Recently my honesty and integrity has been called out and attacked by three individuals over at avs. Two of these individuals are members here at the Shack - prof55 and MississippiMan. The other is pb_maxx. Who is not a member here at the Shack to my knowledge. This all stems from several long running 'feuds' with regards to the diy screen arena.
Feud number one involves MississippiMan, whom I'll refer to as either MMan or Maurice (his name) here on out. Maurice has been the bearer of bad information at avs since the diy screen forum was founded there at avs. His background is this. He installs in wall speakers and paints screens. His webpage is [url]www.invisiblestereo.com[/url] Both Bill (wbassett) and I started at avs around the same general time - I believe Bill joined a month or two ahead of me. We both joined looking for a diy screen that would match in performance a commercial screen but at a much lower cost. At that time the diy screen paint was Black Flame - a concoction which is now called Silver Fire and is in it's third rendition I believe. I was very interested in Black Flame as it sounded just the thing I was looking for. I believe Bill was looking into it as well. Both Bill and I were approached by Maurice via the pm system at avs and offers were made to paint screens for us. Keep in mind that I didn't know Bill and Bill didn't know me at the time. The offer was pay a fee for Maurice to paint our screen, pay his airfare, put him up in a hotel, and we would get a commercial quality screen. We both thought that this was a bit fishy. Pay all this money for him to come and roll a screen for us?!?! It would have been pretty near a thousand dollars for me. I'm not sure what Bill's would have cost. Since these pms occurred both Bill and I started reading more about the various paints and what would make a good screen. Bill also started talking to Mark Fairchild of R.I.T. Mark's bio can be found here [url]http://www.cis.rit.edu/fairchild/[/url]. Sometime around this time Bill started questioning Maurice and started up a couple of new diy threads at avs - the laminate thread and off the shelf neutral gray thread. These two threads, along with Black Widow, are three of the top threads at avs' diy forum. How does this concern Maurice? Well, with the help of Mark Fairchild, Bill started picking apart a lot of what Maurice was saying. Bill's statements were based upon facts. While Maurice's have been based upon thin air. Maurice usually uses his "XX years of experience in the home theater field". You can put just about any number in the XXs. I've seen him say as many as 30 and as few as 7. Who knows? Bill (as well as others) also caught Maurice posting Photoshop'd images and saying they were his builds. I believe prof55 provided much of the ammo for this. So what is the basis of the feud with Maurice? Well Maurice runs around throwing numbers out (gain values, viewing cone angles, etc) and stating that his mix is neutral. Yet it's never been measured. And back when I started here I wanted to test his formula out so I mixed it up and took some readings. I thought it looked purply/bluish and I asked Maurice for advice regarding this. His reply was to pm me the formula that I already followed. I asked him for a sample (either of the paint or of a small panel) and he responded positively. And yet nothing ever arrived. There will be more to the Silver Fire drama a bit later. This should suffice for now. I wanted to touch on one more thing with regards to Maurice. Since I had been a member at avs, he has promised many different shootouts involving many different mixes. Rarely, if ever, do they show up. How many have I done? How hard have I worked at getting the color balanced correctly in each shot. The one shootout that I do recall Maurice finishing was a comparison of Black Widow and Silver Fire. The few people that responded all said BW looked better.
Another player in the feud is pb_maxx or Pete as I'll call him. Pete is supposedly the brains of the bunch. He's the guy who actually came up with the formulas. I used to have a lot of respect for Pete but it's pretty much gone over time. The first thing that used to gnaw at me was his lack of typing skills/grammar? He refuses to ever capitalize anything and his posts are always difficult to read. That wasn't that big of a deal though because looking back in time most geniuses were eccentric. My big problem with Pete is that lately he's seemed to jump on the bandwagon and start saying things that are simply unfounded. Here's a couple of examples - these have been taken from the thread at avs where the attack started by prof55 began and are in regards to my Silver fire sample measurements:
[QUOTE]it would seem to me that if you wanted to post fair results... you'd ask for a little bit of assistance and try to get the mix correct... as others have done.
ZEDUCTIVE for his part (which i commend), asked for assistance.[/QUOTE]
Ok first off, I did ask for assistance. This has been public knowledge for quite some time now. I even asked for a sample direct from Maurice. And it's Zductive. And Zductive didn't get help from them, he got it from harpmaker.
Then there's this post the next day:
[QUOTE]all three of those SF panels that were tested were done at the EXACT same time and in collaboration with one another.
[originally posted by mech: I have yet to test it fully as it has a blue push and I've been in contact with MMan trying to figure out whether it's right or not. Apparently there have been no spectro readings of it yet but here's my temporary RGB from my loaner spectro - 170 174 182. It looks and pushes blue. Keep in mind I'm going to do another mix as something doesn't appear right with mine but here are a couple shots]
and yet he never did...
