# Microlite Optical Screen



## MCaugusto

Anyone here familiar with this brand new screen that was shown at InfoCom and has some videos posted at youTube?

Apparently it uses " a sophisticated micro structure with 11 layers of optical film" and offers high light rejection, high gain and wide viewing angle; It also comes rolled-up in sizes ranging from 17" to 120" diagonal and according to the press release, it is affordably priced.

Unfortunately the company does not have a website right now (in progress) and no one to pick up the phone at 3.00 PM local time, hmm....

From what i read, it appears that the main developer/CEO of the company is a Taiwanese man that recently decided to advertise and sell the screens here in the USA, and i imagine he is now looking for partners to share costs.

Any more detailed info would be appreciated...

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

Marcos


----------



## Jason Turk

I haven't heard of it...though it sounds interesting. Maybe they'll have a demo at Cedia.


----------



## yuweimichael

Yes. Marcos, I am with the company. We are trying our best to get our first screen out. We use optical layers to form a surface of screen. As you can see from Youtube, it's ambient light reject and still achieve high contrast ratio. If you look up others projection screen, they use dark surface color to hold contrast and light rejection. We are different. We use optical technology and components that you can find on every LCD/LED screen. I will let you know once the product is available. Thank you for your interest.


----------



## noah katz

yuweimichael,


What are the gain and half-gain angle?


Will it be available in 3.25 m wide, and what would the approximate cost be?


Link to the youtube video?


Thanks


----------



## MCaugusto

yuweimichael,

Since it appears that you are keeping track of comments here at AVS Forum concerning your company's screen and considering that it has been months since any more info has been posted anywhere online (and that includes the company's website), couldn't you at least give us some more details about the screen, specifically its composition, gain, size availability, estimated pricing and whether or not it will be shipped rolled-up or in a carton, attached permanently to its mount ?

Thanks >>> Marcos


----------



## yuweimichael




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MCaugusto* /forum/post/19599684
> 
> 
> yuweimichael,
> 
> Since it appears that you are keeping track of comments here at AVS Forum concerning your company's screen and considering that it has been months since any more info has been posted anywhere online (and that includes the company's website), couldn't you at least give us some more details about the screen, specifically its composition, gain, size availability, estimated pricing and whether or not it will be shipped rolled-up or in a carton, attached permanently to its mount ?
> 
> Thanks >>> Marcos



Hi,We will plan to sell roll materials first and portable projection screen for pico-projector users in March. For roll materials, we will have minimum order.

We will let you know once you can see more info and order it online. Thank you so much for interest.


Michael.


----------



## yuweimichael




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/19594660
> 
> 
> yuweimichael,
> 
> 
> What are the gain and half-gain angle?
> 
> 
> Will it be available in 3.25 m wide, and what would the approximate cost be?
> 
> 
> Link to the youtube video?
> 
> 
> Thanks



Hello,


Gain will be at least 2.5 to 3.0 ( We are still not getting exactly number yet).

Half-gain angle will be 180 degree in horizontal direction. We will offer very affordable and competitive price.


Her is the link to Youtube Video http://www.youtube.com/user/microlitescreen 


Thanks


Michael.


----------



## noah katz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *yuweimichael* /forum/post/19656898
> 
> 
> Half-gain angle will be 180 degree in horizontal direction.



I presume you mean 90 deg half angle, as 180 deg is behind the screen










In any case, I don't see how gain greater than one at 90 deg is physically possible unless the vertical angle is restricted.


Otherwise the screen would have to be creating light.


What is the vertical half gain angle?


Thanks


----------



## yuweimichael




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/19659576
> 
> 
> I presume you mean 90 deg half angle, as 180 deg is behind the screen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In any case, I don't see how gain greater than one at 90 deg is physically possible unless the vertical angle is restricted.
> 
> 
> Otherwise the screen would have to be creating light.
> 
> 
> What is the vertical half gain angle?
> 
> 
> Thanks





Yes. Half-angle is 90 degree. Vertical angle will be restricted and we did not have correct measurement yet for Flexible Roll Material. We use the newest optical technology to enhance not only viewing angle but also the colors, and no speckle image. Everyone was surprised and pleased.


If you look at our angle demo shoot from Infocomm last year, you will see how wide is the viewing angle. Please click here for Angle Demo 


Thank you for the interest.


----------



## MCaugusto

youweimichael >>>Thanks for the answers and product updates; Perhaps as soon as you have some samples you could ship them to interested parties such as myself and many others who would like to get a high-gain screen that doesn't have major compromises in performance, doesn't cost an arm and a leg, comes rolled-up for much/much easier shipping (Vutec Silverstar) and isn't retro-reflective for easier mounting options (DaLite High-Power).

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

Marcos


----------



## ParanoidDroid

Im interested in this one also. I saw the youtube video a couple of days ago but havent seen much talk about it.


-you said competively priced...any idea on a range?


-any samples you can send out?


----------



## Makomachine

I'm subscribing to thread as I'm interested in any HG screen options that offer the fewest compromises at this point. Look forward to reviews on this when available.


----------



## noah katz

The videos look impressive, but it's hard to say without knowing what the actual light levels of the image and surroundings are.


It seems odd that there are no eye witness reports, at least that I've seen.


----------



## MCaugusto

I was watching again some of the videos on youtube and paid closer attention to the rear-screen + Microlite video in which they use a LG HS-201 presentation LED pj behind a very small 20" screen that's table mounted; To my surprise, the presenter then turns the screen fully around and the onscreen picture appears to look the same ! In other words, it appears that this screen uses the same optical material on its front and rear surfaces, which is highly unusual, to say the least.

Perhaps yuweimichael could chime in again with some added clarification ?

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

Marcos


----------



## noah katz

Actually with such a small screen, just a few % reflectivity will give enough light for an image, and unless the camera had a brighter reference with both front and back views, it will adjust and make the image look brighter.


----------



## Makomachine

Any further word on this screen and have any AVSers seen it in person?


----------



## noah katz

I put yuweimichael in contact with darinp2, who can do good measurements.


I hope something comes of it.


yuweimichael, can you please give us an update?


Thanks


----------



## newfmp3

very interesting screen. I would have certainly tried this over an high power setup if it delivers. Sadly I just ordered the high power and if and when this comes out, it's going to be next to impossible to convince you know who to order another.


Very interesting tech in the vids. I've been saying this for years, why not use the same materials as a lcd/plasma. How they get that on a roll...amazes me.


----------



## noah katz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *newfmp3* /forum/post/19820260
> 
> 
> ... why not use the same materials as a lcd/plasma.



Those are transmissive screens, FP is reflective


----------



## MCaugusto

After 6 months of waiting for "something/anything" more informative from this product/company/entrepreneur i am beginning to wonder if anything wil come out of it, which would be a shame considering the amount of interest shown both here and at youtube....

On a side note, i wonder what would be the best screen format to match to a native WXGA (1280x800) projector ?

If i use it with a 4:3 screen and match the 1280 horizontal pixels to the screen width, would that mean there would be horizontal bars on top/bottom of the image, since 1280x800 is a 5:4 format and to attain a 4:3 image i would need 960 vertical pixels ?

Conversely, if i use a 16:9 screen (optimized for 1280x720 pixels) and match the 1280 horizontal pixels to the screen width, would that mean i would be "wasting" 80 vertical pixels ?

And,how would native 4:3 material look like displayed on a 16:10 screen and on a 16:9 screen projected by a native 1280x800 pj ? Black bars all around ?

Thanks for any answers and suggestions, as i've been trying to figure this one out and make some informed decisions,

Marcos


----------



## ParanoidDroid

Really need an update on this one. Ive ready to pull the trigger on a screen but am waiting on this one.


----------



## schlitzie

Wow -- Still no info? This looks to have fizzled out - disappointing as the propaganda that was posted looked quite intriguing


----------



## ParanoidDroid

Ive emailed the company who is developing microlite's website. I haven't heard from them,but if I haven't by tomorrow then I will call them. Im going to try and get some contact info from them. Will keep updated.


----------



## schlitzie









Hey Microlite/yuwemichael -- It really helps your business to completely ignore an interested group of possible customers as you try to build demand for a niche product.


----------



## chesbak




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Makomachine* /forum/post/19748918
> 
> 
> Any further word on this screen and have any AVSers seen it in person?



I thought it was great in person...


----------



## newfmp3

well it's too late for me now. If it comes out now I already got my screen. But I was very interested to see this screen...VERY interested.


----------



## noah katz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chesbak* /forum/post/19976097
> 
> 
> I thought it was great in person...



Could you elaborate?


----------



## ParanoidDroid

Alright its March. Wheres the damn screen?


I called IBCnet since they are the ones developing microlites website. I talked to a guy who is going to foward my email to microlite. I asked about availability, gain, price, where to buy, etc.....so hopefully ill hear something soon. I wouldnt get my hopes up though.


----------



## yuweimichael




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ParanoidDroid* /forum/post/20079835
> 
> 
> Alright its March. Wheres the damn screen?
> 
> 
> I called IBCnet since they are the ones developing microlites website. I talked to a guy who is going to foward my email to microlite. I asked about availability, gain, price, where to buy, etc.....so hopefully ill hear something soon. I wouldnt get my hopes up though.



Dear Sir,


Microlitescreen will not be ready anytime soon. We are very sorry for your wait and we have dealing with one of most difficult screen to make. By using the highest standard, it still not enough. We will do our best but like i said, the Microlitescreen will not be ready anytime soon. But when it is ready, it will be a suprise to anyone. Thank you all for interest.


Michael C


----------



## schlitzie

OK... is 2011 ruled out by "not anytime soon"?


----------



## yuweimichael

Yes. It is possible over 2011.


----------



## schlitzie

Great -- I can wait. None of the other options are firing me up for a new 2.35 screen...


Many of us seem to be intrigued by your (hopefully) upcoming product -- and we understand how difficult it can be to develop and bring something like this to market. It would go very far for your company and the interested customer base to give routine updates on development successes and failures... Will you be able to do that as the process moves forward?


----------



## schlitzie

And add me as beta tester #1...


----------



## ParanoidDroid

Well, at least it looks like my email made it to you.


Looks like its going to da-lite high power for me. Ill reassess in 2012 when the microlite is out and reviews are in.


Please keep us updated Michael.


----------



## yuweimichael

Yes i will keep you guys update once we have breakthrough. !!


Thank you.


----------



## noah katz

yuweimichael,


So it sounds like you're having manufacturing process difficulties.


Nevertheless, can you give us at lesst some preliminary specifications, like gain vs. angle and light rejection vs. angle for horizontal and vertical?


----------



## yuweimichael

Hello,

Every specification will change if we use different manufacturing process. We will post speecification once we have final approval product. In addition, we showed off our Microlitescreen during Infocomm 2010.


For those who did not see it in person, here is the actual footage from Infocomm . We put two matt white strips on the Microlitescreen and people can compare differences. Just FYI, I used a very cheap projector from Panasonic ( Less than 2K ).


----------



## newfmp3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *yuweimichael* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Every specification will change if we use different manufacturing process. We will post speecification once we have final approval product. In addition, we showed off our Microlitescreen during Infocomm 2010.
> 
> 
> For those who did not see it in person, here is the actual footage from Infocomm . We put two matt white strips on the Microlitescreen and people can compare differences. Just FYI, I used a very cheap projector from Panasonic ( Less than 2K ).



Man I need to see this screen!


Free samples! For everyone ha ha!


----------



## MCaugusto

....Seven months later and all i am still looking for is a high-gain + free-standing + very little hot-spotting + not overly expensive +rollable screen...

If the Vutec Silverstar werent' shipped in such huge crates due to the fact that they are hard mounted to the frames, i would have bought one months ago !

Yuweimichael, you tantalized us long enough with the attributes of this one-of-a-kind screen, now its time for you to put up and make some money !

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

Marcos


----------



## ParanoidDroid

Marcos, im in the same position as you except I wanted a fixed frame. I needed high gain but was worried about viewing angle. The microlite looked like the holy grail (and still may be), but I waited 5 months for it and nothing. The Silverstar looks to be comparable. I guess the good part about it is that I waited so long for the microlite that I saved enough to buy the silverstar.


----------



## Lawguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ParanoidDroid* /forum/post/20096324
> 
> 
> Marcos, im in the same position as you except I wanted a fixed frame. I needed high gain but was worried about viewing angle. The microlite looked like the holy grail (and still may be), but I waited 5 months for it and nothing. The Silverstar looks to be comparable. I guess the good part about it is that I waited so long for the microlite that I saved enough to buy the silverstar.



The Silverstar hotspots quite a bit. Just be aware.


