2.37:1 Motorised Screens

[Guest JohnA]

Do you really want CIH? Chances are your projector won't do vertical stretch so you're up for about $3k for a video processor and lens.

but his dvd player may do the vertical stretch, and if it doesn't he can always get a different one that does, much cheaper then getting a video processor.

[Roderick]

I know next to nothing about screens, but why-oh-why do motorised screens have to be so much more expensive than the manual varieties?

After all, for a few tens of dollars the Chinese now mass-manufacture tubular motors for Holland blinds that whould probably do the job perfectly adequately.

Or is it that the screens need to be tensioned or something. Surely a weighted bottom rod would be perfectly OK?

I notice that Plasma screen lifts also tend to be very expensive in this country, but you can bet your boots the hotels don't pay that much for the ones they put at the foot of every bed! Well-engineered examples should be availible for less than $500.

Rod

[brodricj]

I know next to nothing about screens, but why-oh-why do motorised screens have to be so much more expensive than the manual varieties?

They don't have to be, they just are....

Actually, a lot more labour goes into making a motorized screen, as well as the extra hardware. I guess also there's the development costs in design and manufacturing tooling that need to be amortized in the unit cost for the screen as well. Plus a bit extra factored in for warranty issues because being motorized is inherently more risky than for fixed.

[Roderick]

They don't have to be, they just are....

Actually, a lot more labour goes into making a motorized screen, as well as the extra hardware. I guess also there's the development costs in design and manufacturing tooling that need to be amortized in the unit cost for the screen as well. Plus a bit extra factored in for warranty issues because being motorized is inherently more risky than for fixed.

Yeah, anything to do with custom Home Theatre automatically attracts a huge markup. I suppose HTs are not common enough yet to get the discount treatment.

Similar stuff for more mundane applications is a hell of a lot cheaper. I recently replaced my old panel-lift automatic garage door motor with new hardware from Bunnings costing just $250 -- made in China, of course. Come to think of it, you might be able to use a roll-a-door motor for a HT screen! .

Another factor is the need to engage an electrician. I must have saved myself many thousands over the years by doing my own trivial 240-volt work. But this is something I don't recommend unless you really know what you're doing.

Rod

Edit:- Actually, I tell a lie. My new B&D garage door motor was made in Mexico -- I remember now!

[oztheatre]

I am sure your locally manufactuered screens are very good for the money - I am not bagging them, or complimenting them for that matter. In point of fact I really dont care wether they represent value for money or not. There is a myriad of screen manufactureres out there these days,

There are not that many manufacturers out there, take out china and there's not a real lot of us.

all of them jumping up and down about how good their screens are. Suffice to say this - there are TWO brands of screen certified for both flat spectral response and white field uniformity by ISF and yours isnt one of them. Suddenly the playing field is very small if you want guranteed accurate performance isnt it.

Don't get me wrong WORX, I think the above screens are a great product. But just because they have an ISF or THX sticker on them doesn't make those without those labels a bad product or even inferior. I could, I belive get ISF and THX certification for 2 of my projection fabrics. I have inquired and have Ross Hulstein's contact details at THX. But I can tell you right now, if I get my fabric THX certified the price is going to jump from $999 to $6,999 just because I can. Just kidding. But if I was charging $6,000 for a screen, you would have thought 'ooh how nice, they must be great screens because they're expensive' But because they're say $1,500 you think 'oh they must cheap, just like your PM to me, 'I occasionaly get the call for a cheap setup so send some samples over'

I understand dealing in the expensive screens makes you more money, not knocking anyone for trying to make some cash.

But when companies like the above have a monopoly on the market because they spray their vinyl with _______ ______, it really irks me. We know exactly how their product is made and it does not cost much to spray vinyl with a _________ coating.