[originally posted by harpmaker: MM had cautioned me that using any other paints could mess up the SF mix so I simply added more Delta Ceramcoat Cardinal Red to my SF mix to make it closer to a neutral gray. As Cardinal Red also contains some blue in it, I had to stop before I reached a true neutral gray as the blue quotient of the mix was being increased as well, but my final SF mix doesn't have such an obvious blueish color to the naked eye any more]
why stop before you got to a nuetral gray? ...but at least he tried to correct his mix.
------------
what i find interesting about the first test panel... is that rather than correcting the mix that he knew was visually and most likely incorrectly done. he continued to use that mix and that test panel in all of his testing to purposefully skewer the visual results and test data in his favor...all the while for almost 2 year now, hiding behind his scientific position... that silver fire is not nuetral. and yet he had the data right in front him... namely harpmaker's sample and zductive's sample that fell within his own definition of nuetral gray.
...so what hope would i have of any of this new testing being objective unless they came from someone nuetral...[/QUOTE]
The three panels may have been done at the same time. But I collaborated with no one except Maurice. Harpmaker and Zductive collaborated and adjusted the mix by adding red to the mix. I added nothing. Remember these last two statements. They're gonna be important! ;) Then there's the statement "rather than correcting the mix that he knew was visually and most likely incorrectly done. he continued to use that mix and that test panel in all of his testing to purposefully skewer the visual results and test data in his favor". I find this rather confusing and amusing at the same time. Bear with me for a moment. Let's say Art at Home Theater Review gets a screen sample and it's off. Is he supposed to do whatever he can to try and fix the screen or report it 'as is'? Back to Pete, again it's been publicly stated for quite some time that I asked for both assistance and a sample from Maurice. It has been these two post that I have realized that Pete is no different than Maurice. They both lie, cheat and steal to make a buck.
The third part of the feud is most interesting. This involves prof55 (Garry Stoner) who is the moderator of the diy screen forum at avs. Garry is the owner of Liquiscreen, a commercial screen paint company. You can find ownership details here at the Iowa Secretary of State: [url]http://www.sos.state.ia.us/Search/corp/%28S%28b0xy2mbogihdisfbupcezyf1%29%29/corp_summary.aspx[/url] The diy screen forum used to be moderated ad hoc at avs. When they decided to hire a specific moderator for that forum prof55 quickly volunteered. Keep in mind that a lot of this information comes to me via 3rd party - Alan Gouger (one of the owners of avs) told me these things via a phone conversation once. Alan did not know that Garry was the owner of a commercial screen paint company. He seemed a bit shocked that this was the case. It was an unwritten rule early on that the commercial folks had to be in the screen forum. Later that became a written rule:
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.
Recently this rule has been deleted by prof55. Why? Because he's a dealer and it was against forum rules for him to post int he forum that he moderates, as well as Maurice and Pete. After I made this post here:
[url]http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/projector-screens-diy-screens/20357-diy-paint-suggestion.html#post180838[/url]
someone informed me that the rules had magically changed at avs. And it was that post that prompted Garry to start this thread with his hand picked title by splitting it from another. In this thread Garry acts as if he's bi-partisan, but he's not. He has actually stated to folks that he hates me and I can say at times that the feeling was mutual. I can say now though that hate would be a bit strong. Lately I find him amusing - and I don't mean this in a spiteful way. Just amusing! ;) So all of this has come to me from others over the last several days and today I decided to go and look and see what it's all about. It was a typical avs thread, a bunch of chest pounding and demands - they always make demands at avs, they never make it happen. The post that is rather amusing is one by prof55:
[QUOTE]I'll rise to this challenge. And unlike MM, I'm going to name names. The following numbers for Silver Fire come from this source, and I believe these are the numbers to which Bill refers when he mentions "multiple people in different countries":
Silver Fire - mech
RGB 170 172 182
Lab 70.9 0.49 -4.76
Silver Fire - Harpmaker
181 184 187
Lab 74.5 -0.3 -1.85
Silver Fire - zductive
185 187 184
Lab 75.6 -0.89 0.96
Converting these numbers to color temperature using the Lindbloom CIE Color Calculator gives us these results:
mech
7207°
Harpmaker
6788°
zductive
6449°
Unless I am mistaken, two of these results are well within Bill's criteria for acceptable neutrality. But one deviates rather drastically from neutral, and coincidentally it is from the "one person" MM alludes to.
Personally, I find these test results rather telling, if not altogether suspicious. No dates are given for the data, and I have no idea what formula was used. But it was clearly successful for two of the three testers.
Another test was begun on 7/14/09 (by the same tester) using the current Liquitex version of SF. Figures were published for the color component only, which is obviously not neutral by itself, nor is it intended to be. No testing of the complete mix has been published to date, and considering the following quote, I doubt it will be:
"Anyone looking for a shortcut to the color component could go to Lowes and have them mix you up a sample pint of PPG 520-7, NCS 8005-Y50R, or Ben Moore Black Bean 2130-10. These are close. Keep in mind that in trying out Silver Fire, all you're ever going to get is close. Close to what? With measurements of thick artist paints down to the ml, I can guarantee you that we could spectro 50 different samples and get 50 different results."
