Saturday, June 20, 2009

Black Widow vs Silver Fire

I've ranted quite a bit about MississippiMan and his delusional state of being. Why is he this way? Because he knows we're right and he's wrong. I've talked several times of MississippiMan getting back on his horse to ride back into diy screens to save the day. One of the first things he did was to put together a 'shootout' of his silver fire versus Black Widow. It was some of the finest egg I've ever seen on his face. Firstly, he cannot take a picture worth a darn - he's actually been caught photoshopping his photos! Secondly, everyone like Black Widow more than his silver fire!

Thanks for the great work.

In this screenshot BW-EW looks to produce similair blacks, but noticeably whiter whites than the silverscreen panel. In the other shots, the difference isn't nearly as apparent.

Do you feel that going with BW-EW will give a noticeable improvement over silverscreen without impacting the blacks? (with full light control and a Benq w10000)

Another comment

I think that HAS to be an illusion resulting of looking at screenshots over the web on a computer screen. It's a fact the BW is a darker version, therefore has to produce darker blacks. The other advantage of a darker screen is light tolerance, which seems to be the quest here.

I have BW up on 110" from 14', and my Samsung 720p (ae710) is no light cannon, and my whites on the PGA events are blooming to the point I'm dialing down the contrast. (with rear high hats at 50%)

So (maybe it's my particular setup) I'm patiently waiting and reading for Wbassett and Mech to have an even darker version.....

Then as my bulb ages (~300hours now) I can go back to BW....then BW-EW....what a wonderful time to be alive !
Yet another.... still no one asking about his silver fire or commenting on how 'it blows away the widow'! lol!

This shot favors the BW rolled the most. You can see the comparison of the blacks and whites relative to the RS Maxxmud and Kilz2 white. In person, how are you liking your BW-EW mix compared to BW?
But all this is in the past. ;)

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Maurice/MississippiMan's Responds

This next post will be a dissection of Maurice's recent long winded reply to a post I made at avforums. In that post I showed numerous examples of better performing diy screens than his 'vaunted Black Flame/Silver Fire/whatever he's calling it now' mix. There were no shots taken at maury. Just that I liked these other shots much better than his. What's funny is he thought I was comparing all of the shots I showed to his full lights blaring shots. I wasn't. It was the washed out lights off shot that really caught my eye. ;)

There is no reference in your images whatsoever as to the degree of ambient lighting the images you posted are dealing visual reference as I presented. Likewise with the last image.

This first part is downright hilarious. Here he asks that I do as he does not. And he doesn't because, obviously, he's hiding something. lol And he doesn't know how to compare anything. But he'll sing to the heavens that he's done thousands of comparisons to this that or the other. In reality he hasn't. Why? Because they usually don't end up the way he likes. ;)

You*_ could_* do something to rectify that simply by taking and posting some images with two, 150 watt bare bulbs positioned directly in front of the screen at 8', and spaced approx 6' apart. (...that I've never seen done...) That would still give you a decided advantage over my representations, still even so being, I'm certain your images would be somewhat less than impressive.

Oh.... you mean like we always have against you in the past? Such as the flash photo in the post below? Or how Bill blew away your crud with a simple off the shelf neutral gray?

Your responded by posting an excessive number of examples that are very obviously taken in no...or almost no ambient light, yet you hold them up as being a comparison to the extreme conditions I chose to illustrate? Let's examine the differences. I used what amounts to being a Presentation quality PJ...1280 x 768 .... NOT a 1080p or even a 720p as to keep the potential for being charged with "placing a Finger on the Scale" from being made. I allowed intense lighting to be present a mere 6' away from and on a level with the Top of the Screen.

I believe I've proved this statement to be false in the post below. Take a look at the picture which shows where the light falls. And yes, that is a presentation pj! Shooting over 50fL at the screen! A piece of gray cardboard would do better than what you've shown.

