lcd screen size comparison free sample

A lot goes into determining the best viewing distance, and there are several different criteria you can use. Aside from size, things like resolution and even how strong your eyesight is can affect how you see the screen. Because everyone"s eyesight is different, this is less an exact science and more of a general guide based on scientific principles of vision and resolution.

That doesn"t mean you should be sitting a foot away from your TV. Having the largest screen possible isn"t always ideal. The human visual system has a total horizontal field of view of about 200 degrees, although a portion of that is peripheral vision. While it makes some sense to get as large a TV as you can for movies, not all content is made to fill the entire field of view. This becomes very apparent if you try to watch sports from up close while fixating on a single part of the screen, which quickly starts to feel nauseating.

The Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers recommends sitting at a distance where the screen fills up a minimum of 30° of your field of vision for a good experience.

This is generally good guidance, but people who use their TVs mostly for watching movies might benefit from sitting a bit closer to get a more theater-like experience. The SMPTE "reference" position for movie theaters and the THX recommendation is about 40°. The minimum angle of vision works well for most usages, though, and sitting at a distance where the screen fills 30° of your horizontal field of view should be comfortable for most people.

Our size and distance tool above is based on the 30° guideline that is suitable for mixed usage, but you can find distances for a variety of sizes at 40° here.Learn more about the human visual field.

For instance, sitting close to a 1080p TV can look almost like watching through a screen door because you can see the individual pixels, even if it"s playing a high-quality 1080p HD movie. Increasing your distance to the TV also increases the density of details, producing a better image. Since 4k TVs have such a large density of pixels, it"s much more difficult for this issue to arise. You need to be quite close to a fairly large TV for the pixels to be noticeably distracting.

With 8k TVs, that density increases further, making it even harder to notice flaws with the resolution unless you"re sitting extremely close. However, this also decreases the point at which the perceived difference in picture quality becomes noticeable. Because the pixels are more densely packed with an 8k resolution, you need to sit closer to actually resolve those details. For that reason—content aside—8k only really makes sense if you want a really big screen and plan on sitting close to it. Learn more about the difference between 4k and 8k.

This chart shows the point at which an upgrade in resolution becomes worth it depending on size and distance to the TV. Each line represents the optimal viewing distance for each resolution, but any TV that falls within the range of that color will be suitable to notice a difference in picture quality. So, for example, if you have a 65 inch TV, the viewing distance at which the eye can actually process the details of 4k content is about 4 feet. However, any distance between 4 and about 8.5 feet will be enough to appreciate the difference between 4k and 1080p on a 65 inch TV. Go too far, and the image will look identical to 1080p HD.

You"re probably thinking something along the lines of "My couch is 10" away from my TV, which according to the chart means I need a 75 inch TV. This is insane!" It"s true that if you want to take full advantage of higher resolutions, that"s the ideal size you should get. That said, this may not be possible for everyone, which brings us to budget.

The price of a TV is usually exponential to its size. Size isn"t the only factor though, as resolution, panel type, and features all play into it as well. Looking at 65 inch TVs, for instance, an OLED like the LG CX OLED is inevitably going to cost more than a budget LED TV like the Hisense H8G, and both of these will seem downright cheap compared to an 8k TV like the Samsung Q900TS 8k QLED. Fortunately, though, as technology improves and the availability of higher resolution TVs expands, larger TVs have become more common and therefore more affordable. Feel free to compare the prices of our picks for the best 65 inch TVs, the best 70 to 75 inch TVs, and the best 80 to 85 inch TVs to really see the difference that size makes.

We recommend a field of vision of about 30 degrees for mixed usage. In general, we also recommend getting a 4k TV since lower resolution TVs are becoming harder to find. To easily find out what size you should buy, you can divide your TV viewing distance (in inches) by 1.6 (or use our TV size calculator above) which roughly equals a 30-degree angle. If the best size is outside your budget, just get the biggest TV you can afford. These are guidelines, after all, and since most TVs nowadays are 4k, you can"t really go wrong with the size that works for you, especially since picture quality also depends a lot on the content and viewing conditions. Ideally, you would optimize the capacity of your TV by getting one that"s large enough for you to notice all the visual detail that 4k has to offer, but ultimately, you should watch however feels most comfortable to you, whatever the size and distance may be.

On 2D displays, such as computer monitors and TVs, the display size (or viewable image size or VIS) is the physical size of the area where pictures and videos are displayed. The size of a screen is usually described by the length of its diagonal, which is the distance between opposite corners, usually in inches. It is also sometimes called the physical image size to distinguish it from the "logical image size," which describes a screen"s display resolution and is measured in pixels.