Here, the tester advocates substituting different ingredients (since, in his opinion "all you're ever going to get is close"), then admits his own inability to properly mix the correct ingredients!
Is this your idea of an objective test?
Garry[/QUOTE]
So, what's so amusing about this post? Well the amusing thing is that Garry knew that Harpmaker and Zductive changed the mix to try and get it neutral. He also knew that I did not. At one point they're telling me to adjust the mix on my own to get it neutral and then the next they're throwing their arms to the skies because I gave out a simple shortcut to making Silver Fire. To answer your questions Garry, Zductive could be classified as a neutral by color temp. But it's not Silver fire as he adjusted the mix on his own. As for the objectivity in testing, really? A person who lies (remember owner of a commercial screen paint company moderating a diy screen forum) and cheats (owner of a commercial screen company posting in the diy screen forum in direct violation of the rules - as well as allowing other commercial screen paint vendors post in the diy screen forum in direct violation of the rules) is calling my integrity, honesty and objectivity into question?!?! Bill can probably add to this as well. His latest trip is that Bill and Don are there 'trolling for members'. It is the same thing that I was banned for - 'trolling for members'. How did I do that? Well I posted links to stuff that I have here at the Shack. I'm not going to make avs the repository of any of my information. And Shack links are allowed everywhere there but in the diy screen forum. Full disclosure - after being banned I did sign up again twice in order to see attachments and download things which I needed - the AVSHD calibration disk among other things. Apparently I posted one link to my gain tests (at mechman.net) in the diy forum while Maurice was making his bloated claims and they banned my ip for good.
So there you have it. Maurice accuses me without proof and yet he's guilty of it daily. pb_maxx accuses me and yet doesn't even know the facts - some of which he's put within his own posts. And prof55 accuses me and he's the most guilty of them all - for he allows it to continue.
As Bill likes to say, talking to these folks is like talking to a five year old....
If you haven't seen the thread it's [URL="http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1168997"]here[/URL]. Closed now as the crooked judge and jury has recessed. Go have a look as there is still just a touch of sunshine over there. GUIMeng seems to be one of the few with any knowledge.
There's your answer Garry. If I were playing Jeopardy it would be "What are the Three Blind Mice".
Monday, August 10, 2009
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!
Another comment
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 commentYet another.... still no one asking about his silver fire or commenting on how 'it blows away the widow'! lol!
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 !
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. ;)
Mech, There is no reference in your images whatsoever as to the degree of ambient lighting the images you posted are dealing with....no 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 machine...so 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 so...as 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 effect...do 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 "lighten" it.
Uhhhhhhhhhhh...... hmmmmmmmm...... what?!?!? You're either incredibly stupid or... well.... let's just stick with that! ;)
(BW) 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 that...you 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 here...as you portend to be...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 talking...as 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!
Mech, There is no reference in your images whatsoever as to the degree of ambient lighting the images you posted are dealing with....no 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 machine...so 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 so...as 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 effect...do 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 "lighten" it.
Uhhhhhhhhhhh...... hmmmmmmmm...... what?!?!? You're either incredibly stupid or... well.... let's just stick with that! ;)
(BW) 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 that...you 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 here...as you portend to be...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 talking...as 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):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1151097
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!
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1151097
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!
Monday, March 16, 2009
Here's a link to the Iowa Secretary of State's database entry for Liquiscreen. Liquiscreen is owned by Garry L. Stoner. The same Garry L. Stoner is prof55 at AVS forums. prof55 is the moderator of the diy screen section at avs. In summary, an owner of a for profit company is moderating the forums at avs. Conflict of interest? To say the least....
Maurice, aka as MississippiMan, is the major contributor to avs. He is the owner of Invisible Stereo. You know, those speakers that you bury in your wall and are sub par to the lowest form of non-invisible speaker? Go take a look at that site and see that he's still dealing in the diy paint business. When it opens, click on view and source in your browser's menu. Under the meta tags you can still see these listed:
So what is so wrong about their mix? I think that will have to be a post by my friend wbassett! ;) Suffice it to say that it's not just the loads of prismatic mica that are included in the mix. Or the large quantity of color shifting over time polyurethane. It's something so simple that neither the carpet bagger of our time (Maurice) or the artist (Pete) can figure it out. What does that say about these two individuals? Don't get me wrong, Pete is a smart cookie. However one has to question who he associates with.
Harpmaker recently said it would take no more than a couple of weekends to fix Silver Fire into a usable mix. I think it would take a day. These guys (Maurice and Pete) have changed the formula no less than 4 times and they still can't figure it out...
