# Rear vs front



## Egor (Apr 25, 2014)

What's better , front or rear projection in terms of picture quality? Please, share .


----------



## NBPk402 (Feb 21, 2012)

Are you talking about using the same projector for front or rear projection... Where you use a mirror to reflect it or use another room with a rear projection screen?

Unless you use one of the above ways you will never get a rear projection that is as big as a front projector can project.
The advantage to a rear projection is no problems in a bright room. The disadvantage is you can't go as big unless it is custom, and I think the screen material is pretty pricey too for a custom rear projection.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

Rear projection can be very good with a VERY expensive fixed screen and proper light control both behind the screen and in the viewing area, and a first surface high quality mirror. In general, however, you will get better performance from a front projection screen at much lower cost.


----------



## Egor (Apr 25, 2014)

ellisr63 said:


> Are you talking about using the same projector for front or rear projection... Where you use a mirror to reflect it or use another room with a rear projection screen?
> 
> *The same projector, no additional equipment( like mirror, etc.) , the same level of light control, assuming enough space behind screen (like another room or outdoor), naturally another type of screen material.[/*COLOR]
> 
> ...


*Why it should be custom to "go big" ? Is , in general, sreen material for rear projection more expensive?*


----------



## Egor (Apr 25, 2014)

lcaillo said:


> In general, however, you will get better performance from a front projection screen at much lower cost.


*Any supportive arguments? Theory? Experiance?*


----------



## Alan Brown (Jun 7, 2006)

Egor said:


> What's better , front or rear projection in terms of picture quality? Please, share .


Front projection will usually be better, as long as room conditions are correct. There are other issues to be considered in systems that are used in non-dedicated rooms. There is no video display I know of that can produce optimum image quality if required to compete with moderate to high ambient light levels in the room. Why are you asking your question?

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.
A Lion AV Consultants affiliate

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"


----------



## NBPk402 (Feb 21, 2012)

Here are some examples of pricing for a rear projection screen... http://www.francisav.com/DraperProd...ionScreenSystems/CinescreenRearProjection.htm
http://www.draperinc.com/ProjectionScreens/ScreensProducts.asp?detail=150 92"=$11,719... 133"=$40,521 As you can see it varies a significant amount.

Another thing is with a rear projection your speakers cannot be behind the screen like they can with a AT screen as far as I know.


----------



## Egor (Apr 25, 2014)

]I talk about same level light control ,not high or low[/B]


Why are you asking your question?

*It's no info on web( or somewhere else), think, could be interesting not only for me.[/*


----------



## Egor (Apr 25, 2014)

ellisr63 said:


> Here are some examples of pricing for a rear projection screen... http://www.francisav.com/DraperProd...ionScreenSystems/CinescreenRearProjection.htm
> http://www.draperinc.com/ProjectionScreens/ScreensProducts.asp?detail=150 92"=$11,719... 133"=$40,521 As you can see it varies a significant amount.
> 
> *
> ...


*thread about picture not sound.*


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

Egor said:


> *Any supportive arguments? Theory? Experiance?*


About 25 years of experience installing hundreds of systems including very large rear projection systems.


----------



## Egor (Apr 25, 2014)

lcaillo said:


> About 25 years of experience installing hundreds of systems including very large rear projection systems.


With all respect, 25 years-it's not argument, especially in this area ,where speed of changes in equipment made even 3-5 years experiance irrelevant.
Also, I'd like exclude from topic commercial and alike installations.


----------



## Almadacr (May 5, 2011)

Egor said:


> With all respect, 25 years-it's not argument, especially in this area ,where speed of changes in equipment made even 3-5 years experiance irrelevant.
> Also, I'd like exclude from topic commercial and alike installations.


Well you asked for opinions and Leonard gave you his opinion and experience about it like others did .If his 25 years-it's not argument maybe you are asking the wrong questions . Why don't you share your own opinions ?


