4 ms·
I hope it’s a lot darker than Black 3.0. Black 3.0 was severely disappointing and way less black than simple triple black velvet material in my home theater.
by SirMaster 3y ago
I hope it’s a lot darker than Black 3.0.
Black 3.0 was severely disappointing and way less black than simple triple black velvet material in my home theater.
- asah 3y agoI was also disappointed in 3.0 vs 2.0 Also, while I lived 2.0 is important to dust objects otherwise the dust will ruin the effect. Here's a ledge before painting: https://photos.app.goo.gl/9gxk4d3NqcUrt3Bj6 https://photos.app.goo.gl/9gxk4d3NqcUrt3Bj6 Note the distracting lines. Here's with b2.0 painted in the groove, notice how it's gone! https://photos.app.goo.gl/rKNrnffQmkCGAxXBA https://photos.app.goo.gl/rKNrnffQmkCGAxXBA Closeup https://photos.app.goo.gl/rAUGZmjGxtV1gW22A https://photos.app.goo.gl/rAUGZmjGxtV1gW22A
- Cthulhu_ 3y agoVelvet being the operative word; its surface texture captures light, like vantablack creating a furry surface. It's a challenge with paint because it's applied in a flat layer (usually).
- SirMaster 3y agoRight. But Black 3.0 claims 99.6% light absorption. So if Black 3.0 next to black velvet looks like this? What must be the light absorption value of black velvet? https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/824109424255434803/887758603958779935/image1.jpg https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/824109424255434803/88... Black 4.0 now apparently claims 99.95? So yeah, I wonder how it now compares.