Maurice, aka as MississippiMan, is the major contributor to avs. He is the owner of Invisible Stereo. You know, those speakers that you bury in your wall and are sub par to the lowest form of non-invisible speaker? Go take a look at that site and see that he's still dealing in the diy paint business. When it opens, click on view and source in your browser's menu. Under the meta tags you can still see these listed:
black flame
light fusion
black flame light fusion
Obviously Maurice is still trying to screw people over by charging them a small fortune. They (pb-maxx aka Pete is still involved) like to state that they are professional mixes. But let's face it, they don't have the money to mix up a large vat of their poo and sit on it for many months. The original mix sold so well they had to cut prices 50% shortly after opening up shop. Then, after business continued to boom (that's tongue-in-cheek ;) ), they had to supposedly drop their online business so that Maurice could schlep his silver tongued wares to the unsuspecting at avs.So what is so wrong about their mix? I think that will have to be a post by my friend wbassett! ;) Suffice it to say that it's not just the loads of prismatic mica that are included in the mix. Or the large quantity of color shifting over time polyurethane. It's something so simple that neither the carpet bagger of our time (Maurice) or the artist (Pete) can figure it out. What does that say about these two individuals? Don't get me wrong, Pete is a smart cookie. However one has to question who he associates with.
Harpmaker recently said it would take no more than a couple of weekends to fix Silver Fire into a usable mix. I think it would take a day. These guys (Maurice and Pete) have changed the formula no less than 4 times and they still can't figure it out...
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Caught in the Cookie Jar!
Talk about getting caught red handed!
What I'm talking about is we always knew our commercial friend was PMing behind the scenes and saying a wholelotta crap... dare I say not just making things up but flat out lying just to boonswaggle someone into buying into his tale of superiority and being all knowing?
The fact is this gent knows nothing about colors and his mixes prove it. Nothing is done 'scientifically', but depending on what mood you catch him in he'll either say it was, or denounce it all as rubbish. The simple proof is over the past couple of years his mixes have changed at least 30 times! My question is this, if it is the best, then why is it constantly changing? Would that not mean that what they sold someone on as being the best previously now is inferior? Why even change something if it is the best in the first place? And no I am not talking about his variety of shades, even the base main mix constantly changes.
Get ready because this is a long one and he still has his hand in the cookie jar but right now doesn't know he was busted!
I think the rebuttles should be in follow up comments, otherwise this will be as long as War an Peace! Anyway, this is a forwarded message our buddy Maurice sent to someone behind the scenes trying to convince them his mix is the only mix anyone should ever think of using...
Quote:Originally Posted by MississippiMan
Hi,
There is an inherent fallacy to the use of Aluminum's "Graying" tendencies. If enough Aluminum "Fine" is used to produce enough reflectivity and contrast enhancement to make a BW's performance be up to par with other "Mica Based" metallic mixes, the result is a dark mix. That cannot be changed or avoided. And that dark Gray is going to eat up more of a percentage of the lumens than is desirable, and serve to crush whites despite all the reflectivity (...the latter only helps colors to seem more vivid, but dull, gray "whites" spoils that effect and lessens the overall "PoP" and "Sizzle" of the image. It also restricts the size screen that can me considered unless one possesses a true Light cannon...
The single most unique aspect of Black Widow is how a beige Base serves as the offset / dilution factor to the aluminum's dark Gray consistency, and keeps the mix fairly neutral. Credit is due that a balance (...on the darker end...) was found, but quite honestly, that is all there is, and all that is possible.
If the amount of Aluminum is decreased to lessen the hue of "gray" then too much reflectivity is lost and the screen becomes merely a light gray screen with no claim to any appreciable benefits of a simple neutral gray paint.
Add a higher percentage of Aluminum and you get granularity and abusive reflectivity along the lines of extreme retro-reflectivity.
All of this is, and has been well known. For years in fact. That is why the use of aluminum in this manner is / was essentially abandoned.....it presented too narrow a range of acceptable performance potential.
For a few years, the powers behind BW railed against the use of reflective Mica in paint as being detrimental, even though testing and actual use proved that it has a wonderful range of adjust-ability. They were fixated on the use of simple neutral Grays....which failed to impress anyone.
And God forbid they make any attempt to come down on the side of Silver Fire, MMud-SE (silver edition) RS-MaxxMudd or ANY DIY Mix proved popular and useful by me and others. Sad that, because it all was based simply on avoiding validating any application I, and a few others had made popular through proven results.
Instead they went after "a simple neutral Gray" and had to try to re-invent the use of non-interference powders, something I tried, reported on, and discounted back in 2004.(...a tinted base and one reflective ingredient...) believing that the DIY'ers would rally around a something less complex that was something different beyond the more complex mixes that performed so "over the top", but that required more effort to "get there".
They then touted that their efforts were backed by having taken courses in Color Theory, and because they use extensive use of color mapping graphs. So their mix had to be superior....had to be the best yet. They were determined to supplant the popularity of proven DIY applications by sheer force of will and effort.
And because of a ridiculous amount of promotion and effort across several Forum fronts, they managed by sheer force of inundation to do exactly that. But the backlash started almost immediately. BW in original form is quite a dark Gray, and the amount of Aluminum in it MUST be masked by the darkness or it would be far too reflective..
Dilute the Gray with a white and all you have is a reduction in both ambient light potential (...that was their original goal in competition with Silver Fire...) and aluminum's over stated reflectivity.
The consistency of the aluminum flakes is not the answer....it's already well known that the "Fine" variety is the only acceptable choice because of granularity issues.