----------



## noah katz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MCaugusto* /forum/post/20094091
> 
> 
> ....Seven months later and all i am still looking for is a high-gain + free-standing + very little hot-spotting + not overly expensive +rollable screen...



HP doesn't work for you?


----------



## MCaugusto

Quote:

Originally Posted by *noah katz* 
HP doesn't work for you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noah >>> Some months ago i requested and received several samples from different manufacturers and although i haven't even checked them out side-by-side as i've been very/very patiently waiting for more news on this Microlite screen, the HP sample i got did not impress me too much due to its thickness (more like a thin vinyl) which concerned me insofar as fragility, and its "whitish silver" color, which i found to be not what i was looking for; Also, looking at its built quality, i certainly didn't think it was worth being priced the same as comparably sized Silverstar screens.

Right now i own a very high-gain silver screen (real silver) and i am a sucker for that plasma-like look image it provides, even taking into consideration its somewhat elevated black level; Unfortunately, the screen is only 76" diagonal and has a 4:3 image ratio.

One thing about the Silverstar sample i received is that it came packaged inside a wooden frame (?!) which was very easy to take apart and to my surprise the Silverstar material easily slipped out of the frame; To my eyes, it looked just like another piece of thick silver vinyl material that could be easily rolled up and shipped to customers !

Why doesn't Vutec offer the option of selling just the vinyl Silverstar material together with standard metal frames shipped dis-assembled available with the same options of wall-mount or leg-mount, but without that humongous shipping crate to deal with ?

I don't know how much longer i'll be able to wait to get a new screen and in my mind i keep thinking of ordering the 92" diagonal Silverstar, but when i think of the nightmare of opening that huge crate outdoors in the parking lot of my condo and then having to move it extremely carefully down the stairs to my HT room, putting it in place just to find out that it does not fulfill my expectations and that i would have the task of re-packaging and shipping it back to Vutec, now that makes me re-consider the whole enterprise !

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

Marcos


----------



## noah katz

Marcos,


Sounds like you got the new, thinner 2.4 gain HP; you can still order the 2.8 which is quite thick.


My HP (2.8) looks white to me, but anyway, not sure why you object to whitish silver when you like the Silverstar.


----------



## yuweimichael

Just get you guys an update. I just received a roll of material and cut a piece it to compare with other screen material (matt white). I think gamers will love this one. No more video game or football in a dark room. The light was very bright ( 6 of 100 watts light bulbs) using a Acer 120MHZ gaming projector. True color reproduction, No hot spot and any viewing angle.


----------



## ParanoidDroid

Id pay 20 bucks just to have a 6"x6" sample so I can feel good about the screen choice I am about to make. That screen looks awesome.


Any way to make this happen?


----------



## Lawguy

That sample does a very nice job at preserving contrast. I'd love to review it.


How many lumens is the projector that you are using rated for?


----------



## Warbie

If this gives a similar performace to a Firehawk without the sheen i'll be all over it.


----------



## WiseInvestor

Hi guys, long time reader, first time poster here.


I'm interested in getting 46" x 82" curved screen for a future 4x Eyefinity setup just like the Scalable Displays tech demo I saw a couple months ago. This Microlite optical projection screen seems like a perfect fit.


Please keep us in the loop Michael. Thanks.


WI.


----------



## yuweimichael




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lawguy* /forum/post/20115417
> 
> 
> That sample does a very nice job at preserving contrast. I'd love to review it.
> 
> 
> How many lumens is the projector that you are using rated for?



I am using acer H5360 $499 dollars gaming projector with 2500 lumens.


Sorry upstair, no sample will be given yet since I only received a small roll of fabric.










About the performance, we have only one competitor and some of you guys should know who. The screen material is pure optical. It is not like using dark surface to get light rejection or contrast. We use pure optical layers to achieve the performance of light rejection, contrast, panoramic wide viewing angle on 3.0 gain material and true color reproduction.


I will keep you guys update. Thank you.


----------



## newfmp3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *yuweimichael* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Just get you guys an update. I just received a roll of material and cut a piece it to compare with other screen material (matt white). I think gamers will love this one. No more video game or football in a dark room. The light was very bright ( 6 of 100 watts light bulbs) using a Acer 120MHZ gaming projector. True color reproduction, No hot spot and any viewing angle.



Very interesting indeed


----------



## tommy def




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *yuweimichael* /forum/post/20114102
> 
> 
> Just get you guys an update. I just received a roll of material and cut a piece it to compare with other screen material (matt white). I think gamers will love this one. No more video game or football in a dark room. The light was very bright ( 6 of 100 watts light bulbs) using a Acer 120MHZ gaming projector. True color reproduction, No hot spot and any viewing angle.



Could you please comment on any screen texture and if the material appears uniform.


----------



## yuweimichael




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tommy def* /forum/post/20120409
> 
> 
> Could you please comment on any screen texture and if the material appears uniform.



Yes. It is uniform and smooth surface.


----------



## ParanoidDroid

Michael, check your PM's.


----------



## schlitzie

Yuwemichael --


Thanks so much for updating us like this. As you can tell from the enthusiastic responses we as a group are fired up for your potential product. I'm confident many of us will help you out to develop it further with suggestions etc. as you move forward. Always good to satisfy the audience!


Mike


----------



## newfmp3

Yeah, I have Been talking to everyone in the biz about this screen with high hopes that it delivers. Very anxious to see it in person somehow


----------



## brianlun

Nice ! A screen from Taiwan ? how much ?


----------



## yuweimichael




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *newfmp3* /forum/post/20125850
> 
> 
> Yeah, I have Been talking to everyone in the biz about this screen with high hopes that it delivers. Very anxious to see it in person somehow



when everyone came in and saw it by his or her own eye last year at Infocomm, it is no doubt that everyone asked the same question. "How is possible and it is against law of physics?" Well, by several minutes of argument and examination, they started to believe that somehow we did it. The Microlitescreen was invent and design in california. It will be made in Taiwan and China.


----------



## Joomack

Hi, First time posting here.


yuweimichael - Thanks so much for the update. I am looking into daylight screens, how do you compare yourself with screen innovation black diamond, and maybe also dnp supernova?


----------



## yuweimichael

I can't really answer that question because I am the maker. I will let you guys answer that once you can test it by yourself. Thank you.


----------



## tommy def

yuweimichael this product sounds interesting. Do you think the company will be showing at Cedia?


----------



## Blue Rain

WOW this screen looks like the Holy Grail of Screens if it's

anything like the video's.


Will this screen be available as an Electric sreen also and what will be the largest size ?


Will the larger sizes have a seam or just one piece material ?


Have prices/cost been determine as of yet ?


yuweimichael..looking forward to hearing from you again..hopefully it

will be good news soon.


----------



## ParanoidDroid

Michael, I didn't see this anywhere, but I was wondering if this was retro or angular reflective. Im probably gonna wait until this comes out but will go ahead and mount my projector.


----------



## schlitzie

And another "by the way" question -- How will it do with 3D images?


----------



## MCaugusto

yuweimichael, yuweimichael, yuweimichael >>> Not that i want to keep "harping" on the same subject, but we have all been waiting very patiently for over seven months to get some concrete information on this screen and now it's time for you to get some samples mailed to interested parties for reviews/comparisons/tests.

I started this thread and would appreciate very much getting a small sample of the microlite screen so that i could compare it side by side with samples of the Vutec Silverstar and the Da-Lite High Power and attach all three to the surface of my high-gain screen, which would serve as an extra comparison material; My hard-mounted silver screen was specified as having a gain of 10 when i purchased it years ago.

I would gladly take pictures of all materials side by side under different conditions and post the pictures here on this thread, together with my impressions.

You would have nothing to lose by someone posting unbiased opinions of your screen material after comparison testing and, if it turns out to be as good as shown by pictures posted at AVS and at youtube, you would have A LOT to gain in sales and customer satisfaction + respect.

Thanks >>> Marcos


----------



## schlitzie

Yuwemichael -- Any update of any kind on this? You were good for a couple of days providing some info and are now in the witness protection program again...


----------



## Eyleron

I'm not surprised they would not send out samples yet. If the product is not finalized how could they let test runs out into the wild, to be tested upon and generalizations made about their future product, which is stol subject to change?


Since the timescale for completing development is probably a year, it seems reasonable to get an update every month or so. But after a few days I doubt much can change of import.


----------



## ForzaMilan

Michael, based on the youtube videos..... just tell me how much and I will be happy to purchase one of these... I was very close on spending silver money but this product seems like a better choice for me. I am in So. Cal. and would be thrilled to be one of the first owners or at least.....test subjects!


Keep us posted!


----------



## newfmp3

I have a feeling this isn't going to be a cheap screen.


My woman is not going to like me much next year. I must start sucking up early







If this does what it's claiming too, my High Power will go up for sale quickly.


----------



## ParanoidDroid

I got a price out of him a few weeks ago. Im not going to give an exact amount bc thats against the rules (no idea why)....but it will be a little more expensive than the Silverstar. 10-15% so you can do the math. Given that, if it does everything it says it does then that is a more than fair price. I just hope it lives up to the hype because it could be next year before it is released, and I got my projector last november.


Still have 2 questions-


1. Is this retro or angular reflective? Need to know so i can mount my projector.


2. He says the roll material will be available first......does this mean I am responsible for my own frame?


----------



## yuweimichael

Per request,


I have a sample screen hanging in my room and want to show you guys where we are now. Here is the update for the screen:


1. It will be another update screen material coming this July.

2. Fixed frame screen will be size limited to 96" 16:9 format. No more than

96" 16:9 currently.

3. Screen Resolution will be highest ever seem in the projection screen m

market.

4. It is retro-reflective for 3.0 gain effects. You can do any other setup but

you will not get 3.0 gain.

5. 180 degree horizontal viewing angle for 3.0 Gain material even in high

ambient light environment.

6. Cost-friendly product !

7. Hopefully Available for pre-order from online in August.

8. Show room will be available to see in person in August in Ontario,

California. Invitation will be post online for more info later July.

9. Package will be just like others. No crate. Flex material.


Here is video link for 



 screen demo comparison with Matt white screen[/URL] .


----------



## MCaugusto




yuweimichael
1. It will be another update screen material coming this July.
2. Fixed frame screen will be size limited to 96" 16:9 format. No more than
96" 16:9 currently.
3. Screen Resolution will be highest ever seem in the projection screen m
market.
4. It is retro-reflective for 3.0 gain effects. You can do any other setup but
you will not get 3.0 gain.
5. 180 degree horizontal viewing angle for 3.0 Gain material even in high
ambient light environment.
6. Cost-friendly product !
7. Hopefully Available for pre-order from online in August.
8. Show room will be available to see in person in August in Ontario said:


> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 1. I imagine an improved screen material with better viewing angle ?
> 
> 2. Currently, size limited to 96"; Is that diagonally or horizontally ?
> 
> 3. ??
> 
> 4. By retro-reflective you mean that for this screen to achieve its stated performance the projector must be located at eye level facing the middle of the screen area. If pj is mounted facing bottom or top of screen (angular reflective) all benefits of this screen will be compromised, correct ?
> 
> 5. As long as the projector is mounted as described above...
> 
> 6. As compared to current high gain screens such as Da-Lite High Power and Vutec Silverstar ?
> 
> 7. Hopefully ? One year after initial appearance at trade show !
> 
> 8. For the vast majority of us who cannot travel to Ontario, CA to check on a screen material, samples will be available for interested customers, correct ?
> 
> 9. No huge crates for shipping, yeah ! Will the screen package come with and without a disassembled hard frame for those of us who might want it either way ? If shipped with hard frame, will there be leg mounts available for customers who cannot mount screen to wall ?
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thanks....


----------



## newfmp3

Free screens for us! Lol


----------



## brianlun

Cost-friendly product...

how friendly ?


----------



## yuweimichael




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MCaugusto* /forum/post/20437375
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 1. I imagine an improved screen material with better viewing angle ?
> 
> 2. Currently, size limited to 96"; Is that diagonally or horizontally ?
> 
> 3. ??
> 
> 4. By retro-reflective you mean that for this screen to achieve its stated performance the projector must be located at eye level facing the middle of the screen area. If pj is mounted facing bottom or top of screen (angular reflective) all benefits of this screen will be compromised, correct ?
> 
> 5. As long as the projector is mounted as described above...
> 
> 6. As compared to current high gain screens such as Da-Lite High Power and Vutec Silverstar ?
> 
> 7. Hopefully ? One year after initial appearance at trade show !
> 
> 8. For the vast majority of us who cannot travel to Ontario, CA to check on a screen material, samples will be available for interested customers, correct ?
> 
> 9. No huge crates for shipping, yeah ! Will the screen package come with and without a disassembled hard frame for those of us who might want it either way ? If shipped with hard frame, will there be leg mounts available for customers who cannot mount screen to wall ?
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thanks....



