Elite Screens Inc | Elite Screens China Corp. | Elite Screens Europe ...

did eliminate the slight amount of pincushion distortion so that less zoom was needed to hide the pincushion distortion.
Small adjustments to the tilt of the lens made a difference, so it took some fiddling to find exactly the right angle for the
anamorphic lens. Once the anamorphic lens tilt was set as well as possible, anamorphic 2.35:1 images were close to
perfect, geometry-wise. Only a small amount of zoom was needed to hide edges of the frame.
I compared images on the Lunette screen to images from a Stewart Filmscreen StudioTek 100, Stewart’s no-compromise
reference screen. As you read these comparison comments, keep in mind that a flat StudioTek 100 in a 103-inch diagonal
size will cost very close to three times as much as Elite’s flat ezFrame screen. The flat StudioTek 100 screen will cost
roughly two times more than a curved Lunette screen of the same size. The StudioTek 100 reflects light in all directions
and requires a blacked-out room to eliminate reflections that affect the StudioTek 100 images quite a bit more than
they would bother reflections from other types of screens. Any nearby reflections will wash out the black levels. Colored
light reflections will impact image “purity.” The theatre room is fully blacked out to allow use of the StudioTek 100
screen… black carpet, flat black ceiling, and flat black walls. I find the StudioTek 100 screen has the uncanny ability to
appear as though the images were coming from the screen itself, as if the screen was the world’s best flat panel display
rather than being a projection screen. The only other screen I’ve seen that does the same thing is the DaLite/JKP Affinity
screen, another reference-grade screen. Both the StudioTek 100 and Affinity screens have a surface that reminds me
of my wife’s cosmetic powder. The particle size is so small you can’t detect particles or texture at all. The surface of both
of these reference-grade screens even has a unique feeling when touched… it feels like an ultra-fine powder, much
finer and smoother feeling than even “baby powder.” It’s almost a creamy smooth feeling. Not that I recommend ever
touching these or any other projection screen on purpose. If you can’t help yourself, be certain you’ve removed any
fingerprint/skin oils or other contaminants from your fingers before touching.
For side-by-side comparisons, the two screens were overlapped with a single 3.5-inch frame rail down the center of the
projected image. The most obvious difference was how quickly black levels were disturbed by turning on a dimmable
floor lamp in the room. The Lunette screen remained considerably darker than the StudioTek 100 screen, all the way
from just barely on to full brightness. With the room completely black, differences were surprisingly small between the
two screens. The Lunette screen was a little brighter, but the StudioTek 100’s black level was just a little better, as you
might expect given the 1.1 Lunette gain versus the 1.0 StudioTek 100 gain. As usual, the StudioTek 100 screen produced
images that appeared to originate in the screen rather than looking like they were projected on the screen. The Lunette
screen’s images had about half as much of that “in-the-screen” look. That may sound disappointing, but you should
realize that this effect is not common in projector screens in general. So it was very promising that the Lunette screen at
least brought some of that effect to the table. The StudioTek 100 images were just slightly more “real” looking, due to
the lower black levels and the slightly enhanced sense of the image originating in the screen itself. This difference was
subtle. I wasn’t really aware of it until placing the screens in the side-by-side evaluation mode. There were no observable
color or luminance problems, though, it is difficult to compare luminance measurements from a curved screen to
a flat screen since the curve of the Lunette tends to direct more light back to an optimally placed viewer. The uniformity
of illumination of the screen matched the illumination profile of the JVC projector precisely, meaning that the screen
itself wasn’t changing the measured center-to-edge illumination profile of the projector, as measured on the Stewart
StudioTek 100 screen. There were some small measured differences, but they were just as likely to be due to the differences
in flat versus curved screen material as they were from any real unevenness. There was certainly no visible
unevenness of illumination. Measurements varied 4 percent or less, but when you’re dealing with 14 footLamberts (fL)
or so, 4 percent is just over half a footLambert.
Overall, the StudioTek 100 images were just slightly more “solid,” dimensional, and convincing. But it wasn’t nearly the
difference you might expect given the price differential of similar sizes of StudioTek
100 vs. Lunette. The cost differential is two to three times more for the StudioTek 100 versus images that are subjectively
five percent better on the StudioTek 100 screen. But turn on any light source in the room at all, and the Lunette screen
has a clear advantage over the StudioTek 100 screen. If the room is painted anything other than flat black with black
carpet, the Lunette will also have an advantage over
the StudioTek 100 screen. It’s not that the Lunette screen is unaffected by light or reflections, it is. But the degree of
effect is much less than the StudioTek 100 screen. The Lunette screens are better able to deal with rooms that can’t be
blacked out. The room itself can dictate that the StudioTek 100 would be a poor screen choice, while the Lunette
screen would have clear performance advantages. Certainly, even more directional screens would edge out the
Lunette screen, but those other screens would likely have less even illumination and they are likely to have some of the
prismatic effect I find so distracting at times.
I never detected any sparkly pixels or visible screen texture in any images, including 3D Blu-ray. I’ve seen the sparkly
pixel issue in some very well-respected (but not reference-grade) screens. It seems to be more of an issue with older
screen materials that may have originated in the years before 1080 x 1920 resolution became the “standard” for good
home theatre systems. The Lunette screen is completely absent of any sparkly pixels or prismatic effects. That means
www.elitescreens.com/reviews
140