If one is aware of these facts, one can see why there has been such a delay in rolling out any lighter mix.....that is because they are distressed at finding that what Mississippiman told them 1 year ago is coming to pass. That they have a limited application that works well within a narrow range. But only almost 'as good as" other substantiated performers. I say "almost" because aluminum's caveats make the use of a darker BW mix problematical and dependent wholly upon screen size, and PJ luminosity.
Quantum, for any Paint, Substrate, or combination of Paint on Substrate to be a well balanced DIY application, it simply has to be adjustable to a wide variety of circumstances. BW is not in that grouping.Yes, it works....but so do several other applications. And some of them work decidedly better over a much wider range.
Sadly for some DIY'ers with no patience, or even less skills, the desire for "simple" will continue to rule their decision making process. And so being, over-hyped and excessively promoted promises of "The best results possible in the easiest manner." will always find an ear. Or eye as in this case.
I've been around this Block several times over, passing the houses of "Simple-tons" as well as the "Complexities". I have Light Fusion (...a patented process BTW...) that can carry almost any applicable paint to new levels, and when used with Silver Fire paints, presents the absolute best ambient light performance of them all, especially when adjudged by the amount of lumens required from a PJ to do the job.
That's a real pisser for a few folks, who feel that I'm "too professional" to be included in the DIY ranks. But nothing I've ever created was made not to be available for a willing DIY'er to accomplish.
I'll admit, the earliest "over-achiever" I created, MM/SM was a grueling effort, requiring a pure Silver Metallic under coat and a MississippiMud Top Coat. But for a whitish Silver Screen, it produced 'basement dwelling' Black levels from PJs with anemic lumens and contrast, at a time when the single most detrimental thing about digital PJs were their Blacks.
So a bunch of people tried it, and more were happy than not they did. but IMO too many failed because of the difficulty of applying that , gooey Silver Metallic. Had I known about Delta's SM, things might of been different, but I also was refusing to consider spraying, because I felt it went against the mandate of 'simple DIY methods'. Yeah...I was a simple-ton once too. :p
But along came a Plastic Mirror to replace the Silver Metallic, and Light Fusion was born. However now, acquiring a large Plastic Mirror was the issue, as was spraying on the paints, and although I made such stock and equipment both popular and available through contacts, many still wanted a "roll-on - paint only" experience. And who can blame them?
So I created MMud-SE, and brought small amounts of Silver Metallic back into the equation. Then with the addition of PolyAcrylic Satin, and a change up in the Silver Metallic from Behr to Delta, RS-MaxxMudd was born, and that application is what started the rush toward Ambient Light performance that did not serve to crush colors or whites. But when those paints were added to a Mirror application, both MMud-SE and RS-MaxxMudd did even better, but even without a Mirror they were, and for the most part remain the simplest mixes around that do not employ multiple tints to achieve a selectable range of "Gray" .
The end of the story is presented in the Silver Fire application. That mix is far and away the singular most impressive performer (paint only-wise) ever presented to the DIY Screen community. But it's 7-8 separate ingredients, and the need to spray it for absolute best results has held it back, primarily because naysayers have ranted about how much trouble and effort it was for the casual DIY-er.
That wasn't enough ammunition for the likes of wbassett and mech. They had to exclaim that Mica based mixes were inferior, and hold neutral Gray up as the best possible choice. That garnered them no real attention, so they lapsed back into previous ideas and re-instituted the use of non-interference aluminum.
But they are now nose-up against a brick wall, and have no chisel to chip away with. So tantalizing teasers were made, and still are made elsewhere that they are working on lighter BW varieties. But it won't ever happen, because simply put, a lightened BW mix won't really be a BW application anymore. It won't perform any better than a good paint of the same hue and color. They have found this out, but it would serve no purpose to let others know.
I'm dedicated to DIY, and I'm always unbiased. but I'm also always straight up with members. I call a Spade a Spade, and i don't gloss over difficulties. Few if any DIY applications that a resplendent in performance come "easy'. The best advice for someone with high standards but no work ethic is to stay away from ever seeing what a really effusive DIY Screen application is capable of.
You saw my S-I-L-V-E-R application I posted. Not a single individual in the history of DIY has ever accomplished that level of performance, yet still, it's not an application for someone who wants to basically "hang and shoot".
DIY is rife with egotism. Pride in one's accomplishment is a factor in why people want to "build not buy". Even more so, that applies to those who create the DIY applications. but pride should never outweigh performance....or real facts. It's very hard to ascertain whats "real' and whats "hyped' without considerable review and study of what has gone before. But the answers are out there for those willing to delve deep into studying the Archives. For those who are unwilling....well, they must judge for themselves based upon what they read "currently". I've scaled back my postings to reduce the abuse and irritant level on the Forum. I attract the Lunatic and Flaming Fringe. We don't need that. But my reduction of participation has opened the door to those who make excessive use of claims, and excessively post (or bump) just to keep a "in their face" presence.
