compensate for the lack of HF loss compared to a perforated screen. Dub stage E, which has a lot of HF boost, has a "CinemaPerf" screen.

Screen characteristics are at https://f.hubspotusercontent00.net/h...14.pdf#page=15 .

In general, I think a woven screen should result in good sound and good picture, but takes more projector power. EQ could be a a single shelf filter whose slope duplicates the HF portion of the X-curve.

Harold

[Emmanuel Nwokafor]

I prefer Severtson screen.

[Steve Guttag]

Harold, I have not found that a woven screen needs to be compensated for with respect to more light. Normally, a woven screen needs a black backing to prevent light scatter.

Up close, you can see the weave but at the first row, even if only a few feet away, you can't.

Screen Shot 2022-06-09 at 10.57.03 AM.png

I'm curious...for those that "prefer" a particular brand of silver screen...why? Have you done any measurements to cause you to favor one over the other? Is there a build quality you find better in one brand over the other and does that carry through to the non-silver screens?

[Ben Gervais]

I work in production / post on films, particularly 3D films. We spend _alot_ of time comparing screen materials, since colorists and post people are so finicky (and since our screens tend to be smaller, we notice defects more).

The best screen for stereo if you're using a polarized system, in my experience, are the RealD 'Ultimate' screens. They're made of a flexible plastic lamination rather than vinyl with a coating painted onto it. They have by far the lowest stereo crosstalk (ghosting) and hot-spotting of any silver screen on the market. We've even installed them in suites primarily used for 2D, and most colourists don't even know it's not a white screen unless it's pointed out to them.

They're not cheap, but they are pretty great. Because it's basically flexible plastic, the perfs are cut with a laser and are so small that they are almost invisible when held at arm's length. My understanding is the screen needs a longer-ish lead time, since they're manufactured somewhere in Asia. Our Dolby techs always seem pretty happy with their performance when it comes to sound transparency, and with shakers installed, speckle is very low when laser projection is employed on them.

I see OP is in Denver - RealD is headquartered in Boulder. It would be worth a trip to visit them. They have a room with many screen materials on sliders, and a projector on them. You can slide different screens from different manufacturers into/out of the beam and compare their performance side-by-side. (call first, the demo room is not always open)

If we're looking for something that more approximates good performance at a lower price point, we frequently use the MDI screens for les critical work or when we want to approximate a 'typical' cinema.

[Carsten Kurz]

Does RealD sell these screens, or do you only get them bundled with a RealD contract (e.g. Z-Screen)?

[Ben Gervais]

Carsten, I don't actually know - sales/lease terms for this kind of stuff for production and post facilities are very different than for cinemas. You'd have to contact them directly.

[Jason Sharp]

Thanks Ben! If RealD Ultra is your #1, what would be your numbers 2 and 3?

[Marcel Birgelen]

Harold, I have not found that a woven screen needs to be compensated for with respect to more light. Normally, a woven screen needs a black backing to prevent light scatter.

Up close, you can see the weave but at the first row, even if only a few feet away, you can't.

A few years back, we installed a woven screen in our screening room. It was some new kind of "micro-weave", that would also work for small rooms, like professional home-cinema setups and it would have better sound properties than ordinary perforated screens.

We've always had a black baffle wall and all the speakers are matte black, so we didn't have any problems with stuff reflecting through from the back of the screen. But unfortunately, the weave was clearly visible in the first row and also pretty visible in light-intense scenes in the second row. In the first row, that structure gave you the idea as if you were looking at a moving painting...

It was clear that it didn't work for us in this setting and we moved back to micro-perf pretty quickly.

[Ben Gervais]

Thanks Ben! If RealD Ultra is your #1, what would be your numbers 2 and 3?

In my opinion, there's just distant 2'nd / 3'rd. Silver screens in general are a struggle, in that higher gain generally equals better stereo extinction / lower ghosting, but more hotspotting (narrower half-gain angle). This is because a mirror would perfectly preserve polarization, but any diffuse surface naturally scatters / randomizes some of the polarization & the more gain, the closer to a perfect mirror your screen is. Virtually all screens are manufactured the same way these days - you have a substrate that the reflective material is sprayed/painted/rolled onto, the reflective coating may have larger or smaller particle sizes, or the spraying technique may be slightly different, but the technology is basically the same across all manufacturers, and thus the results are very similar to each other. As noted in my previous post, the reason the reald screens are so good is because it's a fundamental change in the way the screen is made.

So, for second or third choice, a higher gain screen will be better, all other things being equal (even across manufacturers) and you, as a cinema operator have other considerations than we do in post-production (we don't often have folks throwing food at our screens ). If you've got a choice of screens (ie you are running a multiplex) to switch over, given the statement above, you're going to be able to tolerate a higher gain in a more narrow, longer cinema than in a less-deep / wide cinema: the hotspot will at least be in the centre of the screen for most viewers in that case.

Sorry for rambling. What I'm trying to say is second choice will depend on the chosen cinema design. Spend some time with your blueprints and consider the half-gain-angle for the silver screens you are choosing between (should be on the screen spec sheets). That should lead you to a preferred gain for that cinema and then consider your other priorities - as long as you go with a reputable screen vendor, Severtson, Harkness, MDI, all these are good manufacturers that produce quality products, and performance between them (for 3D at least) will be really a matter of small differences.

[Carsten Kurz]

I repeat this for years - it's ridiculous that we exhibitors are expected to buy expensive equipment that is not properly spec'd for performance.

[Steve Guttag]

MDI does have their "Highwhite" 3D screens with the Real-D technology in them. https://strongmdi.com/products/highwhite/. Based on their data, they are still going to be hot-spotty but with a white surface, they are bound to be a little better on 2D for color rendition. I have never used or measured them to verify their claims.