It's just how people think. I remember a few years ago, and I cant remember the name of the car, but they put this new model into the market at a great price and it did not sell, so they pulled it, waited 6 or 9 months put it back in at an inflated price and it sold like hotcakes. It's a fine example of how people think 'If it's expensive it must be great'

Trouble is with screens, it's a totally different ball game

I have more experience than most with screens [you may have more - I dont know] - Ive been installing them for more than 15 years and in my experience the only screens that I find acceptable are the Stewarts and Screen Research. Its my professional opinion and I am entitled to it. Even if you dont like it. There is a host of reasons why I find this to be the case and I cant be bothered to list them. I will be touching on them at my CEDIA lecture however.

That's because in 15 years, the big boys from the USA have had a monopoly on the market. And good on them, they deserve it.

But I am sure most will agree, these screens are way over priced when compared to what's out there today. A small percieved improvment of even 10% at best (compared to some screens) does not justify the $5,000 price difference.

what irks me a little about your post is that it seems to me everytime someone here [and its usually me because I operate at that end of the market] reccomends a product that is considered expensive there is an explosion of posts about 'how its a rip off' or 'no good' or 'you can get the same perfromance for less' etc..

And guess what, sometimes you can. But theres no money in selling cheap products is there.....

Snobbery at the low of the market against high quality 'expensive' gear is rampant - and its such a *yawn*. Its almost always by people with little or no experience, no budget for any quality gear and wanting a Ferrari for a Toyota price.

I will always maintain they (and the vast majority of others I'm sure will agree) are very over priced for what they are, but if people are willing to pay that price for the best performance, even if its 3% better, good on them.

Snobbery? I am certainly not being a snob. In fact really admire your work, I have seen the awards so

you're obviously doing something right.

Thats my 2 cents on what this thread has unfortunately degenerated into.

You put your comments out there and if people disagree that's their call and

their right to disagree with you. And as you would have noticed, most have disagreed..

Just my 2 cents.

[JoshH]

Don't get me wrong WORX, I think the above screens are a great product. But just because they have an ISF or THX sticker on them doesn't make those without those labels a bad product or even inferior. I could, I belive get ISF and THX certification for 2 of my projection fabrics. I have inquired and have Ross Hulstein's contact details at THX. But I can tell you right now, if I get my fabric THX certified the price is going to jump from $999 to $6,999 just because I can. Just kidding. But if I was charging $6,000 for a screen, you would have thought 'ooh how nice, they must be great screens because they're expensive' But because they're say $1,500 you think 'oh they must cheap, just like your PM to me, 'I occasionaly get the call for a cheap setup so send some samples over'

I never said they were inferior - I simply said they dont offer guranteed accuracy. Please read my post more carefully. If you were charging $6000 for your screen I would NOT have thought 'how nice, they must be great screens because they are expensive' - I would have thought.. wow.. thats a lot for a sreen that doesnt even offer THX or ISF certification. There is a lot of expensive equipment on the market that I beleive to be CRAP. Stewart and Screen research are NOT among them. For the record - I have never PM'd you - you PM'd me and asked me to sell your product to which I told you 'its not my market and I am very happy with the performancce we get from Stewart and Screen Research'. 'I told you that if I had a client who wanted a cheap solution I would keep it in mind' - or something to that effect.

I understand dealing in the expensive screens makes you more money, not knocking anyone for trying to make some cash.

It might make me a bit more money - but its not why I do it or reccomend them. I reccomend them because they gurantee accurate performance.

It's a fine example of how people think 'If it's expensive it must be great'

Expensive doesnt mean great - not by any stretch - especially not in a holistic statement like this. On topic the Stewarts and Screen Research ARE great - period. Regardless of what they cost.

That's because in 15 years, the big boys from the USA have had a monopoly on the market. And good on them, they deserve it.

But I am sure most will agree, these screens are way over priced when compared to what's out there today. A small percieved improvment of even 10% at best (compared to some screens) does not justify the $5,000 price difference.

'Most' may agree that they are overpriced [but most here probably are not in this end of the market so consider anything they cant afford overpriced]{I consider Rolls Royce overpriced- but that doesnt necessarily make it so]. We are not talking about a small perceived improvment - we are talling about wether the image is right [accurate] or wrong [inaccurate'. You may consider this unimportant - I dont. Neither do my customers.