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

Egor said:


> With all respect, 25 years-it's not argument, especially in this area ,where speed of changes in equipment made even 3-5 years experiance irrelevant.
> Also, I'd like exclude from topic commercial and alike installations.


You are absolutely correct and you should take all advice for what it is worth to you. The truth, however, is that unless you build rear projection screens in very large quantities, they are very expensive. And when you get to very large sizes, they are expensive just because of the size and shipping. This has not changed significantly in the past 30 years. Certainly the technology in screen manufacturing has improved, and the ones you would have found on the last of the RP televisions that were built were far better than they were 30 years ago, that application of technology was possible due to the large volume of sets sold and the relatively small sizes. Let me know if you find a screen as good as what you would have found on say the 92" Mitsubishi sets in a significanlty larger size. It won't happen for less than thousands of dollars if at all.

If you want something in the 92" size your best bet might be to try to find one of the Mitsubishi sets as parts or try to buy a screen from them as a part. The fresnel layer is likely optimized for a VERY sharp angle of projection and without the right optics and range in keystone and focus you might not get even brightness, however.

You not only asked for supporting argument but for experience. I was relating that experience, which, frankly, has a lot of credibility. If you don't want it, don't ask. If you ask, expect people to relate their experience and be more gracious if you want to fit in here.

I don't know what you mean by "exclude from topic commercial and alike installations." There is not a market for large rear projection screens for much else. The manufacturers who do them sell them almost exlusively for commercial installations. Virtually no home theaters are built with rear projection screens. All of the ones we did, in sizes from about 80" up were for commercial use in conference rooms, training rooms, museum displays, and engineering applications for companies like McDonalds, Dow Chemical, museums, etc.

There are flexible RP screens, but there is always a compromize in quality in these compared to FP screens, IME. I have used RP in portable setups for conventions and events, but never saw one of these screens that I would even consider using in a high performance setting.

So, the answer to your question is FP is better, unless you want to use a set that is built as RP in a size up to 92" like one of the Mistubishi sets. There are none manufactured any more, though you might be able to find one that is still new. Most other manufacturers discontinued them years ago. Mitsubishi sold them until last year.


----------



## Egor (Apr 25, 2014)

lcaillo said:


> unless you build rear projection screens in very large quantities, they are very expensive
> 
> * http://www.focusedtechnology.com/rear-projection-screen.html *
> And when you get to very large sizes, they are expensive just because of the size and shipping.
> ...


*comments above*


----------



## Alan Brown (Jun 7, 2006)

Egor said:


> ]I talk about same level light control ,not high or low[/B]
> 
> 
> Why are you asking your question?
> ...


*
Your statement about ambient lighting in your intended application is not clear. Please rephrase it better.

What I meant by "why" is- what is your plan for a projection system? What type of room? Will your priority be watching movies? Do you have a budget in mind for the gear, exclusive of the room construction and furnishings?

It is more practical for experienced designers/installers to deal with questions about the suitability and capability of front versus rear projection if you provide specifics about your desired system. There are too many hypotheticals to address, otherwise. General knowledge of rear versus front projection screen applications and screen types is a very broad subject. More generic study of screens could be performed by you on screen manufacturer web sites. Please narrow this topic down for us by providing more personal specifics.*


----------



## Rock316 (Apr 26, 2014)

Ahh my first post ... 

A rear-projection system are generally far more expensive than a front-projection setup, in part because it requires a separate room—or at least a significant amount of space—dedicated to the projector.

Front-projection systems typically require a very dark room to look good, and if you walk in front of the screen, you cast a shadow on the image—and you could be blinded by the projector's light. A rear-projection setup is more like a giant flat-panel TV—depending on the light output of the projector, it can look good

But as was said in a few posts before ... more information is required...


----------



## Egor (Apr 25, 2014)

Alan Brown said:


> Your statement about ambient lighting in your intended application is not clear. Please rephrase it better.
> 
> *This phrase was regarding comparisons FP and RP. *
> 
> ...