1. I imagine an improved screen material with better viewing angle ? Yes. It will have best viewing angle for horizontal and vertical on hte market

2. Currently, size limited to 96"; Is that diagonally or horizontally ?Diagonally

3. ?? Microlitescreen has smallest pitch and able to create higher image resolution to get more detail and clear view if you see them side by side with other projection screen.

4. By retro-reflective you mean that for this screen to achieve its stated performance the projector must be located at eye level facing the middle of the screen area. If pj is mounted facing bottom or top of screen (angular reflective) all benefits of this screen will be compromised, correct ? No. The only benefit will not achieve by using angular reflective is the gain. It really depends on what kind of application you use. Some people if they dont want high gain, then they can choose their setup. Other features of screen will still be there even with angular reflective.

5. As long as the projector is mounted as described above...

6. As compared to current high gain screens such as Da-Lite High Power and Vutec Silverstar ? We have different features such as ambient light rejection and 180 degree viewing angle are our features.

7. Hopefully ? One year after initial appearance at trade show ! Microlitescreen is consist of 11 layers. Still thinest on the market.

8. For the vast majority of us who cannot travel to Ontario, CA to check on a screen material, samples will be available for interested customers, correct ? Yes, We will let you order samples from our web site in August.


----------



## Warbie

Hi yuweimichael, thanks for the update. I've a few more questions.


Is the 96" max size something that may change in the future? I'm guessing something to do with the manurfacturing process currently limits things.


Are you familar with the sheen seen on Firehawk and similar screens during bright scenes? (try saying that sentance when you're drunk







) If so, Does this material do the same?


----------



## noah katz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *yuweimichael* /forum/post/20436610
> 
> 
> 5. 180 degree horizontal viewing angle for 3.0 Gain material even in high
> 
> ambient light environment.



This implies that the horizontal and vertical gain curves are different; can you supply the current ones?


My current screen is 128" wide and I'm not interested in going smaller.


Might your screens be this big in the future?


----------



## yuweimichael




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Warbie* /forum/post/20439900
> 
> 
> Hi yuweimichael, thanks for the update. I've a few more questions.
> 
> 
> Is the 96" max size something that may change in the future? I'm guessing something to do with the manurfacturing process currently limits things.
> 
> 
> Are you familar with the sheen seen on Firehawk and similar screens during bright scenes? (try saying that sentance when you're drunk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) If so, Does this material do the same?



I am not familiar with sheen seen on Firehawk. Please explain. Thank you


Yes size is limited to 96" 16:9 diagonal now. If the product has good response, we will go further size in the future.


----------



## yuweimichael

Hi,


We have only 96" 16:9 now. We will see how it goes and then to determine if we want to go bigger. Vertical viewing angle will be enough for most of application. Thanks


----------



## ForzaMilan

Michael, why only 96" diagonal? most of us in the HT world are doing 106" and above.... personally I need a 120" 16:9.... going down to a 96" screen would be difficult for me even with all the features you speak of.... If I may say that limiting the screen to such a "relative" small size will hurt your buissness.... FOR ALL OF US INTERESTED IN THIS SCREEN.... LET'S GIVE MICHAEL A HAND AND VOICE THE SIZE "YOU" WOULD BE MOST LIKELY TO PURCHASE.... Please accept our assistance in making a sound buissness decision.... I firmly believe most people on the forum will agree with me...especially those looking for 2:35 cinemascope applications..... can you imagine using the panny AE4000 on this type of screen and not be able to do 135" cinemascope?......


----------



## Blue Rain

It's a shame it will be limited to 96"...


I currently have a 133" screen and a 73" Mits TV for regular viewing and it doesn't make sense to buy/spend $ on a 96" screen .


Looks like a great screen but I will have to pass on it..just not big enough and I'm not going to go smaller .



A 96" screen defeats the whole idea of what a home theater is for most of us.We

can buy a Mits 93" TV for crying outloud.




Not a wise business decision ..sorry but you just lost a large chunk of customers

by not offering larger screens.



This company needs to revaluate their business model.




Thanks


----------



## schlitzie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Blue Rain* /forum/post/20443299
> 
> 
> It's a shame it will be limited to 96"...
> 
> 
> I currently have a 133" screen and a 73" Mits TV for regular viewing and it doesn't make sense to buy/spend $ on a 96" screen .
> 
> 
> Looks like a great screen but I will have to pass on it..just not big enough and I'm not going to go smaller .
> 
> 
> 
> A 96" screen defeats the whole idea of what a home theater is for most of us.We
> 
> can buy a Mits 93" TV for crying outloud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a wise business decision ..sorry but you just lost a large chunk of customers
> 
> by not offering larger screens.
> 
> 
> 
> This company needs to revaluate their business model.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks



Absolutely agree. 96" diagonal in a 16 X 9 format is a very market-limiting size. I see the microlite as a good solution for all of those thousands of moderate lumen JVC's/etc. that are out there, but if the screen is limited to that small size I'm out too -- I need a 2.35 at least 120" wide (not diagonal). Oh well, back to Stewart!


----------



## Warbie

Agreed - i'd like a 120" 16:9. However, i'd still be interested in a 96" screen to go behind my current if it had the benefits of a Firehawk without the sheen or hotspot.


----------



## yuweimichael

Yes I hope this can be larger and yes we can make it larger. It's new product and we would like to see how's feedbacks from customer. If it's good, we can make larger and it is in our business plan already. For this year, this is what we get so far.


----------



## schlitzie

Unfortunately I'm buying a screen this year. Can't wait for you...


----------



## NNate

I'd be interested in a 120" 16:9. I agree with others - 96" is too small for projection.


Regardless, I'm very interested to hear user feedback once released.


----------



## Benito Joaquin

Just to give you an idea.....most of the screens i sell are easily 106" and bigger. Very rarely do i do anything less than 100" in diagonal.


Problem with this is that it's gearing towards multipurpose rooms or rooms with a ton of ambient light, those types of rooms are big. In my opinion, a little too big for that size screen.


I hope that they consider revisiting their business plan and really think about starting off strong with big sizes.


Even low cost / low grade ambient light resistant screens work ok at that size, it's the bigger sizes where the better manufacturers really shine!


Benito


----------



## newfmp3

110" min, 120" more likely


I had a 96" once - never again.


I actually have a good 120" piece of m2500 sitting in the house that I prefer over my existing screen...but it was torn and I can only get a max 98" out of it once I cut the tear out. So, I bought a new screen instead. I just can't go back to a small screen.


yes 96" is small










Most of the screens I use and setup for our classrooms are certainly bigger then 106" as well. I might get away with a 96" in a small conference room.


----------



## ParanoidDroid

WTF. I wait a year for this screen only to find out 96 inches is the biggest screen size? This is getting ridiculous. If the screen is as good as advertised, and has a good price as advertised, then you have a gamechanger.


No need for a test market. Send a 96 incher to a few professional reviewers and give them a month to review it. No ones gonna buy a 96 inch screen unless you guys offer a trade in program where u pay the difference to get a bigger one (110+) later.


you guys need a new marketing person.


----------



## yuweimichael

HELLO GUYS,

I am appreciated all your thoughts and the size matter. Yes we know its too small but it is so far we can go for now. Thank you so much for all your support.


----------



## Benito Joaquin

yuweimichael, i am also in the Los Angeles area.

Do you have anywhere locally where we I can see your product?


Benito


----------



## MCaugusto




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *yuweimichael* /forum/post/20454485
> 
> 
> HELLO GUYS,
> 
> I am appreciated all your thoughts and the size matter. Yes we know its too small but it is so far we can go for now. Thank you so much for all your support.



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

youweimichael >>> Be comforted knowing that for some of us such as myself 96" diagonal is the largest size we can fit in our HT; However, depending on how well you do with your company, you should immediately start manufacturing these screens in larger sizes to accomodate all customers, as exemplified by the above very disappointed comments.

On a side note, guys, since when did screens measuring 110", 120", even 130" diagonal became the norm in HT ? How can you fit such huge-sized screens in the confines of your HT ? What size rooms are we talking about here ? How close do you sit to the screen ? Do you make sure to sit within an angle of viewing between 30 degrees to 40 degrees, as recommended by THX and SMPTE ? Are you getting the recommended onscreen brightness of 15~17 ft-L ?

Just curious here....


----------



## noah katz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MCaugusto* /forum/post/20456336
> 
> 
> How can you fit such huge-sized screens in the confines of your HT?



Not all of us have the luxury of a dedicated theater room (not that I would want one) and use our living rooms, which is also why this type of screen is of such great interest.


Mine is 14' x 22', leaving plenty of room for a 128" wide screen, which I view from about 15'.


----------



## ParanoidDroid

How about a monthly update?


----------



## yuweimichael




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ParanoidDroid* /forum/post/20599620
> 
> 
> How about a monthly update?



Hello,


I will hold my update until July 15th. Thank you for interest.


----------



## sac8d4

I am in the market for a new screen but nothing smaller than 119". Based on the info regarding the High Gain material, I would be interested in this new material!


----------



## Benito Joaquin

It's got my attention. I see this similar to the old Sony black material....they were only able to go up to a certain size.


As soon as the training center they have opens up, i'll be there and report back.


Benito


----------



## noah katz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Benito Joaquin* /forum/post/20605573
> 
> 
> As soon as the training center they have opens up, i'll be there and report back.



Microlite has a training center (presumably for dealers)?


If so, that's a good sign.


----------



## Benito Joaquin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noah katz* /forum/post/20607241
> 
> 
> Microlite has a training center (presumably for dealers)?
> 
> 
> If so, that's a good sign.



Sorry, wrong choice of words....

More like a showroom. I was told that they would be opening it up in August or sometime around there.


They are here in socal so i'll check it out as soon as it opens up.


Benito


----------



## noah katz

That's ok, opening up anything is a good sign


----------



## MCaugusto




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Benito Joaquin* /forum/post/20607499
> 
> 
> Sorry, wrong choice of words....
> 
> More like a showroom. I was told that they would be opening it up in August or sometime around there.
> 
> 
> They are here in socal so i'll check it out as soon as it opens up.
> 
> 
> Benito



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

Thanks Benito, that's good to know; Hopefully by August these folks will be smart enough to supply you and AVS with a sample of the screen for testing, especially considering the fact that you are located not too far from their showroom.

Personally it's hard to believe that's been almost one year since i heard about this screen and that i am still waiting to buy one; before doing so i need to read test reports and get a small sample of this Microlite screen material to compare it against several other high-gain screen samples that i have on hand right now as well as against my XXX high-gain semi-curved 76"diagonal silver screen.

I am hoping that by the time i get my hands on one of these screens i'll also be able to get a brand new 1280x800, 500 lumens LED projector, either the Optoma ML-500 or the Viewsonic PLED-W500...


----------



## ParanoidDroid

Bump, a day early.


----------



## yuweimichael

Sorry guys,


New updates wont come in until Beginning of August. Hold the Hope.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ParanoidDroid* /forum/post/20695309
> 
> 
> Bump, a day early.


----------



## Benito Joaquin

Please keep us posted, definitely interested.


Benito


----------



## MCaugusto




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *yuweimichael* /forum/post/20695326
> 
> 
> Sorry guys,
> 
> 
> New updates wont come in until Beginning of August. Hold the Hope.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------But yuweimichael, if i remember correctly in your last post on the subject you promised us an updated on July 15th; What happened ?

How about "throwing us a bone" wiith any slim information you've got, just to keep us salivating in anticipation a little longer ?


----------



## mjg100




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *yuweimichael* /forum/post/20695326
> 
> 
> Sorry guys,
> 
> 
> New updates wont come in until Beginning of August. Hold the Hope.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MCaugusto* /forum/post/20696474
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------But yuweimichael, if i remember correctly in your last post on the subject you promised us an updated on July 15th; What happened ?
> 
> How about "throwing us a bone" wiith any slim information you've got, just to keep us salivating in anticipation a little longer ?



He did post this. Looks like it will be August before hearing anything new. I would love to have this in a 110" pull down. I would replace my High Power screen in my family room.


----------



## newfmp3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mjg100* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> He did post this. Looks like it will be August before hearing anything new. I would love to have this in a 110" pull down. I would replace my High Power screen in my family room.



I got a feeling this is going to be 4 times the cost of the Dalite if and or when they offer sizes like 110


----------



## ParanoidDroid

I posted a price point (well, what is allowed) a while back.


----------



## jimmiejohn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *yuweimichael* /forum/post/20695326
> 
> 
> Sorry guys,
> 
> 
> New updates wont come in until Beginning of August. Hold the Hope.



Bump.