And guess what, sometimes you can. But theres no money in selling cheap products is there.....

Actually there is - you just need to sell more of them. I think you have me at the wrong end of the stick though - I dont sell or reccomend a product because its 'expensive' - I choose product based on performance first, price last for ALL of my projects.

You put your comments out there and if people disagree that's their call and

their right to disagree with you. And as you would have noticed, most have disagreed..

!00% agree - but I will add this - ppl tend to disagree or refute products they either cant afford, dont own or chose not to purchsae in favor of another brand[ Ford Holden - great example] - it happens all the time. There was another thread where posters were saying 'Ferrari's are crap and unreliable' - wow! Really! None of my clients who own them seem to have problems with them! Who will you listen to if your in the market for a high performance car like a Ferrari? someone who actually owns one or someone who just says they are 'unreliable' and 'over priced' without ever owning one?

If your screen surface is accurate [and it may be] why not get it cetified? If you can supply and accurate screen that is certified at 1/3rd the price of a Stewart or Screen Research I think thats fabulous. It means I will probably sell more screens because more people will be able to afford them. And even better more people will be sitting down to watch an image they know to be accurate.

[The_Preacher1973]

Here's an interesting bit of info:

On-line Forum Pty Ltd acknowledges that consumers will wish to exchange information about digital television services and products and their virtues, including prices, but it does not provide its Forums as vehicles for gratuitous advertisements by suppliers or their associates.

[LukeF1503559517]

Seems like everyones had a rough week. Workx simply stated that it wouldnt be sensible to use a cheaper screen for a motorized 2.37:1 screen ( which i thought was fair enough ) and everyone starts attacking him! have some beers and relax

[oztheatre]

I never said they were inferior - I simply said they dont offer guranteed accuracy.

Hang on, you tell us you've been living in a cave for years.

So how would you even know other screens don't offer accuracy?

Because screen manufacturers aren't lining up at the ISF

and THX centres to get their stamp does not mean their screens

are not accurate. You're just assuming cuz you've probably

tried a couple of others out there from years ago, and they didn't stack up

against the more expensive ones.

Please read my post more carefully. If you were charging $6000 for your screen I would NOT have thought 'how nice, they must be great screens because they are expensive' - I would have thought.. wow.. thats a lot for a sreen that doesnt even offer THX or ISF certification. There is a lot of expensive equipment on the market that I beleive to be CRAP. Stewart and Screen research are NOT among them. For the record - I have never PM'd you - you PM'd me and asked me to sell your product to which I told you 'its not my market and I am very happy with the performancce we get from Stewart and Screen Research'. 'I told you that if I had a client who wanted a cheap solution I would keep it in mind' - or something to that effect.

It might make me a bit more money - but its not why I do it or reccomend them. I reccomend them because they gurantee accurate performance.

Expensive doesnt mean great - not by any stretch - especially not in a holistic statement like this. On topic the Stewarts and Screen Research ARE great - period. Regardless of what they cost.

'Most' may agree that they are overpriced [but most here probably are not in this end of the market so consider anything they cant afford overpriced]

No, that's not my argument at all. Here's the deal. If X screen costs $1,599 and it performs very well, say a nice bright image, accurate spectral response, even white field etc etc 1.25 gain, but it's not ISF certified cuz they never got around to it.

Z screen has all the same perks as X screen, 1.3 gain so marginally brighter, but they bothered to get it ISF certified, and the cost is $6,000.

So the level of improved performance is at best 5% (for example, maybe even 10%). So if we kept things like price in line with the percentile improvement, you could accept a 5% increase in price compared to the X screen, or even 30% would be considered somewhat fair..... But to charge 400% to 1000% more is outright highway robbery.

{I consider Rolls Royce overpriced- but that doesnt necessarily make it so]. We are not talking about a small perceived improvment - we are talling about wether the image is right [accurate] or wrong [inaccurate'. You may consider this unimportant - I dont. Neither do my customers.