The size of a screen is usually described by the length of its diagonal, which is the distance between opposite corners, usually in inches. It is also sometimes called the physical image size to distinguish it from the "logical image size," which describes a screen"s display resolution and is measured in pixels.

The method of measuring screen size by its diagonal was inherited from the method used for the first generation of CRT television, when picture tubes with circular faces were in common use. Being circular, the external diameter of the bulb was used to describe their size. Since these circular tubes were used to display rectangular images, the diagonal measurement of the visible rectangle was smaller than the diameter of the tube due to the thickness of the glass surrounding the phosphor screen (which was hidden from the viewer by the casing and bezel). This method continued even when cathode ray tubes were manufactured as rounded rectangles; it had the advantage of being a single number specifying the size, and was not confusing when the aspect ratio was universally 4:3. In the US, when virtually all TV tubes were 4:3, the size of the screen was given as the true screen diagonal with a V following it (this was a requirement in the US market but not elsewhere). In virtually all other markets, the size of the outer diameter of the tube was given. What was a 27V in the US could be a 28" elsewhere. However the V terminology was frequently dropped in US advertising referring to a 27V as a 27". This was not misleading for the consumer as the seller had to give the actual screen size by law. Flat panel displays by contrast use the actual diagonal of their visible display size, thus the size is the actual size presented to the viewer in all markets. This means that a similarly specified size of display will be larger as a flat panel display compared with a cathode ray tube display.

When the common aspect ratio went from 4:3 to 16:9, the new widescreens were labeled with a W in the US. A screen that is approximately the same height as a 27V would be a 32W. Vizio and other US TV manufacturers have introduced even wider screens with a 21:9 aspect ratio in order to match aspect ratios used in cinemas. In order to gauge the relative sizes of these new screens, the screen aspect must be considered. In a commercial market where multiple aspect ratios are being sold, it will always take two numbers to describe the screen size, some combination of diagonal, aspect ratio, height or width.

Set sizes are frequently given as a "class" as screens from different manufacturers will have slight differences in size. However the "class" should be within 1/2" of the actual size. The reasons for the different sizes within a class stem from differences in the manufacturers" equipment. As manufacturers move from one size to another, newer larger sizes must fit on the same size glass, though with fewer displays being cut from it. Some sizes fit well and maximize glass utilization, other sizes fit more poorly and waste glass. As an example, in some cases, increasing the screen size by even 0.1" can cause an LCD manufacturer to go from 12 screens fitting on their glass sheet to 9. This would make them uncompetitive with other screen makers.

The resolution of the human eye (with 20/20 vision) is about one minute of arc. For full HDTV resolution, this one minute of arc implies that the TV watcher should sit 4 times the height of the screen away. At this distance the individual pixels can not be resolved while simultaneously maximising the viewing area. So the ideal set size can be determined from the chart below by measuring the distance from where the watcher would sit to the screen in centimeters (or inches), dividing that by 4, and comparing with the screen heights below. At this distance, viewers with better than 20/20 vision will still be able to see the individual pixels.

The TV image is composed of many lines of pixels. Ideally, the TV watcher sits far enough away from the screen that the individual lines merge into one solid image. The watcher may sit even farther away and still see a good picture, but it will be a smaller portion of their visual field.

Common screen dimensions are listed in the table below (the most common diagonal dimensions in inches as of 2020 are bolded). If the display is not listed, then the following equations can be used. Note that D is the diagonal (in centimeters or inches), W is the width (in pixels), and H is the height (in pixels).

The "p-display" nomenclature used in this article refers to the number of pixels displayed across the width of a given phone"s screen. Earlier phones with lower than 720p (lower than HD ready resolution) are not included in this listing. The lists below are dynamic lists and may be sorted into alphabetical order by clicking on the "sort icons" at the top of the first column.

LCD panels" resolutions are often quoted in terms of raw subpixels, misnamed "pixels" in manufacturer"s specifications. Each real pixel includes one subpixel for each of three colors, so calling subpixels "pixels" inflates the claimed resolution by a factor of three. This bit of marketing obfuscation is calculated as horizontal resolution × vertical resolution × 3. For example: 640 × 480 VGA is 921,600 subpixels, or 307,200 pixels, 800 × 600 SVGA is 1,440,000 subpixels, or 480,000 pixels, and 1024 × 768 XGA is 2,359,296 subpixels, but only 786,432 full-color pixels.