----------



## Benito Joaquin

i was told by yuweimichael that i would have info on their showroom in August. I'm sure i'll have it shortly. Once i do, i'll check it out and give first impressions.


benito


----------



## ParanoidDroid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Benito Joaquin* /forum/post/20802565
> 
> 
> i was tol Jd by yuweimichael that i would have info on their showroom in August. I'm sure i'll have it shortly. Once i do, i'll check it out and give first impressions.
> 
> 
> benito



Alright, thanks. Ive been projecting onto my wall since Nov. 2010. Been eyeing this one since Jan. I hate its taken this long for this, but the 3rd Gen Black Diamonds came out since Ive been waiting so I guess something good came out of it.


Itll be bw this and the BD's prob.


----------



## sac8d4

What happened to updates in early August?


----------



## Benito Joaquin

i'll message him to see if i can take a look since they are near me.


Benito


----------



## MCaugusto

Thanks Benito, i was about to re-post AGAIN !

And, please, try to put some fire on their asses to get this screen out asap; It's been over one year since it has been annouced and displayed at trade shows.

It would be really great if they could provide you with a full-sized screen on temporary loan so that you could test it with different pjs and you in turn could pass along to them your impressions and suggestions of the product.


----------



## Benito Joaquin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MCaugusto* /forum/post/20859965
> 
> 
> Thanks Benito, i was about to re-post AGAIN !
> 
> And, please, try to put some fire on their asses to get this screen out asap; It's been over one year since it has been annouced and displayed at trade shows.
> 
> It would be really great if they could provide you with a full-sized screen on temporary loan so that you could test it with different pjs and you in turn could pass along to them your impressions and suggestions of the product.



that's what i'll try to do. Take it with me and test it out with some entry level projectors and some higher end DPI / Sim2 units.


Benito


----------



## pontingroy

I found these projectorcentral a link on the screen is not only cheap electricity, but they are running an introductory offer of 30% off your entire order.


----------



## ParanoidDroid

So, was it august 2011 or august 2012?


----------



## Benito Joaquin

At this point i have to assume he meant 2012!! I sent him a PM as well as posting here and have not received a response.


Benito


----------



## ParanoidDroid

Ive talked to a couple of local dealers about the screen and theyve said the same thing. Looks promising, very intetested in becoming a dealer, impossible to get in touch with.


----------



## newfmp3

Too bad, I could see a lot of uses for this material.


----------



## G-Rex

This screen in 120" wide 2:35:1 aspect ratio would have been ideal. I hope HP goes in this direction someday as the Microlite seems to be super hi resolution, high gain, and with reduced light scatter into the theater which plagues the HP. Almost the best of both worlds of a HP and Black Diamond screen.


----------



## Benito Joaquin

I was really interested in how it would hold up to ambient light and off axis viewing.


Benito


----------



## Blue Rain

yuweimichael = Not Reliable !


----------



## Benito Joaquin

it's looking that way. I understand delay in getting new product out but at least an update would be nice.


Benito


----------



## MCaugusto

Benito Joaquin >>> When i noticed this thread back front again i think my heart skipped a beat, that's how anxious i've been lately for any info on a reliable, affordable, roll-up high-gain screen.

By now i can only assume that "Microlite Optical Screen" is a mirage from its creator, someone who perhaps realized too late that here in the US customers are looking mostly for screens larger (not smaller) than 92"~96" diagonal, and now he needs to re-assess his business proposition ?

BTW, have you had any experience with the Da-Lite Silver Lite 2.5 screen material ?

Thanks...


----------



## noah katz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MCaugusto* /forum/post/20979708
> 
> 
> By now i can only assume that "Microlite Optical Screen" is a mirage from its creator, someone who perhaps realized too late that here in the US customers are looking mostly for screens larger (not smaller) than 92"~96" diagonal, and now he needs to re-assess his business proposition ?



Perhaps, but he said that they would start small.


It's also possible that he's just embarrassed at having to announce new delays, which are very common in engineering development.


yuweimichael, we understand, but it would be much better to give a monthly status update, even if it's not what you/we hoped for.


----------



## zergman

So I was reading up on Black Diamond and DNP screens and came across this thread. I saw that Michael hadn't posted anything for some time and thought I'd do a google search. I came across this site www.microlitescreen.com and according to the intro they make screens up to 120". It sure sounds like the same company. They mention all the same benefits of the screen and they are located in Ontario California. Has anyone tried calling their customer service number yet to see if they have any updates?


----------



## ParanoidDroid

I don't see which intro you are talking about. I just see the same website thats been up for over 1.5 years.


----------



## AV Science sales 1

same here. went to the link and got nothing new.......


Benito


----------



## ODEKK

It's not huge...only 80". Brand new in box. Never used.


HELP!... I have no idea what it is worth.


Kevin


----------



## MCaugusto




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AV Science sales 1* /forum/post/21253707
> 
> 
> same here. went to the link and got nothing new.......
> 
> 
> Benito



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

Benito,

I gave up on these Microlite screens ever coming to fruition, but i found out a similar screen made in South Korea by Mocom Screens - www.mocomscreens.com .

The silver screen is high-gain (2.5 gain or 7.0 gain) uses layers of multi-reflective material as well as diffusers and is hook-tensioned to a frame; The material looks very tough and can be easily cleaned.

These two screens, Silver Brilliance (2.5 gain) or the Mega Brilliance (7.0 gain) remind me a lot of the DNP Supernova screen but at a much lower cost.

Mocom Screens also manufacture what looks like some beautiful looking hardmounted curved silver screens with gain up to 20.0, for those who need it.

Have you ever heard from Mocom Screens ? I just contacted the company and requested samples from both materials; Perhaps AVS should contact the company and request samples as well ?

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

Marcos


----------



## ParanoidDroid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MCaugusto* /forum/post/21282644
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Benito,
> 
> I gave up on these Microlite screens ever coming to fruition, but i found out a similar screen made in South Korea by Mocom Screens - www.mocomscreens.com .
> 
> The silver screen is high-gain (2.5 gain or 7.0 gain) uses layers of multi-reflective material as well as diffusers and is hook-tensioned to a frame; The material looks very tough and can be easily cleaned.
> 
> These two screens, Silver Brilliance (2.5 gain) or the Mega Brilliance (7.0 gain) remind me a lot of the DNP Supernova screen but at a much lower cost.
> 
> Mocom Screens also manufacture what looks like some beautiful looking hardmounted curved silver screens with gain up to 20.0, for those who need it.
> 
> Have you ever heard from Mocom Screens ? I just contacted the company and requested samples from both materials; Perhaps AVS should contact the company and request samples as well ?
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Marcos



I saw these on youtube. Looks interesting. Are they even available in the US yet?


----------



## MCaugusto




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ParanoidDroid* /forum/post/21283031
> 
> 
> I saw these on youtube. Looks interesting. Are they even available in the US yet?



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

According to the company's rep i contacted, Mocom Screens is looking for US dealers right now, any of their screens can be shipped from South Korea and the company is about to open a USA factory in California; I've already found out that shipping charges for a retractable screen is not all that expensive, comparable to or a little more than what you'd pay for shipment across USA.

I am very interested on either the 2.5 gain or the 7.0 gain retractable screen and my samples should be here by next week; As i posted, the material used reminds me somewhat of similar material used by DNP screens but at about 1/2 the price.

BTW, when i contacted Mocom i got much, much more considerate treatment than when i emailed other screen manufacturers here in the USA such as DNP, Severtson, Stewart, etc, which literally ignored emails from a prospective customer like myself, even after several tries.


----------



## ParanoidDroid

Yea, I got the same thing with DNP. No replies and taking forever to get me a sample. They were the only thing comparable to a microlite that I could find (within 2k-3k price).


Are they sending anyone samples? Id like to see a sample before I pull the trigger on a dnp supernova 23-23.


Whats the deal with all the gains though? Ive seen several gain values ranging all the way up to 40, which is impossible.


----------



## MCaugusto

Since i am seriously looking for a silver high-gain screen i figure it would be acceptable to pay $23 for shipping of the two samples from South Korea, which will be discounted in case i purchase the screen.

The highest rated gain i saw listed is for their curved silver screen that has a gain of 23:1 and is hardmounted to a frame, therefore shipped crated; I imagine that would be one way to go if you want a 120" diagonal screen or larger that's bright enough to display 3D material at recommended levels of lumen brightness.


----------



## ParanoidDroid

Alright, thanks.


Yea im looking at a 110 inch dnp, so I might fork out the 23 bux and get a sample


----------



## kunoklotz

Looks like it's going on with with microlite screen.


The home page is filled up more and more with additional informations in the last weeks.


Have a look at http: www . microlitescreen . com / Default . aspx (you have to take spaces out)


On their home page the show screen formats up to 120 inch.


So - maybe we only have to wait a little longer.


----------



## Blue Rain




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kunoklotz* /forum/post/21733399
> 
> 
> Looks like it's going on with with microlite screen.
> 
> 
> The home page is filled up more and more with additional informations in the last weeks.
> 
> 
> Have a look at http: www . microlitescreen . com / Default . aspx (you have to take spaces out)
> 
> 
> On their home page the show screen formats up to 120 inch.
> 
> 
> So - maybe we only have to wait a little longer.



Website is closed !


----------



## kunoklotz

For all who are interested in, there are some screenshots:


http: // www. ibcnet.com/ web-development-company-microlitescreen.htm


----------



## Eyleron




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kunoklotz* /forum/post/21753265
> 
> 
> For all who are interested in, there are some screenshots:
> 
> 
> http: // www. ibcnet.com/ web-development-company-microlitescreen.htm



Kuno, are you a representative of the company or its marketing?


"Screenshots"? There's a mockup image of the coming Microlite website.


Glacial.


----------



## MCaugusto

Really...Two posts and you already wasted my time twice; If you truly have any relevant info about Microlite screens by all means let us know but don't tease us with "phantom" websites and unavailable specs...


----------



## TedO

MCaugusto,


I also contacted the company and you are right, the cost of a 120" or 130" Silver Brilliance model (2.5 gain) is very reasonable if you have the long frame member shipped in two pieces. Please let me know your thoughts on this screen once you get your samples. The compnay also sent me thier instalation PDF and my only concerns are the color or finish of the frame, they show a lighter brown frame and say the color can vary or change. Along woth the fact you can see the silver hangers when the screen is hung. I guess there can be work arounds for both of these issues if the screen is everything they claim it to be.


----------



## MCaugusto

TedO,

I compared samples of the Da-Lite HP2.4, StarBright7, Da-Lite Silver Lite 2.5, Stewart Silver 3D, Stewart Silver 5D, Mocom Silver Brilliance and Mocom MegaBrilliance; I also have a sample of Vutec Silverstar but in my case it is out of contention due to the fact that the screen is hardmounted to its frame and thus shipped in a huge crate.

As a background for these screen material samples, i used my good ol' 1980's hardmounted silver screen (gain of 10, according to dealer) that measures only 76" diagonal in a 4:3 aspect ratio. That is the screen i have been using for the past 20 years (?!) and needless to point out i am very used to it and currently have it temporarily paired with my Runco LED projector; The picture is plasma-like, with incredibly bright whites, deep blacks and that amazing LED color palette.

After hanging the samples in front of the screen i noticed immediately that with the exception of the Da-Lite HP 2.4, all the materials imparted a "silverish" tint to whites displayed onscreen, with the Da-Lite Silver Lite 2.5 the worst of all : it not only turned whites into a deeper shade of "gray-silverish" but it also "sparkled" noticeably, even from a distance of 12 feet away; Also, the material itself is a dark shade of gray/silver with visible indentations seen at close range that interferes and messes up with pixel visibility ! I was shocked seeing that a major manufacturer of screens would put out such poorly conceived product.

All other materials including my screen also "sparkled", especially when displaying white, some more than others; I guess that's the price you pay for using a high gain material, together with elevated black level.

I was surprised and pleased when noticing that my screen "sparkles" the least among all materials - obviously with the exception of the Da-Lite HP 2.4, which is white, not silver - and the fact that white displayed onscreen do not show any "silverish" tint at all and is incredibly bright but pixel visibility at close range is muddled, nearly indistinguishable.

Of all silver materials the Mocom MegaBrilliance was my favorite although it "sparkles" more than my screen and white shown onscreen displayed that damn tint again, but pixel visibilty was outstanding, i could see the entire grid at close range.

The reason i keep pointing that out is because i find that from a normal viewing distance i want those pixels to be sharply delienated for a visually "sharper" picture, specifically considering that is one of the benefits of DMD chips and DLP tech.

I was also very impressed with the Da-Lite HP 2.4 material, but it's my understanding that to fully get the benefits of its 2.4 gain the projector must be mounted projecting toward the center of the screen in a straight line preferably at eye level (retro-reflective screen) and i would rather mount my projector near the ceiling.