I don't won't go there, choosing to interact only when I have relevant content to offer. That is why I addressed Tryg's intrusion. He's always been obvious in his disdain for anything he doesn't promote or sell "Mfg Screen-wise" and his negative commentary is not needed or really even welcome on a Forum dedicated to DIY Screen applications. I've extended countless "Olive Branches" to him, and others on "Screens" and "PJs over 3K" but the fact is that my efforts run contrary to what matters most to them, and present a real challenge to their "Status Quo". Always have....and will continue to do so if I have any say in the matter.
So I wanted to write to you to give you an overview of the situation. I kinda chuckled about your questioning the validity of my statements about calbear's screen. I've chosen not to make issue of my involvement in his incredible project (...and it was extensive...well beyond the Screen itself...) up to now because those "other people' would have simply used it against me to show that I'm a professional "Screen maker" and not a DIY'er. . I'm simply a good DIY-er . Everything I do is 'DIY", and nothing I do cannot be taught to, nor is made unavailable to any willing DIY-er. Yes...I'm 30 years in to the Art of making Home Theaters, I was making them well before they were considered "popular". And so many have tried for years to get me booted off AVS, but they have not succeeded because I've never really violated any Rules. Stretched 'em a few times....yes. But never for self-aggrandizement, promotion of my "off line" business, or for any degree of profit made from a AVS member.
That has saved my ass, and nothing else. And that too is what chaps the asses of my discounters.
But it is...and remains "All Good". ;)
I hope I've given you food for thought, and perhaps a clearer understanding of DIY Screens. Leastwise as I see it...eh? And I wish you luck on whatever course you take, and if you ever need any advise or help....well, you know where to find it. ;)
Maurice
aka: MississippiMan
What I'm talking about is we always knew our commercial friend was PMing behind the scenes and saying a wholelotta crap... dare I say not just making things up but flat out lying just to boonswaggle someone into buying into his tale of superiority and being all knowing?
The fact is this gent knows nothing about colors and his mixes prove it. Nothing is done 'scientifically', but depending on what mood you catch him in he'll either say it was, or denounce it all as rubbish. The simple proof is over the past couple of years his mixes have changed at least 30 times! My question is this, if it is the best, then why is it constantly changing? Would that not mean that what they sold someone on as being the best previously now is inferior? Why even change something if it is the best in the first place? And no I am not talking about his variety of shades, even the base main mix constantly changes.
Get ready because this is a long one and he still has his hand in the cookie jar but right now doesn't know he was busted!
I think the rebuttles should be in follow up comments, otherwise this will be as long as War an Peace! Anyway, this is a forwarded message our buddy Maurice sent to someone behind the scenes trying to convince them his mix is the only mix anyone should ever think of using...
Quote:Originally Posted by MississippiMan
Hi,
There is an inherent fallacy to the use of Aluminum's "Graying" tendencies. If enough Aluminum "Fine" is used to produce enough reflectivity and contrast enhancement to make a BW's performance be up to par with other "Mica Based" metallic mixes, the result is a dark mix. That cannot be changed or avoided. And that dark Gray is going to eat up more of a percentage of the lumens than is desirable, and serve to crush whites despite all the reflectivity (...the latter only helps colors to seem more vivid, but dull, gray "whites" spoils that effect and lessens the overall "PoP" and "Sizzle" of the image. It also restricts the size screen that can me considered unless one possesses a true Light cannon...
The single most unique aspect of Black Widow is how a beige Base serves as the offset / dilution factor to the aluminum's dark Gray consistency, and keeps the mix fairly neutral. Credit is due that a balance (...on the darker end...) was found, but quite honestly, that is all there is, and all that is possible.
If the amount of Aluminum is decreased to lessen the hue of "gray" then too much reflectivity is lost and the screen becomes merely a light gray screen with no claim to any appreciable benefits of a simple neutral gray paint.
Add a higher percentage of Aluminum and you get granularity and abusive reflectivity along the lines of extreme retro-reflectivity.
All of this is, and has been well known. For years in fact. That is why the use of aluminum in this manner is / was essentially abandoned.....it presented too narrow a range of acceptable performance potential.
For a few years, the powers behind BW railed against the use of reflective Mica in paint as being detrimental, even though testing and actual use proved that it has a wonderful range of adjust-ability. They were fixated on the use of simple neutral Grays....which failed to impress anyone.
And God forbid they make any attempt to come down on the side of Silver Fire, MMud-SE (silver edition) RS-MaxxMudd or ANY DIY Mix proved popular and useful by me and others. Sad that, because it all was based simply on avoiding validating any application I, and a few others had made popular through proven results.
Instead they went after "a simple neutral Gray" and had to try to re-invent the use of non-interference powders, something I tried, reported on, and discounted back in 2004.(...a tinted base and one reflective ingredient...) believing that the DIY'ers would rally around a something less complex that was something different beyond the more complex mixes that performed so "over the top", but that required more effort to "get there".
They then touted that their efforts were backed by having taken courses in Color Theory, and because they use extensive use of color mapping graphs. So their mix had to be superior....had to be the best yet. They were determined to supplant the popularity of proven DIY applications by sheer force of will and effort.