*There are no specific info .*


----------



## Egor (Apr 25, 2014)

RP. Screen manufacturer vs HTS forum 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Opposite opinions, not much supported from both sides :

forum's member: "you will get better performance from a front projection screen at much lower cost"

screen manufacturer/Projecta/ : The real purpose of any visual display system is to get as many light rays as possible from the projector into the eyes of the audience. Because of this, rear projection usually gives the best quality in projection. This is because of the simple fact that with rear projection the light goes directly from the projector into the eyes of the viewer without losing much of the light, which makes the projected image optically better.

Benefits of rear projection:
• Image quality.
• Less loss of contrast.
• With rear projection there is no projector in sight.

http://www.projectascreens.co.uk/pag...987&groupID=37 


So, does ANYBODY had experience with RP in last years?


----------



## mechman (Feb 8, 2007)

I think you've gotten your answer: it depends. 

And why did you pick this statement over the many others offered??


Egor said:


> forum's member: "you will get better performance from a front projection screen at much lower cost"


----------



## Alan Brown (Jun 7, 2006)

Egor said:


> *There are no specific info .*


http://da-lite.com/resources/educational-resources

Your room is not very conducive for front projection. The budget is not very conducive for a rear projection set up. Which are you willing to make changes to?

If you go with rear projection, the room behind the screen must be colored entirely black.

Your English language skills, and/or cognition, are causing difficulty in this discussion. What is your native language?


----------



## Egor (Apr 25, 2014)

mechman said:


> I think you've gotten your answer: it depends.
> 
> *Didn't get.*
> 
> ...


*It's just quintessence. I wanted to summarize arguments in new thread.

Steve, did you have experience with RP / in HT / in last years? *


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

Keep the discussion in one thread unless you depart to another topic.

You got our opinions and experience. If you find something that contradicts it I would be happy to see examples, but we are not the ones interested in RP options. Do your searching and let us know what you find. I have not found any RP options in large sizes that are anywhere near the performance of similarly priced FP screens. But if you do, we would love to see it, and would like to test it as well.


----------



## Egor (Apr 25, 2014)

Alan Brown said:


> http://da-lite.com/resources/educational-resources
> 
> *
> *
> ...


 *Russian.*

*Alan, did you have experience with RP for HT in last years?*


----------



## Egor (Apr 25, 2014)

lcaillo said:


> You got our opinions and experience. , but we are not the ones interested in RP options.
> 
> 
> * did you have experience with RP / in HT / in last years? *
> ...


*I will.*


----------



## Egor (Apr 25, 2014)

Just curious, does anyone from forum members or " experts" able/competent to answer actual questions or at least polite and brave to confess, that he doesn't know.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

The tenor of your comments is not consistent with the expectations of posters on this forum. Perhaps it is a language issue. If that is the case, we will be tolerant. If you just want to challenge people in an arrogant manner, you may want to find another forum, as we will not tolerate it here.

I am perfectly willing to admit that my specific knowledge of the available RP screens is a few years old. However, you don't get much more expert in the area of building home theater systems and the general market than Alan or myself. There has been little in the market that would likely have changed the demand, R&D, and manufacturing of large RP screens in the past decade or so. Fixed RP screens which might approach the performance of FP screens have always been a highly specialized market and very limited in production in sizes appropriate for typical home theater projection systems. Other than the high production screens used in one piece projection systems none have ever been manufactured in large enough quantities to achieve economies of scale.

As I said before, if you find that we are mistaken and unaware of some high performance RP screen in sizes typical of home theater projection systems, we would be happy to hear about it. Apparently, no one here has...


----------



## Egor (Apr 25, 2014)

It can't be any arrogance, my knowledge in this/ HT / area close to zero. 
Still I expect some respect to any forum's member ,as I understand it : 
if I answer questions directed to me, I wait answers on my questions ,otherwise the effectiveness of discussion is decreases very much
and not because I'm feeling bad without somebody's respect .