As it stands right now, i feel unsure on how to proceed and which one to get. I am even considering keeping my screen/projector set up the way it is and wait until Fall 2012 when LG supposedly will release its massive 84" LCD HDTV with native 4K resolution and hopefully full local-dimming, and then make a final decision whether to spend a good amount of money on a 100" diagonal screen, which would be rather difficult to fit in my HT, OR get that humongous LG 84LM9600 set, drag it home and just plop it in place !

...OMG, here i go again...Will this illness ever end ?!?!

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

Marcos


----------



## TedO

Marcos,


Thanks for the very detailed review of all the samples you tested, but now I'm back to square one on picking a screen. My original thought was a Seymour XD screen. I like the idea of an AT screen, but don't want to watch everything in total darkness. Movies are fine in a blacked out condition, but when watching football, I'd like to have a little light in the room so I though one of these screens could be the answer. Watching thier videos, they looked very good with some room lighting.


I have a 70" Sony RP on my livingroom, so I want at leaset 120" in my HT or it doesn't seem worth doing. FP is expensive and a pain compared to an LCD, so to me, it has to be big or it's not worth it.


----------



## kunoklotz

Hello,


that screen material looks similar like microlite screen:


http: // www . youtube.com / watch?v=hoYHyiqQlds


Is there anybody who has seen that material live or know a little bit more than what is shown in that video clip ?


(they speak it should be in the market this year ... and be 2 to 3 times expensive than normal screens )


----------



## kunoklotz

Hello again,


there I find another interesting clip about an optical screen material:


http: // www . youtube.com / watch?v=Sg4-CTx1_uk


----------



## sac8d4

Not to re-light this extinguished fire, but it appears Microlite has their website up and running....

http://www.microlitescreen.com/Default.aspx 




The site was up and running and now appears to be closed again for maintenance


----------



## kunoklotz

Because it seems like there is nothing going on at Microlitescreen since some months, i looked around and just found this youtube clip:

http://www . youtube.com/watch?v=Oqpf3FkrMBI 


Does anybody know anything about that screen ?


It seems to have an interesting picture quality in an ambient light room.

(They write something like 300 lux and you can see sunshine falling inside an office which disturbes the normal screen but not the ambient light screen.)


----------



## kunoklotz

Hi again,


I just see that the same company put one more video from another high gain screen online.


http:// 





This time they write the room should have 500 lux and the normal white screen realy looks more washed out but the high gain screen even looks more bright then the other one.


----------



## sac8d4

Looks like the site is back up. However, still no real pricing or model information....

http://www.microlitescreen.com/Default.aspx


----------



## schlitzie

Oh, you mean the screen that was supposed to be out 2 years ago? The same one that the developer was going to be providing regular updates on? That one?


----------



## Elix

They have contacts now, somebody should give them a call and ask when they'll be selling their screens http://www.microlitescreen.com/ContactUs.aspx


----------



## Eyleron




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *schlitzie*  /t/1267206/microlite-optical-screen/150_50#post_23031437
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean the screen that was supposed to be out 2 years ago? The same one that the developer was going to be providing regular updates on? That one?


 

And in other news...

 


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hundreds of users from the home theater-centric **online **message board AV Science Forum fell unconscious today, after holding their breath too long. No fatalities are reported, but the mass pass-out has authorities investigating what they were waiting for. *
> 
> *"I have to assume they all felt they were on the cusp of something marvelous," states Dr. Reinhardt of the Online Research Center. "Unfortunately, reality didn't meet their expectations."*


----------



## Elix

Are you a news reporter?


----------



## Hank

Microlight Roll Up page:

Click on Microlite Roll Up and up pops a page with a quantity selection choice and a price of $550 and NO description of a screen - not even SIZE, but a description of an AAXA brand pico projector.

Microlite Frame page:

Frame description is there - click to next page and there's that AAXA projector description.

Microlite Stand page:

"Microlite stand was designed for mobile applications. Microlite Desk is quick and easy to set up, and pack away. It is ideal for scenarios where permanent screen is needed or where viewing location change and wall space is limited."

Click on Microlite Stand and a cart order pops up: $99, BUT the description block is for a 1:1 Elite Screens Cinewhite 180 inch diagonal framed screen - weight 77 lbs, cost $816.

Microlite Notebook:

Click on it and receive "Server Error"

TOTAL WASTE OF TIME! As someone above aluded to, this company needs a Marketer.


----------



## Eyleron

The early social buzz creation effort... not just a total Fail, but backfire. Future search results will pull up these pages of poor communication and broken promises. I don't know if their intent was a quick sale to other investors or what... but it would've been better for the product to keep mum until the pieces, actors, and channels were ready.


----------



## canton160

wrong topic.


----------



## Elix

Still waiting for miracle








http://www.microlitescreen.com/Technology.aspx


----------



## yuweimichael

*We are ready. Please check our web site for ordering*



Elix said:


> Still waiting for miracle
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.microlitescreen.com/Technology.aspx


This comes a long way. Thanks for all interests and now we are ready everyone. We have fixed frame going for first shipment next month. If any of you mention you saw my post on the avsforum, we will give you a 100" 16:9 velvet fixed frame promotional price for $999. 

Other products will follow by motorized, panorama, curved, and rear commercial application by end of this year. 

We will be at the Infocomm and CEDIA this year. Please visit us. 

Please check our latest web site at www.microlitescreen.com 

You can also follow us on the facebook at https://www.facebook.com/microlitescreen


----------



## Eyleron

Congratulations on achieving this latest milestone. 

Friendly suggestions: English language proofreader. And mobile-friendly website.


----------



## yuweimichael

Eyleron said:


> Congratulations on achieving this latest milestone.
> 
> Friendly suggestions: English language proofreader. And mobile-friendly website.


Thank you Eyleron for suggestion. We tried very hard from the concept to the actual products. We want to provide the best optical projection screens and is affordable for everyone.


----------



## Elix

yuweimichael said:


> This comes a long way. Thanks for all interests and now we are ready everyone. We have fixed frame going for first shipment next month. If any of you mention you saw my post on the avsforum, we will give you a 100" 16:9 velvet fixed frame promotional price for $999.
> 
> Other products will follow by motorized, panorama, curved, and rear commercial application by end of this year.
> 
> We will be at the Infocomm and CEDIA this year. Please visit us.
> 
> Please check our latest web site at www.microlitescreen.com
> 
> You can also follow us on the facebook at https://www.facebook.com/microlitescreen


This might be grand news! This screen is very intriguing to try. I have a few questions and a suggestion. Suggestion first: as Eyleron said, you should spell-check the entire site. A lot of mistakes there, and wording really gives away that the makers are non-native English speakers. Also, the site was very hard to browse on a mobile. But that is of less importance.

I have several questions:
1) What do you mean by "depth of field"? You use it all the time on your site. This term is never used in relation to projector screens. Because the picture itself is 2D, there is no depth to it. Unless we speak of stereoscopic images. But in that case,the screen type or brand should have no effect on depth of field either.
2) You speak of 5um screen structure. Can you present a real-world picture, a photo of the screen surface?
3) You promise no shimmering or sparkles. That is the hardest thing for me to believe. Can I order a screen sample from you so I can judge for myself?

EDIT: A few quotes from the screen brochure that I find in need of revision:


> Our optical film only uses 5 *micro* um in comparison to other competitors who use over 60 *micron* um


You either write um, or micrometre, or micron. This usage is redundant and inconsistent.


> Because of its high gain material,Microlitescreen does not have visible sparkling on the image.


Sorry, but those people that have some experience with projection screens know otherwise. The logic is inverted: the higher gain the screen material is, the more it will sparkle. That was the general rule up until now.


> The Microlitescreen image screen has fine details and a deep depth of field thanks to the 5um microstructure.


The way you insist again and again on this depth of field thing the more I'm imagining things that can be described with a term: image artifact. Are you imposing some additional depth to the image with your screen that isn't in the source? Such deviation from the source might be interpreted as an image artifact.

I think what you really mean to say is... just 'depth'? The perceived depth to the image which comes only with high contrast.


----------



## Sam Ash

Has anyone had the privilege of comparing the overall performance of this screen to other top optical screens available in the market ?ReAct 3 is very popular in Europe and the Black Diamond seems to have become the benchmark of optical screens. A comparison would be nice in terms of raw performance.I've gone through the specs and the web site, this screen is quite interesting.

Michael, can you not send a sample to AVS for an in-depth review ? That would really help. If a detailed review has already been done by someone else, please let us have the link.


----------



## Elix

Sam Ash said:


> Has anyone had the privilege of comparing the overall performance of this screen to other top optical screens available in the market ?.


Sam, it has been announced here today as you can see.For a long time this thread has been dead because this screen was considered vaporware.


----------



## ch1sox

We need someone to go check this screen out at their Showroom in California or at Infocomm in a couple months.


----------



## Sam Ash

ch1sox said:


> We need someone to go check this screen out at their Showroom in California or at Infocomm in a couple months.


Yes - it would be nice if a California based member of the AVS forums, who has experienced the Black Diamond, could go to their showroom for a demo and post his findings.

Alternatively, AVS could contact them and ask them for a review sample for the benefit of all AVS members.


----------



## ch1sox

Sam Ash said:


> Yes - it would be nice if a California based member of the AVS forums, who has experienced the Black Diamond, could go to their showroom for a demo and post his findings.
> 
> Alternatively, AVS could contact them and ask them for a review sample for the benefit of all AVS members.


I tried to get a sample, but it seems they are not sending any out (maybe AVS Sales will have better luck?). I own a Black Diamond 1.4 and draper xs850e so I was hoping to get my hands on a sample.  I was going to compare a ton of samples and this is the most intriguing based on the claims of the product.

I'd even pay a fee to add it to my other samples...


----------



## Elix

ch1sox said:


> I tried to get a sample, but it seems they are not sending any out (maybe AVS Sales will have better luck?). I own a Black Diamond 1.4 and draper xs850e so I was hoping to get my hands on a sample.  I was going to compare a ton of samples and this is the most intriguing based on the claims of the product.
> 
> I'd even pay a fee to add it to my other samples...


They have denied me as well, here's their reasoning:


> Here is the reason, optical screen is very sensitive to light, projector location and viewing position. If i give everyone a small letter size screen, people wont able to see any benefit at all.
> 
> The only way to see its truly performance, you will have to get a complete screen.


They are afraid of poor judgment from users based on a small screen sample. This is understandable. But other companies such as DNP or Screen Innovations aren't afraid of this. Basically they're asking customers to make a leap of faith, buy a screen and hope that it is everything they've imagined it to be.

So who's gonna be the first? 

Basically, what interests me the most is: is there visible screen texture? Is this screen a must-have upgrade from a unity gain screen which provides (a quality one, that is) an 'open window' experience? A comparison photo with A4 white paper would be nice, at least.


----------



## thezaks

Elix said:


> They have denied me as well, here's their reasoning:
> They are afraid of poor judgment from users based on a small screen sample. This is understandable.


OK, but then there are folks like me who will pay for a larger screen sample, but I bet they'll still deny that request. My opinion - I think it's too good to be true - buyer beware!!

If they will let me pay for a larger screen sample (other than the $999 100" , then I will retract my opinion. 

Dave


----------



## yuweimichael

*Please vote for 1 or 2*



thezaks said:


> OK, but then there are folks like me who will pay for a larger screen sample, but I bet they'll still deny that request. My opinion - I think it's too good to be true - buyer beware!!
> 
> If they will let me pay for a larger screen sample (other than the $999 100" , then I will retract my opinion.
> 
> Dave


Dave, we are not selling $999. This price is for you guys only not for general public. I see your location is in Phoenix, AZ. You can visit us in Irvine, CA. We will show you our screen in real time. 

Our demo screen is for dealer only but let me see what can i do if i ask them to make small screens for one of you guys. 

In addition, I like opinions from you guys. Which screen will you choose ? 

1. High Gain 3, full horizontal viewing angle, best color accuracy, 65% ambient light rejection, acceptable vertical viewing angle. 
2. 1.7 gain, 50 degree half viewing angle, color is not perfect accurate, 80% ambient light rejection, narrow vertical viewing angle. 

Please choose 1 or 2 . 

Thank you


----------



## thezaks

yuweimichael said:


> Dave, we are not selling $999. This price is for you guys only not for general public. I see your location is in Phoenix, AZ. You can visit us in Irvine, CA. We will show you our screen in real time.
> 
> Our demo screen is for dealer only but let me see what can i do if i ask them to make small screens for one of you guys.
> 
> In addition, I like opinions from you guys. Which screen will you choose ?
> 
> 1. High Gain 3, full horizontal viewing angle, best color accuracy, 65% ambient light rejection, acceptable vertical viewing angle.
> 2. 1.7 gain, 50 degree half viewing angle, color is not perfect accurate, 80% ambient light rejection, narrow vertical viewing angle.
> 
> Please choose 1 or 2 .
> 
> Thank you


Hi,

I'd like a sample of both, so that I can check out which one is preferable in my room - especially since there are the pros/cons for each of them, as you mentioned. I'd be happy to pay for the samples.