To support as many screen sizes as possible, design your app layouts to be responsive and adaptive. Responsive/adaptive layouts provide an optimized user experience regardless of screen size, enabling your app to accommodate phones, tablets, foldable and Chrome OS devices, portrait and landscape orientations, and resizable configurations such as multi-window mode.

Window size classes are a set of opinionated viewport breakpoints that help you design, develop, and test responsive and adaptive application layouts. The breakpoints have been chosen specifically to balance layout simplicity with the flexibility to optimize your app for unique cases.

Window size classes categorize the display area available to your app as compact, medium, or expanded. Available width and height are classified separately, so at any point in time, your app has two window size classes—one for width, one for height. Available width is usually more important than available height due to the ubiquity of vertical scrolling, so the width window size class will likely be more relevant to your app’s UI.

As visualized above, the breakpoints allow you to continue thinking about layouts in terms of devices and configurations. Each size class breakpoint represents a majority case for typical device scenarios, which can be a helpful frame of reference as you think about the design of your breakpoint-based layouts.

Although it can be useful to visualize size classes as physical devices, window size classes are explicitly not determined by the size of the device screen. Window size classes are not intended for isTablet-type logic. Rather, window size classes are determined by the window size available to your application regardless of the type of device the app is running on, which has two important consequences:

Physical devices do not guarantee a specific window size class. The screen space available to your app can differ from the screen size of the device for many reasons. On mobile devices, split‑screen mode can partition the screen between two applications. On Chrome OS, Android apps can be presented in free‑form windows that are arbitrarily resizable. Foldables can have two different-sized screens individually accessed by folding or unfolding the device.

The window size class can change throughout the lifetime of your app. While your app is running, device orientation changes, multitasking, and folding/unfolding can change the amount of screen space available. As a result, the window size class is dynamic, and your app’s UI should adapt accordingly.

Window size classes map to the layout breakpoints in the Material Design responsive layout grid. Use window size classes to make high-level application layout decisions, such as deciding whether to use a specific canonical layout to take advantage of additional screen space.

View-based apps should calculate the window size class based on the current window metrics provided by the Jetpack WindowManager library. The example code below in Views Kotlin and Views Java shows an example of how to calculate the window size class based on the breakpoints and receive updates whenever it changes.

As you make layout changes, test the layout behavior across all ranges of window sizes, especially at the compact, medium, and expanded breakpoint widths.

If you have an existing layout for compact screens, first optimize your layout for the expanded width size class, as this provides the most space for additional content and UI changes. Then decide what layout makes sense for the medium width size class. Consider adding a specialized layout for the medium width screen size.

Note:The rest of this page focuses primarily on supporting different screen sizes with view-based layouts. For Compose guidance, refer to Build adaptive layouts and other Compose documentation.

The best way to create a responsive layout is to use ConstraintLayout as the base layout in your UI. ConstraintLayout enables you to specify the position and size of each view according to spatial relationships with other views in the layout. All the views can then move and resize together as the screen size changes.

To ensure that your layout is responsive to different screen sizes, use wrap_content, match_parent, or 0dp (match constraint) for the width and height of most view components instead of hard-coded values:

The TextView sets its width to fill all available space (match_parent) and set its height to exactly as much space is required by the height of the contained text (wrap_content), which enables the view to adapt to different screen sizes and different amounts of text.

If you"re using a LinearLayout, you can also expand the child views based on layout weight so that the views proportionally fill the available space. However, using weights in a nested LinearLayout requires the system to perform multiple layout passes to determine the size for each view, slowing UI performance.

Note:When using ConstraintLayout, you should not use match_parent. Instead, set the dimension to 0dp to enable a special behavior called "match constraints," which is generally the same as the behavior of match_parent. For more information, see how to adjust the view size in ConstraintLayout.

Your app"s layout should always be responsive to different screen sizes. However, even a responsive layout can"t provide the best user experience on every device. For example, the UI you designed for a phone, probably doesn"t provide an optimal experience on a tablet. Adaptive design provides alternative layouts optimized for different display dimensions.

A list-detail UI typically provides a different user experience on different-size screens. On large screens, the list and detail panes are usually side by side. When an item in the list is selected, item information is displayed in the detail pane without changing the UI—the two panes remain side by side. However, on small screens, the two panes are displayed separately, each pane occupying the entire display area. When an item in the list pane is selected, the detail pane (containing the selected item"s information) replaces the list pane. Back navigation replaces the detail pane with the list.