Actually there is - you just need to sell more of them. I think you have me at the wrong end of the stick though - I dont sell or reccomend a product because its 'expensive' - I choose product based on performance first, price last for ALL of my projects.

!00% agree - but I will add this - ppl tend to disagree or refute products they either cant afford, dont own or chose not to purchsae in favor of another brand[ Ford Holden - great example] - it happens all the time. There was another thread where posters were saying 'Ferrari's are crap and unreliable' - wow! Really! None of my clients who own them seem to have problems with them! Who will you listen to if your in the market for a high performance car like a Ferrari? someone who actually owns one or someone who just says they are 'unreliable' and 'over priced' without ever owning one?

People who are well off don't drive Hyundais because 1 they're cheap and 2 there are better cars out there.

If you tried to sell X screen to someone purchasing even a mid range 15K projector they would be asking

what's wrong with the $1500 screen?, why is it so cheap compared to the Z screen?

If your screen surface is accurate [and it may be] why not get it cetified? If you can supply and accurate screen that is certified at 1/3rd the price of a Stewart or Screen Research I think thats fabulous. It means I will probably sell more screens because more people will be able to afford them. And even better more people will be sitting down to watch an image they know to be accurate.

We'll see.

[oztheatre]

Seems like everyones had a rough week. Workx simply stated that it wouldnt be sensible to use a cheaper screen for a motorized 2.37:1 screen ( which i thought was fair enough ) and everyone starts attacking him! have some beers and relax

No not at all mate, WORX was just implying that a cheap 237 screen under 7 grand would not do the job required.

And that was wrong because there are in fact other options out there that are fairly priced and offer better

value for money. He was just implying 'hey if you want the best, with these xyz guarantees, these are the options'

It's all ok, nobody is upset.

[oztheatre]

Here's an interesting bit of info:

Absolutley not my intention at all Preach.

I don't see the point in hiding behind a fake

user name. I tell it how I see it. And I think

that's a good thing. I certainly do not need

to advertise on here.

Rich

[Guest]

Well I guess the same argument can be said for traditional 1.78:1 motorised screens. They obviously only kick in quality-wise at about the 6K mark and upwards?

Im being sarcastic.

[yamapro]

There was another thread where posters were saying 'Ferrari's are crap and unreliable' - wow! Really! None of my clients who own them seem to have problems with them! Who will you listen to if your in the market for a high performance car like a Ferrari? someone who actually owns one or someone who just says they are 'unreliable' and 'over priced' without ever owning one?

Interesting point this... although i don't believe anyone in the 'other thread' said Ferraris are crap.

One of my most distinctive memories as a 16 yo was going to a well known Ferrari Mechanic with my Old Man (Who had one at that time)

After listening to several things that my dear dad was less than entirely thrilled about with the car, he opened the bonnet, summoned us over and said this:

"Whatsa this?"

"why thats an Engine, Lacky"

"Nononononono... that's a Ferrari - why you complain? The rest they throw in for free!"

Ferrari do have a fantastic history and also a notorious one, with most owners over even a short timeline having major mechanical works at the very least. Many Ferrari engines are rebuilt well before they reach 60 or 70,000 kms. And many more (historically speaking now, I'm sure the latest $300,000+ offerings HAVE to be improved) have lots of work and constant maintenance to get that far. But they are Ferrari. Performance cars that are generally kept in the shed 6 days a week and driven hard on the seventh... No one can resist it It's pure human nature.

Interestingly i know of many high performance Toyotas that have well over 200,000 clicks on their original running gear, with no major rebuild or repair $$$ along the way. But if you had the money, which would you pick?

I know which i would choose, and probably in red

[RodN]

Curious,

You don't need a 'scope' screen. The extended length will probably give you better drop at a more comfortable eye height, scope is very short remember. People using these scope mechanicals are no doubt either bringing the bulky header down into eye height or having the screen up in the clouds - neither a good option.