I think everyone reading and viewing these varied examples knows full well that what you've shown is a very poor comparison to what I have shown, as is. As for actually trying to even remotely match the conditions shown....I'm absolutely certain you will *_NOT_* opt to do evidenced by the examples you already posted.
I myself can post "Eye Candy" shots to exceed the visual quality of your examples, and can do so / have done so repeatedly on screens 2x to 3x as large, and with less lumen output as well.

Ahhhhhhh...... nooooo.... You've never posted a decent picture of anything in your life. They are always fuzzy, blurry, over exposed crud. Swing and a miss batter!

*_Where 'anywhere' is the example of BW on a 130" screen in such a degree of high ambient light as shown above? Certainly not in your posted "Dark Room" shots with a back lighted Trim. _* Somehow the mention by you of such 'differences' are always left out of any comments made about what is seen....or in lue of that, you switch to discounting the validity of using screen shots for comparison or illustration. *(...and yet you use them yourself to great you not?)* It's always something, amounting to an almost desperate attempt to mitigate the difference between a DIY application that can be infinitely adjusted to any shade and PJ/Room situation (SF), and one that can only become something "less" than touted to be as you deviate further from it's original intent by trying to "lig
hten" it.

Uhhhhhhhhhhh...... hmmmmmmmm...... what?!?!? You're either incredibly stupid or... well.... let's just stick with that! ;)

I chose to post up examples at the extreme end of the scale of ambient light performance, and to date, nothing you've ever posted even remotely comes close to what is seen above under those extreme lighting conditions. Anyone with enough lumens in moderate ambient light, projecting onto a Gray screen (neutral or otherwise) can accomplish what you've done so far with Black Widow.

What was the lumens/lux reading of the ambient light hitting your crud Maury? Oh that's right, you don't know! Guess what? I know what's hitting mine cause I actually have a light meter and I use it. Mr. Blowhard here, who's been robbing folks for many moons, can't seem to drop a single penny on something as simple as a light meter. Feeble, oh feeble one! lol

That you _*"HAD"*_ to employ metallic assistance *(...after so long denying it's need/usefulness...)* to even come close to anything resembling "real' performance in ambient light simply justifies a position*_ I've taken since 2004_*

Can't take credit for it oh feeble one! You don't use metallics. You use seashells. lol! As a matter of fact I'm fairly certain that you cannot take credit for anything you do. It's my understanding that all you do is rob other's ideas. You don't have a single fresh idea at all according to your feeble logic.

Without the added boost the aluminum makes, or the "Graying" nature it provides when mixed in proper proportions with a "adjusting beige base' , all you would have, or would still be advocating would be simple neutral Gray applications. Those applications were always easy to top...and once you realized came on board the "Metallic Express". I take that as a small victory and validation of ideals over the "simple neutral Gray" mandate you expressed for so long.
But the fixed mindset that Neutrality alone is the answer, in a simple Gray or even a metallic Gray is myopic at best...and dead wrong in reality.

Really?!?!?! Let's alert the CIE then Maurice! Are you gonna call them or should I?!?!?! Do you even know what CIE stands for? SMPTE? Not too smart maury....

Drastic shifts are of course detrimental. "Designed in" minimal shifts can be VERY advantageous. But such shifts do not represent the whole equation.
How/what the "Gray" is derived from and how it mixes with other components is the key...and although it may not be "simple", It's certainly not "hard' nor really nearly as expensive as some would lead others to believe. Although it might seem strange to some on this Forum after months of reading the opposite, with just a slight shift away from neutrality, (via Blue or Red) performance in ambient light increases.

Time to throw the BS flag! You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about here. Admit it. Two things. One - it is not a slight shift. I've tested three separate samples. One being my own and two independent samples. All were the same. There's a significant blue shift there. Two - I've never said 'boo about you at that forum. All I do is help people. All you do is try to pitch sales. The nice thing is, most folks there are intelligent and they ignore you! lol

But many have not only heard it so expressed how adverse any such a deviation is, but they also have been bereft of any degree of a varying point of view. Reality and much actual experience has proved otherwise. Gosh though....SF is almost dead on neutral in it's newest guise, and at any shade it's mixed to....and still it will/ does outperform other non-mica based applications handily.
The neutrality / Mica arguments have been effectively crushed underfoot.

