Seymour-Screen Excellence announces ‘affordable’ TRIM motorized masking system

Seymour-Screen Excellence claims it is bringing “Hollywood director-level” screening room performance to a wider audience with its TRIM motorized masking film screen system. Manufactured in Iowa, and with a 90- and 150-inches wide screen size range, TRIM uses a removable border design to make shipping more convenient, reducing costs, and making possible easier repair or replacement of border panels.

TRIM is the company’s most affordable fixed-frame motorized masking film screen so far, and is available in 1.78 and 2.40 aspect ratios. The screens also come with the 4K Enlightor Neo acoustically transparent and 16K light-rejecting Ambient-Visionaire surfaces, as well as the Radiant White and Gray series.

Seymour-Screen Excellence’s True Aspect Masking (TAM) systems achieve “outstanding video and audio performance,” and allow for precise aspect ratio control. They are configured as either constant height (native 2.40 format with side motorized masking) or constant width (1.78 format with top and bottom masking). The masking panels are finished in a sheer black speaker grille material for acoustical transparency. The TRIM series is aimed at those with a more modest home theater budget, and the company claims the systems provide the same kind of 2-way masking control and performance yet at half the cost of TAM.

“For TRIM we designed our Infinite Black borders to be removable. This makes it possible to ship the entire system nestled in a cardboard box,” says managing director Chris Seymour, who holds a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, a minor in economics from University of Missouri-Columbia, and an M.B.A. with honors from New York Institute of Technology.  “This significantly reduces cost because we don’t have to ship in wooden crates like we do with the TAMs which on average weigh 700-pounds and require up to 3-days to build. It also gives the option that if the velvet border gets damaged, the panels can be inexpensively repaired or replaced.”

Seymour also says he brought costs down by opting for DC motors to drive TRIM’s masking assemblies, which can be independently controlled via IR receiver, trigger, dry contact, RF, RS-232, Ethernet or Z-wave. TRIM borders measure 3.7-inches wide and are finished in the company’s Infinite Black velvet borders. The Enlightor acoustically transparent fabric screen surfaces attach with either grip-channel or posts. The Ambient-Visionaire and Radiant screen surfaces attach by either grommets or O-rings.

TRIM is shipping now. MSRP spans $5,000 to $10,000 depending on size, and before motor and control accessories and installation costs. For more information, go to www.seymourscreenexcellence.com.

Published by

Martin Dew

editor

14 Comments

  1. Edwin-S

    I get a good chuckle out of their idea of affordable.

    Yeah and WTAF:

    Chris Seymour, who holds a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, a minor in economics from University of Missouri-Columbia, and an M.B.A. with honors from New York Institute of Technology.

    And why the hell would you do 1.78? EVERYTHING HD is 1.85

  2. Mysto

    I wish I could afford 10K for my entire theater:razz:

    I hear you. :laugh:

    What makes it more amusing is the "affordable" 5 to 10K is before motor, controller and installation costs. All of those could mean an extra 3K, so total cost is more like 8 to 13K.

  3. Sam Posten

    And why the hell would you do 1.78? EVERYTHING HD is 1.85

    The HD spec is for 16×9 (aka 1.78:1).

    The theatrical DCP spec is for 1.85:1, but there’s no consumer grade equipment that is natively designed at that ratio.

  4. Sam Posten

    And why the hell would you do 1.78? EVERYTHING HD is 1.85

    The HD spec is for 16×9 (aka 1.78:1).

    The theatrical DCP spec is for 1.85:1, but there’s no consumer grade equipment that is natively designed at that ratio.

  5. Sam Posten

    Yeah and WTAF:

    And why the hell would you do 1.78? EVERYTHING HD is 1.85

    It would appear to make more sense to go 1.85:1, but isn't HD home releases all framed at 1.78:1 to fit standard HDTV screens.

    In any case, to get 1.85:1, it might make sense to calculate out a constant height screen that would give the correct ratio with the use if side masking.

  6. I have a 2.35:1 CIH screen, so I built my own side masking panels out of sheets of rigid home insulation foam (from Home Depot) and tight-stretched high-quality black velour over them, making sure the image border edge was absolutely square. Because they're so light, I just attach them with Velcro to the screen frame. You can line up the borders using the PJ test pattern or a paused image for both 1.37 and 1.85. Cost me about $40 in total! The only disadvantage is that you have to stick to the same aspect ratio throughout a movie show, but hey…

  7. Martin Dew

    I have a 2.35:1 CIH screen, so I built my own side masking panels out of sheets of rigid home insulation foam (from Home Depot) and tight-stretched high-quality black velour over them, making sure the image border edge was absolutely square. Because they're so light, I just attach them with Velcro to the screen frame. You can line up the borders using the PJ test pattern or a paused image for both 1.37 and 1.85. Cost me about $40 in total! The only disadvantage is that you have to stick to the same aspect ratio throughout a movie show, but hey…

    It is fotunate that there are only a handful of films where the aspect ratio shifts. If one likes classic cinema then issue pretty well goes away.

    Anyways a little inconvenience and a savings of 9,960 is probably worth it. 🙂

    Of course, IIRC, using a constant height requires a panamorph lense for some films and that is not exactly a small outlay, although it is considerably less than this motorized masking.

  8. Similar to Martin, I have a home brew el-cheapo but el-worko just fine $100 system.
    I have a 16×9 screen, with the L/R speakers to either side. They are normally covered by full-height AT panels. For narrow movies, I can easily reposition them on each side of the screen- although I don’t find that as critical as the wide screen masking. For that, I click the remote to move the image to the top of the screen. Then I only have to mask the bottom part, which done by raising up a black velvet bar and attaching it via velcro at the bottom of the picture. Done. Saved $10,000 .

  9. KPmusmag

    I would want masking for 1.37 and 2.55 as well.

    Actually, you can do 2.0 (Lawrence of Arabia, 2001) with my method, but you can't do 2.76 (Ben-Hur). I need to build a set of horizontal panels too. The zoom and lens memory flexibility on the Epsons means that you don't have to use an anamorphic lens for scope and wider.

  10. Mine is exactly like Martin’s. Home Depot styrofoam cut to fit and black velvet wrapped. I’m not handy, but they turned out fine. The frame of my Criterion screen is thick, and deep enough, thatthe panels just fit snugly inside. No need for velcro. They are super fast and easy to pop in or remove. So nice being able to see both 1.85:1, 2:1, and 2.2:1 movies “float”. I, too, have an Epson (the 4010 4k), a sizeable step up from the Panasonic’s I previously owned.

Leave a Reply