Thanks,
Dave


----------



## yuweimichael

*Screen texture*



Elix said:


> They have denied me as well, here's their reasoning:
> They are afraid of poor judgment from users based on a small screen sample. This is understandable. But other companies such as DNP or Screen Innovations aren't afraid of this. Basically they're asking customers to make a leap of faith, buy a screen and hope that it is everything they've imagined it to be.
> 
> So who's gonna be the first?
> 
> Basically, what interests me the most is: is there visible screen texture? Is this screen a must-have upgrade from a unity gain screen which provides (a quality one, that is) an 'open window' experience? A comparison photo with A4 white paper would be nice, at least.


Elix, the screen is perfectly smooth. There is no texture. Surface is harden and you can even write on or wipe it off. smooth surface creates amazing 4K milky image when you use a sony 4K projector with our 3 high gain material. 

I have one in my show room and its amazing.


----------



## Elix

I want to Believe.... ©

Will you accept a return from me if I will find the screen surface to have an objectionable amount of visibility to it? Another question, do you ship internationally?


----------



## ch1sox

yuweimichael said:


> Elix, the screen is perfectly smooth. There is no texture. Surface is harden and you can even write on or wipe it off. smooth surface creates amazing 4K milky image when you use a sony 4K projector with our 3 high gain material.
> 
> I have one in my show room and its amazing.


Your website claims *No Sparkling & Shimmer Images* as seen on this page: http://www.microlitescreen.com/Technology.aspx

The reason people want to see samples is because this is a very suspect claim since basically all positive gain screens from other screen manufactures have sparkles, some more noticeable than others. People are hesitant to purchase a product without seeing it when claims like this are made.


----------



## yuweimichael

*Sparkling*



ch1sox said:


> Your website claims *No Sparkling & Shimmer Images* as seen on this page: http://www.microlitescreen.com/Technology.aspx
> 
> The reason people want to see samples is because this is a very suspect claim since basically all positive gain screens from other screen manufactures have sparkles, some more noticeable than others. People are hesitant to purchase a product without seeing it when claims like this are made.


I think there is no such thing " perfect screen" . Everyone likes something different than others. Regarding about sparkles. Yes, there is very minimum sparkles because it is optical screen. However, the sparkle on the optical and regular vinyl or fiberglass screens are different. It is hard to say which is which. 

I can try to take a very close up photo to show you later if you want to see that way.


----------



## Elix

yuweimichael said:


> I can try to take a very close up photo to show you later if you want to see that way.


I have asked this several times already. Please, we would definitely like to see.


----------



## yuweimichael

*close image shots.*

Hello guys, 

here are some close image shots for 3.0 gain material.


----------



## Elix

yuweimichael said:


> Hello guys,
> 
> here are some close image shots for 3.0 gain material.


Michael, thanks for the shots, they're pretty, but they're not really close-up shots and don't really tell us anything about the screen texture. Here's what we would all like to see:


----------



## yuweimichael

Elix said:


> Michael, thanks for the shots, they're pretty, but they're not really close-up shots and don't really tell us anything about the screen texture. Here's what we would all like to see:


How about this one ? You can download it and zoom in whatever you like. 

Enjoy it.


----------



## Elix

yuweimichael said:


> How about this one ?


It is better but I have a few questions
1) Did you use a tripod?
2) What camera did you use? Did you shoot in RAW?
3) I believe you said it was a 4K projector. Is it Sony VW350?


----------



## yuweimichael

Hello Elix, 

I used tripod. I used samsung NX1. i did't shoot raw b/c it was a quick shoot in my house this morning. 

Yes i used VE350. It's amazing projector and very minimum fan noise. I love it.


----------



## thezaks

yuweimichael said:


> Hello guys,
> 
> here are some close image shots for 3.0 gain material.


What size of screen was that?

Dave


----------



## yuweimichael

thezaks said:


> What size of screen was that?
> 
> Dave


I was using a 90" 16:9.


----------



## Hank

"...we want to everyone will able to bring them home."
Sorry, Michael, but over $1,000 price is a lot of money for most people and will not result in high volume sales.
Also, by not posting prices on your web site, that makes people suspicious that your prices are very high. And please stop referring to depth of field, as has been pointed out before, that is not an attribute of projection screens.


----------



## Mike Garrett

yuweimichael said:


> I was using a 90" 16:9.


I would be interested in seeing a sample of this screen and seeing if this is something we would be interested in selling.


----------



## thezaks

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> I would be interested in seeing a sample of this screen and seeing if this is something we would be interested in selling.


Check out Post #171 - I have not heard anything since this post. I suspect we won't be getting any screen samples...

Dave


----------



## Elix

thezaks said:


> Check out Post #171 - I have not heard anything since this post. I suspect we won't be getting any screen samples...
> 
> Dave


They do provide samples... 80" and up


----------



## yuweimichael

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> I would be interested in seeing a sample of this screen and seeing if this is something we would be interested in selling.


We will contact shortly thanks


----------



## thezaks

Hi,

Are these screens angular reflective or retroreflective? What is your recommendation for mounting the projector? Can the projector be mounted above the screen (if so, how much above) ?


Thanks,
Dave


----------



## Elix

thezaks said:


> Hi,
> 
> Are these screens angular reflective or retroreflective? What is your recommendation for mounting the projector? Can the projector be mounted above the screen (if so, how much above) ?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Dave


I will quote what Michael has told me (I don't believe it to be a secret of any kind):


> Installation requirement: projector must be install with 16" above the center of projection screen. Projector must be 12 feet away. Audience's eye must be the center of screen.


From this I can conclude that screen is angular-reflective. It's only natural considering one of the layers is metallic film.


----------



## thezaks

Elix said:


> I will quote what Michael has told me (I don't believe it to be a secret of any kind):
> From this I can conclude that screen is angular-reflective. It's only natural considering one of the layers is metallic film.


I spoke with Michael on the phone yesterday, and he mentioned that the screen is angular-reflective and that the projector needs to be at the top of the screen or above it.

Dave


----------



## Mike Garrett

yuweimichael said:


> We will contact shortly thanks


Just to let others know what is going on. I have been contacted and hopefully have something coming my way.


----------



## ch1sox

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> Just to let others know what is going on. I have been contacted and hopefully have something coming my way.


Right on! Hopefully you're getting both the 2 and 3 gain samples. This is the last screen I'm waiting on. Keep me (us) updated!


----------



## ch1sox

Anyone attending Infocomm in Florida? Microlite will be there next week if someone wants to go check out their screens. 

Infocomm: http://av-iq.infocommshow.org/avcat...acturer=microlite&category=projection-screens


----------



## Sam Ash

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> Just to let others know what is going on. I have been contacted and hopefully have something coming my way.


Hi Mike, any luck with the screen and your first impressions / evaluations ?


----------



## Sam Ash

thezaks said:


> Hi,
> 
> Are these screens angular reflective or retroreflective? What is your recommendation for mounting the projector? Can the projector be mounted above the screen (if so, how much above) ?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Dave


That is such an interesting question Dave, I looked further into the two different types of reflective technologies and it is quite interesting. As far as angular reflective screens are concerned like the Microlite and Black Diamond, are they designed to provide optimum performance with ceiling mounted projectors ?


----------



## Ximori

I went to see their showroom and have to say this - I finally found my screen!  
For the past several years, I've searched and contemplated which screen to own. I knew what I wanted but just couldn't find it. With white walls and little ambient lighting in my room, I wanted some sort of combination or mix of gray material, high gain in nature, similar to an old Optoma graywolf screen I used before, but without the visible sheen, sparkles, and grainy texture. I've seen plenty of screens - from Firehawk to Black Diamond to DNP; as a matter of fact, I almost settled with a DNP purchase recently.

A couple of months back, I bought this nice cool toy, called LG PF1500. It's portable, feature-rich, and best part of all, it's LED and inexpensive. I couldn't complain much, except for that below average native CR, similar to that of yesteryear dlp/lcd projectors. Although it's really much more than that, and I thought this would make a nice placeholder for TV/movie streaming while I wait for that next big purchase - a 4K, high lumen and CR one...well, you got the picture 

I know this pj would match well with a gray screen. I visited the DNP showroom a month ago and was determined to buy their 08-85 screen. I was 90% convinced by this, even if it were to cost me more than 2.5 times the price of what I paid for with the LG. I figured anyway that it'll go for the long term...plus, it works for 4k-images as well. 
Just as I was about to pull the trigger for that screen, I stumbled by Micro-lite and found out later that it was nearby my place. I called Michael, who I found extremely pleasant and accommodating, and spent roughly an hour to see his products.

He had two samples displayed on the wall - a 3.0 gain 65% ambient light-rejecting screen and 85% one (forgot the gain). He says the former is suited for hometheater, while the latter more towards commercial use. While we spent more time with the 65% version, I couldn't help but stare at the other screen coz it looked like plasma on a wall, even with fluorescent lights on. 
With the 65% version, the one major attribute that captured my attention was how colors were rendered beautifully on this screen. There was such clarity and color vibrancy in those images especially when lights were turned off. Brightness was quite uniform across the area and there were no hints of sheens and sparkles. Side to side viewing didn't seem to exhibit any light drop off as well. When asked if I could use my LG on the 110" screen, I was stunned by the overall result which left me that plasma impression. Eh, all of a sudden my pj looked like twice and a half the price I paid for, it turned out. It was that impressive. In fact, the DNP seemed so dull-looking now, by comparison, from visual memory. Although, I think both didn't exemplify the kind of bluish tint that I got so used to seeing in most gray screens, they both deserve another look. 

Anyway, it's my initial impression but I anticipate someone to give a more thorough and in-depth review soon. Once I attempt another visit, I hope to spend more time and have a much closer look into their texture, viewing angle, placement, and whatnot. But for now, I believe Michael has a gem right here that's worth a look.


----------



## Ximori

Sam Ash said:


> That is such an interesting question Dave, I looked further into the two different types of reflective technologies and it is quite interesting. As far as angular reflective screens are concerned like the Microlite and Black Diamond, are they designed to provide optimum performance with ceiling mounted projectors ?


What actually struck me was how the micro-lite screens were angular in nature; yet, appear to have certain intrinsic retro-reflective properties in it - sort of a hybrid type, where it takes the best of both worlds. Wide viewing angle, great uniformity, plasma look, color accuracy were the highlights. For optimal result, he says the pj has to be mounted at, or within, the level of its top frame.


----------



## ch1sox

Ximori said:


> I went to see their showroom and have to say this - I finally found my screen!
> For the past several years, I've searched and contemplated which screen to own. I knew what I wanted but just couldn't find it. With white walls and little ambient lighting in my room, I wanted some sort of combination or mix of gray material, high gain in nature, similar to an old Optoma graywolf screen I used before, but without the visible sheen, sparkles, and grainy texture. I've seen plenty of screens - from Firehawk to Black Diamond to DNP; as a matter of fact, I almost settled with a DNP purchase recently.
> 
> A couple of months back, I bought this nice cool toy, called LG PF1500. It's portable, feature-rich, and best part of all, it's LED and inexpensive. I couldn't complain much, except for that below average native CR, similar to that of yesteryear dlp/lcd projectors. Although it's really much more than that, and I thought this would make a nice placeholder for TV/movie streaming while I wait for that next big purchase - a 4K, high lumen and CR one...well, you got the picture
> 
> I know this pj would match well with a gray screen. I visited the DNP showroom a month ago and was determined to buy their 08-85 screen. I was 90% convinced by this, even if it were to cost me more than 2.5 times the price of what I paid for with the LG. I figured anyway that it'll go for the long term...plus, it works for 4k-images as well.
> Just as I was about to pull the trigger for that screen, I stumbled by Micro-lite and found out later that it was nearby my place. I called Michael, who I found extremely pleasant and accommodating, and spent roughly an hour to see his products.
> 
> He had two samples displayed on the wall - a 3.0 gain 65% ambient light-rejecting screen and 85% one (forgot the gain). He says the former is suited for hometheater, while the latter more towards commercial use. While we spent more time with the 65% version, I couldn't help but stare at the other screen coz it looked like plasma on a wall, even with fluorescent lights on.
> With the 65% version, the one major attribute that captured my attention was how colors were rendered beautifully on this screen. There was such clarity and color vibrancy in those images especially when lights were turned off. Brightness was quite uniform across the area and there were no hints of sheens and sparkles. Side to side viewing didn't seem to exhibit any light drop off as well. When asked if I could use my LG on the 110" screen, I was stunned by the overall result which left me that plasma impression. Eh, all of a sudden my pj looked like twice and a half the price I paid for, it turned out. It was that impressive. In fact, the DNP seemed so dull-looking now, by comparison, from visual memory. Although, I think both didn't exemplify the kind of bluish tint that I got so used to seeing in most gray screens, they both deserve another look.
> 
> Anyway, it's my initial impression but I anticipate someone to give a more thorough and in-depth review soon. Once I attempt another visit, I hope to spend more time and have a much closer look into their texture, viewing angle, placement, and whatnot. But for now, I believe Michael has a gem right here that's worth a look.