If the window width is larger than the total specified minimum width (580dp), layout_weight values can be used to size the two panes proportionally. In the example, the list pane is always 280dp wide because it does not have a weight. The detail pane however, always fills any horizontal space beyond 580dp because of the view"s layout_weight.

Note:The one exception to standard layout_weight behavior is when using SlidingPaneLayout v1.2.0 and later on foldable devices, in which case SlidingPaneLayout automatically adjusts the size of the panes so they are on either side of any fold or hinge.

You can provide adaptive, screen-specific layouts by creating additional res/layout/ directories in your app"s source code. Create a directory for each screen configuration that requires a different layout. Then append a screen configuration qualifier to the layout directory name (for example, layout-w600dp for screens that have 600dp of available width).

The configuration qualifiers represent the visible screen space available for your app UI. The system takes into account any system decorations (such as the navigation bar) and window configuration changes (such as multi-window mode) when selecting the layout for your app.

Select a screen qualifier on the left and add it to the list of Chosen qualifiers. When you"re done adding qualifiers, click OK. (See the following sections for information about screen size qualifiers.)

The smallest width screen size qualifier enables you to provide alternative layouts for screens that have a minimum width measured in density-independent pixels (dp or dip).

By describing the screen size as a measure of dp, Android enables you to create layouts that are designed for specific screen dimensions without concern for different pixel densities.

The smallest width qualifier specifies the smallest of the screen"s two sides, regardless of the device"s current orientation, so it"s a simple way to specify the overall screen size available for your layout.

Values for the smallest width qualifier are dp, because what matters is the amount of screen space available after the system accounts for pixel density (not the raw pixel resolution).

The sizes you specify using resource qualifiers like smallest width are not the actual screen sizes. Rather, the sizes specify the width or height in dp units that are available to your app"s window. The Android system might use some of the screen for system UI (such as the system bar at the bottom of the screen or the status bar at the top), so some of the screen might not be available for your layout. If your app is used in multi-window mode, the app only has access to the size of the window that contains the app. When the window is resized, it triggers a configuration change with the new window size, which enables the system to select an appropriate layout file. So, the resource qualifier sizes you declare should specify only the space needed by your app. The system accounts for any space used by system UI when providing space for your layout.

Instead of changing the layout based on the smallest width of the screen, you might want to change your layout based on how much width or height is currently available. For example, you might want to use a two-pane layout whenever the screen provides at least 600dp of width, which might change depending on whether the device is in landscape or portrait orientation. In that case, you should use the available width qualifier as follows:

If available height is a concern for your app, you can use the available height qualifier. For example, layout-h600dp for screens with at least 600dp of screen height.

Even though you may be able to support all size variations using only combinations of the smallest width and available width qualifiers, you might also want to change the user experience when the user switches between portrait and landscape orientations.

For that, you can add the port or land qualifiers to your layout directory names. Just be sure the orientation qualifiers come after the size qualifiers. For example:

When designing your app for multiple screen sizes, use fragments to extract your UI logic into separate components to make sure you aren"t needlessly duplicating UI behavior across activities. Then you can combine fragments to create multi-pane layouts on large screens, or you can place fragments in separate activities on small screens.

For example, the list-detail pattern (see SlidingPaneLayout above) could be implemented with one fragment containing the list and another fragment containing the list item details. On large screens the fragments could be displayed side by side; on small screens, individually, filling the screen.

Activity embedding displays multiple activities or multiple instances of the same activity simultaneously in an application’s task window. On large screens, activities can be displayed side by side; on small screens, stacked one on top of the other.

You determine how your app displays its activities by creating an XML configuration file which the system uses to determine the appropriate presentation based on screen size. Alternatively, you can make Jetpack WindowManager API calls.

Android 10 (API level 29) and higher support a wide range of aspect ratios. Foldable form factors can vary from tall, narrow screens, such as 21:9 when folded, to a square aspect ratio of 1:1 when unfolded.

If you cannot support some aspect ratios, use maxAspectRatio and minAspectRatio to indicate the highest and lowest ratios your app can handle. In cases where screens exceed these limits, your app might be put in compatibility mode.

If you don"t have access to devices for all the different screen sizes you want to test, you can use the Android Emulator to emulate almost any screen size.

If you decide that you don"t want your app to run at certain screen sizes, you can set limits for how much your app should resize, or you can even restrict which devices can install your app based on screen configuration. For more information, see Declare restricted screen support.