Prove it. lol

The post above this by you is very much the same type of response you've always rebutted with. (...just a tad more civil....) For my own reasons (personal & business) I chose to be absent from this Forum for a while...and in that absence you presented...with an unusually aggressive and assisted effort....your own take on what was/is a very good, simply made screen application. It was a case of "opportunity" taken......and taken to the extreme as well.

Wrong again. Are you noticing a pattern? You've been gone because no one listens to you. Period.

But it's not / never has been the "End All to Beat All" you trumpeted it as being at the start...especially when one considers that you cannot present it in it's darker manifestations without considerable crushing of whites, nor use it with a lower lumen PJ.

You have no idea what I/we can and cannot do. What is apparent is that we accomplished, in very little time, what you cannot. Sorry Maury! lol We spend very little time on this. We can do darker. We can do lighter. The difference is that we don't force feed bad solutions upon people like you do. We're not making a living off of snake oil like you are.

If you attempt to lighten it to alleviate those caveats, any ambient light performance BW presents diminishes with every lighter shade attempted. For MANY months you've "Beta'd" to try to find an answer to the loss of Whites and undue attenuation characteristics of Black Widow...and to what avail?

We beta'd for a very short time. Three beta testers, all successful. And it's done. Just because we haven't run around like a babbling babelfish, babbling like an idiot doesn't mean it's not done. It's done.

Nothing has/was accomplished other than your achieving a lighter Gray. And with that came the accompanying lessor performance that comes with /by adding less aluminum or more white...and by doing so you negate the very nature of what the original premise of Black Widow stood for.....appreciable Ambient Light performance with a screen surface that can still look excellent in a dark room setting. I know you know the reason....B!
W is so "simple" it has no flexibility to become something different without becoming less than originally intended. You've made an considerable effort to dissuade people on several Forums against even considering the use of Mica-based reflective paints.

Blah blah blah blah blah. Did I ever talk about the time that Maurice made a comparison between Black Widow and Silver Fire over at avs? Everyone preferred Black Widow! lol It was so funny! It was right after he was granted access to the diy forum again.

You've touted how "Neutrality" was King...when in reality it can produce only "Neutral" results...and even those with distinct limitations as to flexibility.
I know full well your post was intended to provoke a response. You get your wish...but just this once. I sat back over the course of more than a year+ and read as you and a few others of like mind posted some very denigrating remarks , and tried your level bests to continually discount Silver Fire as a inferior application. You support your comments and ideas with the use of a myriad of Graphs and charts, but you also use them as a Club of aggression to 'attempt' to discount the work of others, the materials they use, and even their ability & motives to provide others will a choice. But that's you...and how you go about validating your own work...and I accept that. Up to a point....I have to.

Yep. I'm truth, justice and SMPTE standards. What are you again? Oh that's right! A snake oil salesman! lol

But my Thread isn't here to be a convenient platform for such..._yet if you do post, your welcome to do so as long as your "comparisons" and comments are subjective ones, as well as civil.

Whoa! I was civil! And subjective! Talk about the old blackened pot calling the brand new stainless steel never used kettle black! lol

Please do not start out again waging a war of attrition...with redundant assaults and excessive cluttering up of my Threads with your own Photos & Graphs that manage to show only results you think are the answer to my own posted results, ones that are revealing of the performance your own applications cannot obtain.

Yes. I understand. Keep data, standards and the like out of it and just go by your word! lol

Nor should you call in "The Troops' to do so as has been done elsewhere. I'm you portend to give People the choices they need/deserve. I am NOT here to create issues or confrontations....
The Membership here is neither gullible nor dense.

Yep. They ignore you! ;)

In fact I found them to be quite the opposite. But more so, I found them to be courteous, respectful of others, and very much appreciative of help given/received.
I'm back...for the duration....and my intent is to help people when and however I can...and offer them a fair take on the choices they have to consider. As for Ambient Light applications, let them decide what is worth any extra effort/expense, they need no convincing by biased remarks offered up by a biased party. That applies to me as well, so naturally, I will always try my best to let my posted results do the well as those of whomever makes the effort to do likewise. That is how it should be.