And because of a ridiculous amount of promotion and effort across several Forum fronts, they managed by sheer force of inundation to do exactly that. But the backlash started almost immediately. BW in original form is quite a dark Gray, and the amount of Aluminum in it MUST be masked by the darkness or it would be far too reflective..
Dilute the Gray with a white and all you have is a reduction in both ambient light potential (...that was their original goal in competition with Silver Fire...) and aluminum's over stated reflectivity.
The consistency of the aluminum flakes is not the answer....it's already well known that the "Fine" variety is the only acceptable choice because of granularity issues.
If one is aware of these facts, one can see why there has been such a delay in rolling out any lighter mix.....that is because they are distressed at finding that what Mississippiman told them 1 year ago is coming to pass. That they have a limited application that works well within a narrow range. But only almost 'as good as" other substantiated performers. I say "almost" because aluminum's caveats make the use of a darker BW mix problematical and dependent wholly upon screen size, and PJ luminosity.
Quantum, for any Paint, Substrate, or combination of Paint on Substrate to be a well balanced DIY application, it simply has to be adjustable to a wide variety of circumstances. BW is not in that grouping.Yes, it works....but so do several other applications. And some of them work decidedly better over a much wider range.
Sadly for some DIY'ers with no patience, or even less skills, the desire for "simple" will continue to rule their decision making process. And so being, over-hyped and excessively promoted promises of "The best results possible in the easiest manner." will always find an ear. Or eye as in this case.
I've been around this Block several times over, passing the houses of "Simple-tons" as well as the "Complexities". I have Light Fusion (...a patented process BTW...) that can carry almost any applicable paint to new levels, and when used with Silver Fire paints, presents the absolute best ambient light performance of them all, especially when adjudged by the amount of lumens required from a PJ to do the job.
That's a real pisser for a few folks, who feel that I'm "too professional" to be included in the DIY ranks. But nothing I've ever created was made not to be available for a willing DIY'er to accomplish.
I'll admit, the earliest "over-achiever" I created, MM/SM was a grueling effort, requiring a pure Silver Metallic under coat and a MississippiMud Top Coat. But for a whitish Silver Screen, it produced 'basement dwelling' Black levels from PJs with anemic lumens and contrast, at a time when the single most detrimental thing about digital PJs were their Blacks.
So a bunch of people tried it, and more were happy than not they did. but IMO too many failed because of the difficulty of applying that , gooey Silver Metallic. Had I known about Delta's SM, things might of been different, but I also was refusing to consider spraying, because I felt it went against the mandate of 'simple DIY methods'. Yeah...I was a simple-ton once too. :p
But along came a Plastic Mirror to replace the Silver Metallic, and Light Fusion was born. However now, acquiring a large Plastic Mirror was the issue, as was spraying on the paints, and although I made such stock and equipment both popular and available through contacts, many still wanted a "roll-on - paint only" experience. And who can blame them?
So I created MMud-SE, and brought small amounts of Silver Metallic back into the equation. Then with the addition of PolyAcrylic Satin, and a change up in the Silver Metallic from Behr to Delta, RS-MaxxMudd was born, and that application is what started the rush toward Ambient Light performance that did not serve to crush colors or whites. But when those paints were added to a Mirror application, both MMud-SE and RS-MaxxMudd did even better, but even without a Mirror they were, and for the most part remain the simplest mixes around that do not employ multiple tints to achieve a selectable range of "Gray" .
The end of the story is presented in the Silver Fire application. That mix is far and away the singular most impressive performer (paint only-wise) ever presented to the DIY Screen community. But it's 7-8 separate ingredients, and the need to spray it for absolute best results has held it back, primarily because naysayers have ranted about how much trouble and effort it was for the casual DIY-er.
That wasn't enough ammunition for the likes of wbassett and mech. They had to exclaim that Mica based mixes were inferior, and hold neutral Gray up as the best possible choice. That garnered them no real attention, so they lapsed back into previous ideas and re-instituted the use of non-interference aluminum.
But they are now nose-up against a brick wall, and have no chisel to chip away with. So tantalizing teasers were made, and still are made elsewhere that they are working on lighter BW varieties. But it won't ever happen, because simply put, a lightened BW mix won't really be a BW application anymore. It won't perform any better than a good paint of the same hue and color. They have found this out, but it would serve no purpose to let others know.
I'm dedicated to DIY, and I'm always unbiased. but I'm also always straight up with members. I call a Spade a Spade, and i don't gloss over difficulties. Few if any DIY applications that a resplendent in performance come "easy'. The best advice for someone with high standards but no work ethic is to stay away from ever seeing what a really effusive DIY Screen application is capable of.
You saw my S-I-L-V-E-R application I posted. Not a single individual in the history of DIY has ever accomplished that level of performance, yet still, it's not an application for someone who wants to basically "hang and shoot".