We live in a world of choice. In each moment, we are presented with the opportunity to choose from an array of options. The truth is, though, that we do not always make our choices consciously. Sometimes, instead of choosing what is best for our personal requirements, we fall in the trap of commercial tricks and purchase a product we do not need. When we want to make a choice based on facts and objective reasoning exclusively, we need to methodically analyze and compare each product based on the criteria we value. In this essay, I will try to do that when choosing between the two most popular types of TVs: LCD and plasma. When entering the technical department of any supermarket or a high-tech store, many people ask themselves whether a LCD TV is better than a plasma TV, or vice versa. To answer this question, we need to compare the two products based on several relevant technical criteria.

As a result of such technical differences, a conclusion can be drawn that plasma TV sets are better in comparison to LCD TV sets when it comes to lighting (Howard, TV Comparisons: Modern). Also, many users have noted that plasma screens give an enhanced black color display as compared to LCD screens. In addition, a plasma TV affords better viewing angles.

Another crucial criterion to consider whenever we compare two products of everyday use is the pricing range. The price of any TV set depends on the display diameter and the stylistic configuration of the device. One may spend up to a million dollars on a TV set that was designed and custom made exclusively for their interior, and may even be inlaid with precious stones or a designer label. However, when we aim to compare two products based on their cost, we need to select two equally-sized, factory-made for mass consumption products of one or two popular brands, and compare their prices. An average plasma TV is cheaper than an LCD TV.This is largely due to the fact that a plasma TV costs less to assemble, thus translating into a lower price (Fields, Price Comparisons of Viewing). The price criterion once again speaks in favor of the plasma TV. At the same time, when taking the price factor into account, we have to understand its changeability. Since LCD TVs are a much more current technological invention than the plasma TV, there is a high possibility that the price of LCD products will decrease palpably in the near future, as technological progress offers us new alternatives.

At the same time, it is logical to assume that the LCD TV will also have some considerable advantages that help it successfully compete with the plasma TV on store shelves and in consumers’ households. One such important advantage of the LCD TV would be its lifespan. LCD TVs have a longer lifespan as opposed to the plasma TV (Franz, TV Statistics). It also has superior screen resolution. This would be a decisive factor to choose LCD over plasma for those consumers who enjoy playing high-resolution video games on their TVs. However, this would not greatly matter to an average TV viewer, since a plasma TV perfectly copes with the other tasks of a regular TV set without any resolution imperfections for the viewer.

Ultimately, technology matters less when it comes to obtaining such a popular domestic device as a TV set. After all, it is about the reliability and safety of the device that every member of your family will use practically every day. Having compared the two most popular types of TV sets, I came to the conclusion that there should be no controversy between LCD TVs and plasma TVs. It is not about which TV set is more worth its cost, or which is better-selling, but about the purpose for which the TV set is being used. Notwithstanding the similarities between plasma and LCD TV sets, their understated differences might be crucial when taking into consideration the TV’s use, the environment, and location.

Buying the largest, most costly TV set that will occupy no less than a whole wall in your living room might not be one of the smartest decisions for a household with children and pets, while it would perfectly suit a hi-tech apartment of a young business person. Consumers should remember a couple of basic tips when choosing one type of TV over the other. For instance, if you want to fit a TV set into a huge space, then a plasma TV will do better due to the wider viewing angle and the lower price of big sizes. The debate about which TV set is better is far from over. In the end, the question lies more in the hands of the consumer. Next time you buy a plasma or LCD TV set, do not be surprised if your neighbor criticizes your choice.

a line of extreme and ultra-narrow bezel LCD displays that provides a video wall solution for demanding requirements of 24x7 mission-critical applications and high ambient light environments

Unlike TVs, projectors are actually one part of a multipart system. The screen, room, and projector all play a role in the final image you see. A projector can be perfectly accurate (more on this below), but the image can still look wrong because of how the screen is affecting it. The main factors we considered when testing a projection screen were: gain, color accuracy, viewing angle, and texture.

Gain is a measurement of how much light the screen reflects. A gain of 1.0 means it reflects the same amount of light as an industry standard white magnesium-oxide board. Screens can reflect less light and have a gain of less than 1.0, or more light and have a gain higher than 1.0. A lower gain will produce deeper, darker blacks but reduce overall image brightness. In the early days of digital projection, this was useful because projectors had terrible (read: grayish) blacks. But that is less of an issue now with most decent projectors.