As far as the border goes... well depends if there was a border in the firstplace and where it was at including options to add a new border.

This will increase you available options tenfold.

[Curious]

Curious,

You don't need a 'scope' screen. The extended length will probably give you better drop at a more comfortable eye height, scope is very short remember. People using these scope mechanicals are no doubt either bringing the bulky header down into eye height or having the screen up in the clouds - neither a good option.

As far as the border goes... well depends if there was a border in the firstplace and where it was at including options to add a new border.

This will increase you available options tenfold.

Interesting point Nobby, will digest and respond

Cheers,

Curious

[JoshH]

Im going to lreave the above arguement alone - its clearly not worth pursuing since Oztheatre and I have clear difference of opinion. End users can make up their own minds - the important thing is they are aware of their options and understand what they may or may not be giving up in choice of screen at X price point.

You don't need a 'scope' screen. The extended length will probably give you better drop at a more comfortable eye height, scope is very short remember. People using these scope mechanicals are no doubt either bringing the bulky header down into eye height or having the screen up in the clouds - neither a good option.

I agree with this. You can order an extended leader on your motorized screen to get it down to the right height [somewhere around 800mm off the floor is ideal for a standard theatre seated person.] However, that will often mean a very bulky leader.

Choose very wisely if you do this - some brands [i really dont think I need to name them! ] offer great light absorbing leaders - others dont.

the longer the leader the more critical the tab tensioning as well if you want to keep the surface flat consistently as the screen is raised and lowered.

[ramius]

Probably for the best Worx. Irrespsective of the above discussion I think perhaps it is clear that Curious - and many of the rest of us - have no intention of spending $7-10k on a screen so lets get back on track with a slight topic clarification: "Affordable" motorised scope screens.

Thanks for those who have offered suggestions and I appreciate Rich from OZTS and David from BPP for following up on the possibility of an affordable solution to my request, this is very encouraging

Cheers,

Curious

Curious - what is BPP? and are you after a tab-tensioned screen or still to make a decision on that point.

Bill

[The_Preacher1973]

Interesting point this... although i don't believe anyone in the 'other thread' said Ferraris are crap.

One of my most distinctive memories as a 16 yo was going to a well known Ferrari Mechanic with my Old Man (Who had one at that time)

After listening to several things that my dear dad was less than entirely thrilled about with the car, he opened the bonnet, summoned us over and said this:

"Whatsa this?"

"why thats an Engine, Lacky"

"Nononononono... that's a Ferrari - why you complain? The rest they throw in for free!"

Ferrari do have a fantastic history and also a notorious one, with most owners over even a short timeline having major mechanical works at the very least. Many Ferrari engines are rebuilt well before they reach 60 or 70,000 kms. And many more (historically speaking now, I'm sure the latest $300,000+ offerings HAVE to be improved) have lots of work and constant maintenance to get that far. But they are Ferrari. Performance cars that are generally kept in the shed 6 days a week and driven hard on the seventh... No one can resist it It's pure human nature.

Interestingly i know of many high performance Toyotas that have well over 200,000 clicks on their original running gear, with no major rebuild or repair $$$ along the way. But if you had the money, which would you pick?

I know which i would choose, and probably in red

Well I'll reply to this as it's more fun than the rest of the thread.

I heard this same story related as a conversation between an early Ferrari customer and Enzo himself. When the customer was complaining about various problems with the car, Enzo reportedly said:

"With a Ferrari you buy the engine and we throw in the rest of the car for nothing."

To which the customer replied:

"Yeah, well thanks for nothing!"

Personally I've always been a Porsche man myself. At least you can use them as daily drivers. I had a 911 before I got married and the kids came along (that reminds me of one of Porsches old advertising slogans way back when: Porsche. The perfect family car... Perfect for starting one anyway). I took that car everywhere. Camping, 4wd only tracks, creek crossings - you name it. Look in the paper and you'll see lots of 911's with 200-300K km's on the clock. Most 30 year old Ferraris are lucky to have 40k on them. Sort of like the hours you can put on a CRT compared with those on a digital.