DIY is rife with egotism. Pride in one's accomplishment is a factor in why people want to "build not buy". Even more so, that applies to those who create the DIY applications. but pride should never outweigh performance....or real facts. It's very hard to ascertain whats "real' and whats "hyped' without considerable review and study of what has gone before. But the answers are out there for those willing to delve deep into studying the Archives. For those who are unwilling....well, they must judge for themselves based upon what they read "currently". I've scaled back my postings to reduce the abuse and irritant level on the Forum. I attract the Lunatic and Flaming Fringe. We don't need that. But my reduction of participation has opened the door to those who make excessive use of claims, and excessively post (or bump) just to keep a "in their face" presence.
I don't won't go there, choosing to interact only when I have relevant content to offer. That is why I addressed Tryg's intrusion. He's always been obvious in his disdain for anything he doesn't promote or sell "Mfg Screen-wise" and his negative commentary is not needed or really even welcome on a Forum dedicated to DIY Screen applications. I've extended countless "Olive Branches" to him, and others on "Screens" and "PJs over 3K" but the fact is that my efforts run contrary to what matters most to them, and present a real challenge to their "Status Quo". Always have....and will continue to do so if I have any say in the matter.
So I wanted to write to you to give you an overview of the situation. I kinda chuckled about your questioning the validity of my statements about calbear's screen. I've chosen not to make issue of my involvement in his incredible project (...and it was extensive...well beyond the Screen itself...) up to now because those "other people' would have simply used it against me to show that I'm a professional "Screen maker" and not a DIY'er. . I'm simply a good DIY-er . Everything I do is 'DIY", and nothing I do cannot be taught to, nor is made unavailable to any willing DIY-er. Yes...I'm 30 years in to the Art of making Home Theaters, I was making them well before they were considered "popular". And so many have tried for years to get me booted off AVS, but they have not succeeded because I've never really violated any Rules. Stretched 'em a few times....yes. But never for self-aggrandizement, promotion of my "off line" business, or for any degree of profit made from a AVS member.
That has saved my ass, and nothing else. And that too is what chaps the asses of my discounters.
But it is...and remains "All Good". ;)
I hope I've given you food for thought, and perhaps a clearer understanding of DIY Screens. Leastwise as I see it...eh? And I wish you luck on whatever course you take, and if you ever need any advise or help....well, you know where to find it. ;)
Maurice
aka: MississippiMan
Friday, February 6, 2009
Yet another reason to avoid AVS is the vitriol attacks constantly taking place. And these things can occur for no apparent reason. Take this thread for example. You've got wbassett offering up some sound advice and right from the 'get go' a couple of insignificant folks start spouting off about the pictures. Nothing at all said about the post or it's context, just a bunch of hub-a-baloo about the pictures being over exposed and them being fakes. I for one know otherwise. They are my pictures and they are no fakes. They are photos though, photos taken on 'auto' settings. The original pictures with a real review of Da-Lite's screen materials can be found here.
So throughout that thread at AVS, folks cannot put two and two together and figure out the simplistic reason for the photos looking like they do. When the pj was calibrated for the High Power it was mounted on a table. And when it was calibrated for the Siler Matte, it was mounted from the ceiling. When one calibrates a screen material, they do so with the projector in the optimum position. After finally seeing someone there get it (jib-jab), I was done looking/reading that thread.
Much to my surprise, today tryg himself posted in that thread. And thrust upon us his lack of understanding the simplest of things. jib-jab came back to the rescue yet again and summed it up with this beautiful post. That individual has impeccable taste!
Good stuff! tryg and I are in agreement on one thing though, there are a number of commercial screens that are very cheap that you can get that will perform as well or better than any diy screen. Check out Elite Screens.
So throughout that thread at AVS, folks cannot put two and two together and figure out the simplistic reason for the photos looking like they do. When the pj was calibrated for the High Power it was mounted on a table. And when it was calibrated for the Siler Matte, it was mounted from the ceiling. When one calibrates a screen material, they do so with the projector in the optimum position. After finally seeing someone there get it (jib-jab), I was done looking/reading that thread.
Much to my surprise, today tryg himself posted in that thread. And thrust upon us his lack of understanding the simplest of things. jib-jab came back to the rescue yet again and summed it up with this beautiful post. That individual has impeccable taste!
With 9000+ posts, I think you haven't read any of the pertinent posts in this thread. The other option was that you really didn't have a grasp of the subject matter. I think I'd give you the benefit of the doubt.
It's relatively easy to render a retro-reflective screen 'average'. All one has to do is be a bit more cerebral about it. Think about it. And I'll throw this out there again. One material is retro, the other angular. The certified calibrator (lcaillo) figured it out in no time... as did I.
Then again, I've seen mech's reviews (he or she actually does them with large samples and with spectro readings to support his/her findings - a refreshing change from here!) at the other place. I think wbassett & company are heads and tails above what we see here. Maybe that's the cause of the hostility?
Sometimes it's tough to see through the rhetoric here and you only add to it.
No wonder most folks like me lurk.
Back to lurk mode.
Good stuff! tryg and I are in agreement on one thing though, there are a number of commercial screens that are very cheap that you can get that will perform as well or better than any diy screen. Check out Elite Screens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)