A higher gain, made possible by special screen materials, reflects more light back toward the center of the room. This creates a brighter image, but it also reduces viewing angles and can introduce hot spots (areas of the image that are noticeably brighter than other areas). It used to be that a higher gain was necessary, but as projectors have gotten more powerful, today a gain of 1.0 is often sufficient.

Color accuracy measures how well the screen reflects the colors projected onto it. The makeup of the screen can result in certain colors being absorbed more than others and introduce a tint to the image that isn’t coming from the projector. Many projectors ship with picture modes that are close to accurate out of the box, but those might no longer be accurate after they hit the screen. A screen that introduces as little color shifting as possible is ideal. The two images below show the same image on two different screen materials. You can easily see the color shifts between the two and the problems a screen can introduce.

At left is Goo Systems" Screen Goo paint, and at right is Elite Screens" Sable. Note the warm, red tint to the Screen Goo, while the Elite has a cool, blue tint. Photo: Chris Heinonen

Viewing angles influence how wide you can sit from the center of the screen before the light noticeably drops off. With a gain of 1.0, the viewing angle can be close to 180 degrees, since it reflects everything more or less equally in all directions. With a higher gain, the viewing angle gets smaller, as you are in essence “focusing” the reflected light more toward the center of the room. With a high-gain screen, you’ll want to put seats closer to the center of the screen.

The texture of the screen also impacts how much detail you can see. If a screen’s texture is evident from a usual seating distance, it will alter the image quality and possibly your enjoyment. If the screen material is very fine, then you will not see any texture from a normal viewing distance, so the image appears smooth.

Almost all of the screen reviews out there are of expensive screens, so we had to start from scratch. I first went to the AccuCal Projection Screen Material Report. W. Jeff Maier of AccuCal has tested samples of many screen materials using high-end equipment to determine their color accuracy and actual gain. Since he is dealing with only samples of the materials (often 8½- by 11-inch pieces) that he is sent through the mail, the report doesn’t go into construction or installation of the screens themselves.

Next, my research turned to the main AVSForum and other resources. Here the screen conversations range from the top-of-the-line Stewart to a DIY option for $3 from Home Depot. There are also many small Internet Direct companies that would otherwise go unnoticed without discussions at AVS and other locations.

We also pored over reviews from Amazon, making sure to carefully read what people actually complained about. I also talked to other reviewers and calibrators to find out what they might have used and seen in their work that impressed them, even if they had not formally reviewed that particular screen.

After all that, we set out to review 100-inch, 16:9 screens, as close to 1.0 gain as possible. We figured this was a good-size, average screen that would work for most people. You can certainly go larger, though the image will be dimmer (by an amount equal to the increase in screen area). Since most modern home theater projectors won’t have an issue creating a bright image on a 100-inch screen (and most can even do larger), we didn’t feel anything higher than a 1.0 gain was necessary. Since most content is 16:9, that was also our preferred screen shape, though many companies make 2.35:1-shaped screens as well.

We didn’t test pull-down screens or ambient-light-rejecting materials unless we already had a sample around. Those are more specialized cases, and we were looking for the screen that would be best for the greatest number of people in a semi-permanent home setting.

We were looking for a roughly 100-inch, 1.0-gain, 16:9 screen that had very little color shift, no noticeable texture, good viewing angles, and easy installation and setup. And, ideally, was very inexpensive.

So to sum up, we were looking for a roughly 100-inch, 1.0-gain, 16:9 screen that had very little color shift, no noticeable texture, good viewing angles, and easy installation and setup—and, ideally, was very inexpensive. With that in mind, we ended up bringing in the Silver Ticket STR Series 100″, the Elite Screens SableFrame 2 100″ in CineWhite, the 100-inch Stewart StudioTek 130 and Cima Neve 1.1 screens, three 120-inch screen materials (blackout cloth, FlexiWhite, and FlexiGray) from Carl’s Place, Wilsonart Designer White laminate in an 8- by 4-foot sheet, Goo Systems" Screen Goo Reference White and GooToob, and Home Depot"s Behr Silver Screen. I also included in the testing my personal screen, a 122-inch Screen Innovations SolarHD 4K.

The Stewart and Screen Innovations screens are much more expensive models that are often sold only through custom AV retailers, but we still included them in our tests as references for comparison. Stewart is the best-selling screen brand for custom home theaters, and the StudioTek 130 is the company"s best-selling material. It is the reference standard for a home theater screen and the one most reviewers are likely to recommend if you ask for a single suggestion; I use it when testing projectors. In our tests of screens, we wanted to make sure to pit everything against this reference to see how well they performed.