And I'll end this completely off topic post with another quote from Porsche's politically incorrect advertising campaign:

Porsche. The Perfect family car.. Leave for work later, get home earlier.

[JoshH]

Porsche. The Perfect family car.. Leave for work later, get home earlier.

Now thats marketing :-)

Still off topic...and still politically incorrect...

There used to be a fantastic billboard at the big sweeper turn from the Geelong Fwy onto the Bolte Bridge. One of those corners where you look at the advertised speed limit and think to yourself 'yeah.. I can double that' I think they recently lowered the speed limit there from 100 to 80 [party poopers] and the billboard has bee gone for some time.

It read "You wish you had a porsche right now" Was a classic.

[CAVX]

Sort of like the hours you can put on a CRT compared with those on a digital. tongue.gif

LOL...

Mark

[Curious]

Curious,

You don't need a 'scope' screen. The extended length will probably give you better drop at a more comfortable eye height, scope is very short remember. People using these scope mechanicals are no doubt either bringing the bulky header down into eye height or having the screen up in the clouds - neither a good option.

As far as the border goes... well depends if there was a border in the firstplace and where it was at including options to add a new border.

This will increase you available options tenfold.

Ok, it is possible to reset the limit switch on my LP Morgan 4:3 screen so it drops only just enough to allow a scope picture, but then the remasking and screen printing of the new border is the issue. Herma will do it for me but it is several hundred dollars (including trimming the waste material from the screen and re-attaching the weight bar) which is not a concern financially, but they warned me I take a risk in ripples being introduced

I didn't want to spend the money only to end up with ripples

Cheers,

Curious

[RodN]

Ok, it is possible to reset the limit switch on my LP Morgan 4:3 screen so it drops only just enough to allow a scope picture, but then the remasking and screen printing of the new border is the issue. Herma will do it for me but it is several hundred dollars (including trimming the waste material from the screen and re-attaching the weight bar) which is not a concern financially, but they warned me I take a risk in ripples being introduced

I didn't want to spend the money only to end up with ripples

Cheers,

Curious

Flock the header with black velour?

[JoshH]

Flock the header with black velour?

Wont help if the screen has more waves than a Bells beach surf contest.

He needs a tab tensioned screen.

[oztheatre]

Ok, it is possible to reset the limit switch on my LP Morgan 4:3 screen so it drops only just enough to allow a scope picture, but then the remasking and screen printing of the new border is the issue. Herma will do it for me but it is several hundred dollars (including trimming the waste material from the screen and re-attaching the weight bar) which is not a concern financially, but they warned me I take a risk in ripples being introduced

I didn't want to spend the money only to end up with ripples

Cheers,

Curious

From what I have seen 4:3 and 1:1 format screens ripple more than the shorter height screens such as 16:9 and scope.

This is because the material comes down further, it's just seems to be one of those issues with drop down screens.

There may be access to the limit switches from the side of the casing, usually it's 2 holes and if you shine a torch you will see phillips head screws that activate the upper and lower limit switches. If there are no holes visible they may be under

the side caps.... you may need to call the manufacturer to check if these holes are easily accessable.

The upper hole should be the LOWER limit switch - to control how far down the screen comes. Which is what

you want.

So step 1. Using your remote, lower the screen to the scope format you're seeking

Step 2. - Using a screw driver, wind the lower limit switch screw (located in the upper hole) anti clockwise

until you hear a faint click sound. That click sound is the limit switch activating.

That's it, the screen will now lower to the level you set it at from now on.

Pretty simple and didn't cost you anything. If you need black velour give me a call and I'll be happy to

help you.

Rich

[Curious]

Wont help if the screen has more waves than a Bells beach surf contest.

He needs a tab tensioned screen.

Exactly, I can mess about with this screen and achieve some semblance of what I want, but ultimately need to replace it with a new screen that suits my requirements better