Right. How many views on the BW thread over there at avs? How much money have we taken from your slimy pockets? Someday you shall slither away and the world will be a better place for it!

Saturday, June 6, 2009

MississippiMan's blunders

The latest in the MississippiMan (Maurice/Maury) debacle... The guy just doesn't get it. He's worse than a politician. Take a look at this thread at avs (there's a lot of good people there - unfortunately the site is so mismanaged and poorly run it's like Armageddon there):

In this thread Maurice blatantly taunts his commercial endeavors while posting it in a forum at avs to which this is not allowed. A recap of the first line of the rules again:

The DIY Screen section is for discussion of screens made from materials not originally intended for projection screen use. This is a DIY forum for people to share DIY ideas. If you are a full or part time dealer or installer of home theater screens, this is the wrong forum section for you - please do not post here.

And yet Maurice is allowed to post his commercial endeavors yet again. And that's not even the most shocking part. That's reserved for the fact that he actually thinks this screen, for which he was paid to build, performs well. He is called out publicly in numerous twists of the truth and back peddles his way to he being the greatest and everyone else is wrong. First he states numerous things regarding the pictures that are fabrications - like that's new with Maurice. Then he jumps tot he fact that the pictures don't tell the real story and that 'you'll just have to take his word for it'. No thanks Maurice! Your life has been one big fib. From the start of your twisting of reality and your perception of reality to your fabrications. And I have to admit that I really do think that he fabricates things because he doesn't know them. Such as gain. He fabricates gain readings for his mixes based upon his eyeball comparison to something else. At times he will even state that prof55 (aka Garry Stoner) did his gain readings for him. Even though recently prof55 stated that he didn't have the capability to do gain readings anymore. Something which he has stated he was capable of in the past. Maybe he fibs too.

A brief history of Maurice shows a a small man whom cannot makes ends meet except by badgering people into sales in the diy screen forum at avs. You'll note that numerous posts of his show many connotations to personal mail messages sent and received. If one were really in it to help, why not state these things publicly to benefit one and all? And then there's the photographs... photographs which really don't show us much since there is no comparison.

First there's this shot:

You can clearly see that there's an attempt to show that there's a lot of ambient light in the room. There is. No one can question that. But what can be questioned is why there is no cheap $20 meter measuring the amount of light reflected off of the floor or walls back at the screen? I say the floor and walls because clearly none of the light, directly from the lights, is reaching the screen.

I've outlined the path of the light from the fixture and you can clearly see none hitting the actual screen surface.

The thing that makes me wonder is that folks actually thought this was amazing. I can tell you now it is not. This screen is being hit with 50+fL of light from the projector. That's over 4 times the recommended amount. I think we could have used gray cardboard and done as well.

Notice how he uses the lights to hide the performance of his screen?

Even with the lights off the screen doesn't 'wow' anyone except for the ill informed. By the way, this is the vaunted Light Fusion stupidity that I tested at the Shack. While the jury is still out on whether or not it actually adds to the image, my money is on no for Maurice. I think there is a way to do it. I just don't think Maurice knows how! ;)

There was a time when he actually posted a picture of a screen he was paid to do that was taken with a flash. He boldly stated "that no screen out there could do as well as his poo poo in a bottle on a mirror". So I went to the theater and tried it out. This was with my Fashion Grey laminate screen at the time. You can click on the image to see it full size.


Fashion Grey laminate from Wilsonart blows away anything Maurice did, does or will do. Why? Because he really doesn't care about you or your screen. He just wants the cash money. And let's be honest. Nothing is really being blown away. But things are performing as well or more than likely better both cheaper and easier. These folks try to pass themselves off as a Da-Lite or a Stewart. Trolling the forums fishing for catch phrases to use for their poo with no data to back it up.

Finally, the funniest thing of all, outside of someone paying him to spray a screen for them, is that good ole Maurice popped in to the UK forum that I frequent and tried like the dickens to get someone to talk to him. No one bit!