Have you seen the DNP 23-23? I'm curious to see how Microlite compares. Microlite sounds very promising.


----------



## Ximori

ch1sox said:


> Have you seen the DNP 23-23? I'm curious to see how Microlite compares. Microlite sounds very promising.


Yes it was showcased as well, together with the 08-85 and another higher gain one, at their DNP showroom. But I didn't pay much attention to it. I'll look for that sample I have and bring with me next time I visit Microlite. Thanks for the reminder, that would be a good one to compare with.


----------



## Sam Ash

Ximori said:


> Yes it was showcased as well, together with the 08-85 and another higher gain one, at their DNP showroom. But I didn't pay much attention to it. I'll look for that sample I have and bring with me next time I visit Microlite. Thanks for the reminder, that would be a good one to compare with.


That is very interesting Ximori, please do share with us if you've had any other afterthoughts. In your opinion, how does the BD1.4 compare to Microlite in terms of overall performance in typical lit living room environments ?


----------



## Mike Garrett

Sam Ash said:


> Hi Mike, any luck with the screen and your first impressions / evaluations ?


Not yet. I have started, but had company in the house for a few days and I have to go out of town for a few days this week. I want to compare it to other screens I have and to other samples I have.


----------



## Sam Ash

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> Sam Ash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Mike, any luck with the screen and your first impressions / evaluations ?
> 
> 
> 
> Not yet. I have started, but had company in the house for a few days and I have to go out of town for a few days this week. I want to compare it to other screens I have and to other samples I have.
Click to expand...

Hi Mike, I guess we're all looking forward to your review and comparison. Any initial thoughts ?


----------



## ch1sox

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> Not yet. I have started, but had company in the house for a few days and I have to go out of town for a few days this week. I want to compare it to other screens I have and to other samples I have.





Sam Ash said:


> Hi Mike, I guess we're all looking forward to your review and comparison. Any initial thoughts ?


And is it the ~2 gain or ~3 gain screen? It sounds like they are offering two different gains.


----------



## Ximori

Sam Ash said:


> That is very interesting Ximori, please do share with us if you've had any other afterthoughts. In your opinion, how does the BD1.4 compare to Microlite in terms of overall performance in typical lit living room environments ?


I've never seen the BD in a lit up environment, only at a local Best Buy where their room was light controlled. I think Microlite would be more tolerable and has the better image, overall, with or without the lights off, but that's just my opinion. I like how it retains color fidelity of the source thrown at it...not 100% but it's something I haven't seen with other gray screens. 

I believe there's a 1.8 gain screen which Michael can confirm.


----------



## jtorrence3

Ximori, was the 1.8 gain the 85% rejection material? How did the 3 gain screen handle ambient light? Thanks in advance ;D


----------



## Ximori

jtorrence3 said:


> Ximori, was the 1.8 gain the 85% rejection material? How did the 3 gain screen handle ambient light? Thanks in advance ;D


Yes.

The 3.0 is 65% rejection. With low ambient lighting and a bright pj, I think it exhibits images nicely, especially in high APL content. It's also quite ideal in dark-theater rooms and can help low lumen pjs as noted earlier.


----------



## Sam Ash

Hi Mike, any further progress with your review ? Any initial thoughts ?


----------



## sac8d4

Michael

Any chance you can post any information on how the screen is secured to the fixed frame. Could you post installation instructions on your microlitescreen site?

I am also very interested to hear any comparisons between this screen and the Black Diamond 2.7 screen.


----------



## Sam Ash

Any comprehensive reviews and/or comparisons so far ?


----------



## ch1sox

I'm thinking of getting this screen around September for those interested. I'll try to answer questions for those on the fence when the time comes.


----------



## curiousmurf

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> Not yet. I have started, but had company in the house for a few days and I have to go out of town for a few days this week. I want to compare it to other screens I have and to other samples I have.


Hi Mike,

Any info you can share with us about this screen? Many of us are looking for Dalite HP alternatives and eager to know more about this screen.


----------



## Mike Garrett

curiousmurf said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> Any info you can share with us about this screen? Many of us are looking for Dalite HP alternatives and eager to know more about this screen.


I visually compared this screen to many other screens and did like what I saw. What I compared:

2.8 gain High Power
1.4 gain Black Diamond
2.7 gain High Power
1.2 gain Slate
1.1 gain FireHawk
DNP Supernova
Seymour Matinee Silver 2.0
Seymour Matinee Black 1.4

The Microlite screens look similar to the Seymour AV Matinee screens, except the screen material is not as thick. That should help when trying to design electric screens using this material. Brightness wise the F2.0 is not quite as bright as the Matinee Silver 2.0, so the blacks are a little darker. Of the two, I liked the F3.0 material better. You got nice gain from it, but still had good blacks. With ambient light, you want as much gain as you can get without adding too many artifacts.

For an ambient light rejecting screen, there is not much texture to either of these screens, so the screen does not stand out on pans, drawing you out of the action on screen. This is not really something you can tell on a small sample, but I have a 44" wide sample mounted in a frame of the F2.0, so that gave me a better idea on how these screens perform. 

I think what will make these screens a big hit:

1. Nice gain without any really bad artifacts.
2. Larger sizes available in fixed frames.
3. Good off angle viewing.
4. These screens being available soon in electric versions, especially large electric versions.

Right now in the light rejecting electric screen market, there are not many competitors. You have SI Slate, SI Black Diamond and Stewart FireHawk. The Slate and FireHawk, while available in large sizes, do not have much gain and the SI BD while it has a lot of gain, is limited in size and very expensive. It will be especially interesting, once the electrics become available.

Uniformity looked good, best I can tell on the larger sample that I saw. Off axis also does very well, especially for a light rejecting screen. I am interested in a 3.0 electric for myself. Along with my dedicated room, I have a family room setup with a lot of ambient light.


----------



## thezaks

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> I visually compared this screen to many other screens and did like what I saw. What I compared:
> 
> 2.8 gain High Power
> 1.4 gain Black Diamond
> 2.7 gain High Power
> 1.2 gain Slate
> 1.1 gain FireHawk
> DNP Supernova
> Seymour Matinee Silver 2.0
> Seymour Matinee Black 1.4
> 
> Have more to add, but ran out of time. Will be back later.


Well Mike, you definitely left me hangin' here! That's quite a comparison list - it will be great to get your opinion - I look forward to it!

I'm guessing you have the 1.8 material sample, which I guess is actually their 2.0 material (according to the website and my conversation with Michael of Microlite). They also have a 3.0 material that will soon be coming out, so I recommend you get a sample of that too. 

According to Michael, the 1.8/2.0 material is better at ambient light rejection, but the 3.0 is better for a theater room. I can't wait to get samples of both, so that I can compare and decide. I'm thinking that I will go with an LCD TV for daytime, with a motorized screen for evening/night - probably the 3.0 material for me, if I had to guess. 

Hopefully, they get that motorized screen released soon! When they do Mike, I will be giving you a call 

Dave


----------



## ch1sox

thezaks said:


> Well Mike, you definitely left me hangin' here! That's quite a comparison list - it will be great to get your opinion - I look forward to it!
> 
> I'm guessing you have the 1.8 material sample, which I guess is actually their 2.0 material (according to the website and my conversation with Michael of Microlite). They also have a 3.0 material that will soon be coming out, so I recommend you get a sample of that too.
> 
> According to Michael, the 1.8/2.0 material is better at ambient light rejection, but the 3.0 is better for a theater room. I can't wait to get samples of both, so that I can compare and decide. I'm thinking that I will go with an LCD TV for daytime, with a motorized screen for evening/night - probably the 3.0 material for me, if I had to guess.
> 
> Hopefully, they get that motorized screen released soon! When they do Mike, I will be giving you a call
> 
> Dave


I'm waiting on impressions for the 3.0. I don't think they are doing samples though.


----------



## thezaks

ch1sox said:


> I'm waiting on impressions for the 3.0. I don't think they are doing samples though.


When I called Michael this week, he mentioned that they did have some, but they ran out. He put me on the list for when they get more available.

Dave


----------



## ch1sox

thezaks said:


> When I called Michael this week, he mentioned that they did have some, but they ran out. He put me on the list for when they get more available.
> 
> Dave


So did they change their mind? Because a few pages back they weren't sending any samples.


----------



## thezaks

ch1sox said:


> So did they change their mind? Because a few pages back they weren't sending any samples.


Not sure...

Dave


----------



## curiousmurf

Any idea what kind of price range one would expect for a 2.0 gain 120+ screen?

thezaks. Are you sure Michael said the 3.0 is better for a theater room? I would have thought 2.0 would be better for a theater room as 3.0 might be too bright?


----------



## ch1sox

curiousmurf said:


> Any idea what kind of price range one would expect for a 2.0 gain 120+ screen?
> 
> thezaks. Are you sure Michael said the 3.0 is better for a theater room? I would have thought 2.0 would be better for a theater room as 3.0 might be too bright?


Contact AV Science Sales 5. I think they're supposed to be getting pricing. As for the 3.0, I think Microlite said it is supposed to have better color accuracy.


----------



## Ximori

ch1sox said:


> Contact AV Science Sales 5. I think they're supposed to be getting pricing. As for the 3.0, I think Microlite said it is supposed to have better color accuracy.


Correct, but an improved 1.8 I saw recently looked more impressive than the 3.0 he previously had shown me. Over there, he played the movie Troy and I was just glued to the screen and forgot all what he told me. Sorry Michael, I'll have to bug you again to clarify which of these is the better screen for hometheater.


----------



## Ximori

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> I visually compared this screen to many other screens and did like what I saw. What I compared:
> 
> 2.8 gain High Power
> 1.4 gain Black Diamond
> 2.7 gain High Power
> 1.2 gain Slate
> 1.1 gain FireHawk
> DNP Supernova
> Seymour Matinee Silver 2.0
> Seymour Matinee Black 1.4
> 
> Have more to add, but ran out of time. Will be back later.


Glad to hear this, Mike. Michael's screens seem to have resolved some of the most common issues found in various types of screens, such as hot-spotting, uniformity, and visible texture, to name a few. Once I get my screen I'll cover this and confirm it, but from initial viewings, I thought they're non existent. 
Another thing, as I said earlier, there were certain visual elements which made images more vibrant and livelier. One such example is the image whiteness (or brightness) - which appeared similar to how I would notice it in actual theaters...you know, that sort of Xenon lamp effect  

Anyway, now I wonder if projector central will release their review this Friday:
http://www.projectorcentral.com/projector_news.cfm?2015-07-02-Review-activity-in-July&entry_id=696

"Finally, in the screen world we've got some new developments in ambient light rejection materials. We've got three new products in house and ready for examination, which are the Elite EPV eFinity PolarStar, the Microlite F 3.0, and the Screen Innovations Slate 1.2 Zero Edge FLEX. Bill is setting these up and taking notes on how they perform. We are planning to post this shootout the week of July 20."


----------



## thezaks

Ximori said:


> Correct, but an improved 1.8 I saw recently looked more impressive than the 3.0 he previously had shown me. Over there, he played the movie Troy and I was just glued to the screen and forgot all what he told me. Sorry Michael, I'll have to bug you again to clarify which of these is the better screen for hometheater.


If you were watching with ambient light, then the 1.8/2.0 would be better, due to better light rejection than the 3.0. Were you watching with ambient light or in a dark theater room?

Dave


----------



## tigerfan33

This screen will not be cheap.
Think closer to Black Diamond price range rather than High Power


----------



## Wondercarrot

So checking their website it appears (like the DNP offerings) they are limited to 120"
i think im going to cry....
ive been staring at my HP screen with a 'hole' in it (surface was over cleaned in one area, which of course is the only area i can now look at) for the past 6 months waiting on Dalite to come back - and twice ive thought ive found a replacement in the DNP or this microlite, but i need a 133" screen.

sigh.