Thank for direct answer. As understand, RP in HT are so rare now ,that real info not exist


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

The info exists, but apparently none here have checked the pricing and availability recently. So if you want specifics do the research.

And if any of the vendors are interested, I am sure that one of our screen experts will be happy to test on any samples they would be willing to provide, just like they do with FP screens.


----------



## RBTO (Jan 27, 2010)

Egor said:


> ..................... As understand, RP in HT are so rare now ,that real info not exist


Most people here wouldn't have experience with existing RP HT because, as you stated it is rare. The _reason_ is that it has very little to offer compared to FP, and can have significant _disadvantages_ when so compared.

*Advantages: *The projector is not in the room with the viewers which can have a subtle psychological effect on the viewing experience. Noise from the projector can be better isolated. Equipment can be serviced during downtime without audience knowing about it (an advantage for some venues such as a museum or exhibit).

*Disadvantages:* Requires a separate room (as already pointed out by a few in the thread) painted in black and totally darkened when viewing is being done. A separate room means less space for viewers, and added floor-space costs. The room can't be entered while in use without throwing unwanted light on the screen.

Screen can be problematic with a central "hot spot" if the projector is in a straight line with viewers and the screen. This can be mostly eliminated with a Fresnel lens at the screen position but that can introduce problems of its own, including high cost for the Fresnel lens. Without the Fresnel lens, brightness can also be a major issue. The best FP screens use fused fibers (light pipes), but that also increases cost. Even with that technology, off-axis brightness is can be an issue with RP.

Costs: see above. Cost grows exponentially with size.

Cleaning becomes an issue. Each time the screen is cleaned, there's a potential for damage and artifacts that will show up the next time it's used. Both sides are exposed to dust, etc. and since it's usually plastic, it can be a dust attractor.

Since the screen is usually plastic, polarized 3D is not possible (you mentioned you aren't interested but I thought I'd throw that in). The plastic will create coloring if polarized light is used.

Surface problems: Usually the viewing side is smooth and can present reflection problems if there is any ambient light in the viewing area. Frosting that side can help but has its own issues.

Bottom line: Very few home theater folks would consider rear projection, hence, not very many out there as you stated.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Ive set up rear projection screens at my church and they function well for there intended use but the challenge is keeping the back area where the projector is completely dark and you must have a screen that is made for rear projection. I also find that rear projection screens do not reproduce white nearly as well as front projection due to the nature of the screen. 
You will need equal the amount of space behind the screen that you would need in a front projection in order to get the image size and if you choose to use a mirror (very costly) the light output of the projector needs to be high.


----------



## Egor (Apr 25, 2014)

lcaillo said:


> And if any of the vendors are interested, I am sure that one of our screen experts will be happy to test on any samples they would be willing to provide, just like they do with FP screens.


*I'll supply all info after replay from manufacturers. Can take few days.*


----------



## Egor (Apr 25, 2014)

RBTO said:


> Most people here wouldn't have experience with existing RP HT because, as you stated it is rare. The _reason_ is that it has very little to offer compared to FP, and can have significant _disadvantages_ when so compared.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## RBTO (Jan 27, 2010)

Egor said:


> RBTO said:
> 
> 
> > .......Bob, I see this opinion second time. Could you, please, explain, why RP more vulnerable to light ,than FP. Screen manufacturers have another opinion /see quotes above /
> ...


----------



## Egor (Apr 25, 2014)

lcaillo said:


> I am sure that one of our screen experts will be happy to test on any samples they would be willing to provide, just like they do with FP screens.


*What size/min. size of samples should be ?*


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

That is something our reviewers would work out directly with the vendor and would depend on the type of screen. If you have a vendor that is interested in having us test their screen, please send me the contact and I will make sure someone makes arangements.


----------



## Egor (Apr 25, 2014)

lcaillo said:


> That is something our reviewers would work out directly with the vendor and would depend on the type of screen. If you have a vendor that is interested in having us test their screen,
> 
> *And if not interested, but agreed to give samples ? Still I need some guidelines.*


----------