----------



## ch1sox

Wondercarrot said:


> So checking their website it appears (like the DNP offerings) they are limited to 120"
> i think im going to cry....
> ive been staring at my HP screen with a 'hole' in it (surface was over cleaned in one area, which of course is the only area i can now look at) for the past 6 months waiting on Dalite to come back - and twice ive thought ive found a replacement in the DNP or this microlite, but i need a 133" screen.
> 
> 
> sigh.


I'm pretty sure they go higher than 120". Their website may be incorrect. AVS should be getting pricing/sizes soon I think.


----------



## Mike Garrett

Wondercarrot said:


> So checking their website it appears (like the DNP offerings) they are limited to 120"
> i think im going to cry....
> ive been staring at my HP screen with a 'hole' in it (surface was over cleaned in one area, which of course is the only area i can now look at) for the past 6 months waiting on Dalite to come back - and twice ive thought ive found a replacement in the DNP or this microlite, but i need a 133" screen.
> 
> sigh.


Larger sizes are supposed to be available this month or next. In 16:9 156" diagonal and in 2.35, 180" diagonal. AVS has pricing.


----------



## Mike Garrett

tigerfan33 said:


> This screen will not be cheap.
> Think closer to Black Diamond price range rather than High Power


You might want to call for pricing. I just looked at pricing for 120" 16:9 and the cost on BD is more than the selling price on the Microlite, so I don't think the two are comparable price wise. You are correct that the Microlite will not be at High Power prices, but it will be a whole lot closer to DaLite than you are alluding.  Of course, you would need to be looking at the DaLite with Cinema Contour frame, so that you are comparing Apples to Apples.


----------



## cmryan821

Any time frame on electric models?


----------



## Mike Garrett

cmryan821 said:


> Any time frame on electric models?


As of two weeks ago, they were working on finalized testing, but no firm date as of now.


----------



## thezaks

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> As of two weeks ago, they were working on finalized testing, but no firm date as of now.


I'm pretty sure I will want a 110" motorized 3.0. Waiting on the sample to confirm that.

Dave


----------



## Mike Garrett

thezaks said:


> I'm pretty sure I will want a 110" motorized 3.0. Waiting on the sample to confirm that.
> 
> Dave


Sample has been requested.


----------



## thezaks

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> Sample has been requested.


Thanks Mike!!

Dave


----------



## ch1sox

Projector Central has their shootout posted with the Microlite F2.0. Definitely sounds promising. 

http://www.projectorcentral.com/ambient-light-rejection-screens.htm


----------



## Ximori

ch1sox said:


> Projector Central has their shootout posted with the Microlite F2.0. Definitely sounds promising.
> 
> http://www.projectorcentral.com/ambient-light-rejection-screens.htm


That was an interesting review. What does AVS Mike think about this? Btw, the pearlescent effect mentioned is very similar to the visible artifact you see on a plasma screen and the more lumens you throw, you might notice this. Actually, it was the first question I asked Michael when I first saw his screens; however, I was under the impression that they are improving the material constantly, specifically in that area, so I didn't put too much weight to it. 

Now what is that budget DLP projector which has 3000 lumens and 15,000 CR?


----------



## chadamir

Ximori said:


> Now what is that budget DLP projector which has 3000 lumens and 15,000 CR?


http://www.projectorcentral.com/projectors.cfm?g=1&hide=0&mfg=&p=0&p=1000&w=&r=&br=2700&br=3500&ll=&ltg=&t=&db=&dt=3.0.0&c=&ar=&dvi=&wr=&pjl=&pjw=&pjh=&td=&is=&i=d&tr=

Probably one of the viewsonics


----------



## Mike Garrett

Ximori said:


> That was an interesting review. What does AVS Mike think about this? Btw, the pearlescent effect mentioned is very similar to the visible artifact you see on a plasma screen and the more lumens you throw, you might notice this. Actually, it was the first question I asked Michael when I first saw his screens; however, I was under the impression that they are improving the material constantly, specifically in that area, so I didn't put too much weight to it.
> 
> Now what is that budget DLP projector which has 3000 lumens and 15,000 CR?


I think the review on the MicroLite screen is pretty accurate. I like them concluded that it is a good screen.


----------



## thezaks

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> I think the review on the MicroLite screen is pretty accurate. I like them concluded that it is a good screen.


Sounds like the MicroLite 3.0 is better for a darker room (less ambient light). Is there less of that oily artifact on the 3.0 vs the 2.0? I think the 3.0 also gets better on angles too? And, does the 3.0 also improve on the color?

Thanks,

Dave


----------



## PJC Bill

Ximori said:


> Btw, the pearlescent effect mentioned is very similar to the visible artifact you see on a plasma screen and the more lumens you throw, you might notice this.


The pearlescent effect was pretty subtle compared to some of the ALR screens we've seen in previous reviews. Still, it really bothers some people, so I felt I had to at least mention it. 



> Now what is that budget DLP projector which has 3000 lumens and 15,000 CR?





chadamir said:


> Probably one of the viewsonics


I was actually using these screens while doing a shootout review of the InFocus IN119HDx versus the Optoma HD141X, so I used both of those projectors. However, I did all of my actual measurements with the same projector at the same time in an attempt to ensure consistency.



AV Science Sales 5 said:


> I think the review on the MicroLite screen is pretty accurate. I like them concluded that it is a good screen.


I was pleasantly surprised. It's a little unusual to see a new company enter the market with such a strong product, but the F2.0 is pretty great.



thezaks said:


> Sounds like the MicroLite 3.0 is better for a darker room (less ambient light). Is there less of that oily artifact on the 3.0 vs the 2.0? I think the 3.0 also gets better on angles too? And, does the 3.0 also improve on the color?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Dave


We are currently talking to several screen vendors about sending additional samples and doing a major expansion of the shootout. Hopefully, Microlite will send us their F3.0 material so we can include it in the article.


----------



## Ximori

PJC Bill said:


> The pearlescent effect was pretty subtle compared to some of the ALR screens we've seen in previous reviews. Still, it really bothers some people, so I felt I had to at least mention it.


I appreciate this, Bill, and you're participation in this thread as well. I was wondering if you can provide a bit more information, such as, there was no mention of color fidelity in which each of these screens render. I was told Micro-lite has that edge in that there’s no coating applied to the material, so result of the source image thrown is as transparent as you can get. Care to elaborate more on the advantages and disadvantages of such optical screen? Or didn't the Slate have any slight tint or color shifts because certain coating was applied to this vinyl? Thanks.


----------



## curiousmurf

..for Mike and Bill... as you both likely also seen the Dalite high gain screen before.... Would you consider the Microlite a better screen than the Dalite? I know this question is not easy to give a short answer to as there are many variables to a screen. I'm just interested in your personal general opinion. Thanks.


----------



## Sam Ash

*Microlite 1.8 compared to Black Diamond 1.8 ?*

I noticed that the review compared SI's Slate 1.2 gain to the Microlite 1.8 gain screen and this makes sense from a pricing point of view. However, I'm wondering if someone could tell us how the Microlite 1.8 screen compares to SI's Black Diamond 1.8 in terms of overall performance and image fidelity ? (Please don't take price into consideration as this would negate such a comparison due to the price difference between the two screens).

Furthermore, what exactly is the Oil Slick effect ? Can someone please clarify how it looks or give examples ? Furthermore what does the pearlescent effect look like or mean ?


----------



## Mike Garrett

curiousmurf said:


> ..for Mike and Bill... as you both likely also seen the Dalite high gain screen before.... Would you consider the Microlite a better screen than the Dalite? I know this question is not easy to give a short answer to as there are many variables to a screen. I'm just interested in your personal general opinion. Thanks.


Well, I still have an old 2.8 gain HP in my family room setup and am thinking about going to the F3.0 once it is available in an electric. Does that answer your question?


----------



## Sam Ash

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> Well, I still have an old 2.8 gain HP in my family room setup and am thinking about going to the F3.0 once it is available in an electric. Does that answer your question?


Hi Mike, I would have thought you'd probably go for the Microlite F2.0 and get a brighter projector for the sake of image fidelity and better ambient light rejection not to mention hot spotting and similar anomalies. On the other hand, we might learn something from you as I, like others here, don't know enough about the practical performance of Microlite Screens.

Here are my questions:-

1.) How does the Microlite F2.0 compare to the Microlite F3.0 in terms of image fidelity ?

2.) How does the Microlite F2.0 compare to the Black Diamond 1.8 ?

Please give us your input, I guess we respect your opinion because of your background and experience


----------



## thezaks

Sam Ash said:


> I noticed that the review compared SI's Slate 1.2 gain to the Microlite 1.8 gain screen and this makes sense from a pricing point of view. However, I'm wondering if someone could tell us how the Microlite 1.8 screen compares to SI's Black Diamond 1.8 in terms of overall performance and image fidelity ? (Please don't take price into consideration as this would negate such a comparison due to the price difference between the two screens).


There is not a BD 1.8 - only a 0.8, 1.4, and a 2.7. 

Dave


----------



## PJC Bill

Ximori said:


> I appreciate this, Bill, and you're participation in this thread as well. I was wondering if you can provide a bit more information, such as, there was no mention of color fidelity in which each of these screens render. I was told Micro-lite has that edge in that there’s no coating applied to the material, so result of the source image thrown is as transparent as you can get. Care to elaborate more on the advantages and disadvantages of such optical screen? Or didn't the Slate have any slight tint or color shifts because certain coating was applied to this vinyl? Thanks.


Our expanded shootout will go into more detail about color reproduction. I did see some slight differences in color reproduction between the screens, but I didn't feel that it was significant enough to merit a comment. However, since we're expanding the field, I will make sure to do proper color testing on each screen.



curiousmurf said:


> ..for Mike and Bill... as you both likely also seen the Dalite high gain screen before.... Would you consider the Microlite a better screen than the Dalite? I know this question is not easy to give a short answer to as there are many variables to a screen. I'm just interested in your personal general opinion. Thanks.


We haven't seen the Da-Lite HP since 2009, and Evan Powell caught that review, not me. So unfortunately I don't feel qualified to comment.



Sam Ash said:


> I noticed that the review compared SI's Slate 1.2 gain to the Microlite 1.8 gain screen and this makes sense from a pricing point of view. However, I'm wondering if someone could tell us how the Microlite 1.8 screen compares to SI's Black Diamond 1.8 in terms of overall performance and image fidelity ? (Please don't take price into consideration as this would negate such a comparison due to the price difference between the two screens).


When we contacted the manufacturers in preparation for this shootout, we told them which screens we would be receiving from the other vendors and they chose a product to send that they felt would be competitive. SI chose to send the Slate 1.2. I will get in touch with them and see if they want to send a Black Diamond for the expanded shootout, since I haven't seen one since 2009.



> Furthermore, what exactly is the Oil Slick effect ? Can someone please clarify how it looks or give examples ? Furthermore what does the pearlescent effect look like or mean ?


Oil slick and pearlescent describe the same effect -- a slight shimmer. Have you ever seen the shimmer on, for example, the feathers of a crow? It looks a bit like that. Hence the name.



Sam Ash said:


> 1.) How does the Microlite F2.0 compare to the Microlite F3.0 in terms of image fidelity ?
> 
> 2.) How does the Microlite F2.0 compare to the Black Diamond 1.8 ?
> 
> Please give us your input, I guess we respect your opinion because of your background and experience


I know this wasn't directed at me, but I should be able to answer one or both of these questions in a few weeks.


----------



## Mike Garrett

Sam Ash said:


> Hi Mike, I would have thought you'd probably go for the Microlite F2.0 and get a brighter projector for the sake of image fidelity and better ambient light rejection not to mention hot spotting and similar anomalies. On the other hand, we might learn something from you as I, like others here, don't know enough about the practical performance of Microlite Screens.
> 
> Here are my questions:-
> 
> 1.) How does the Microlite F2.0 compare to the Microlite F3.0 in terms of image fidelity ?
> 
> 2.) How does the Microlite F2.0 compare to the Black Diamond 1.8 ?
> 
> Please give us your input, I guess we respect your opinion because of your background and experience


The F3.0 is ISF, so image quality is good. As others stated, there is 0.8 and 1.4 with BD, so not sure which screen you are asking about. The problem with HP2.8 in a room with ambient light is the blacks. The black level can't be any better than what you see on the screen, before turning on the projector, so while the HP is bright, it is washed out when there is a lot of ambient light. Blacks are much better with the F3.0, so just hitting it with more light output will give you a decent image with ambient light.


----------



## Ximori

PJC Bill said:


> Our expanded shootout will go into more detail about color reproduction. I did see some slight differences in color reproduction between the screens, but I didn't feel that it was significant enough to merit a comment. However, since we're expanding the field, I will make sure to do proper color testing on each screen.


Thanks Bill. I hope you can convince DNP to join this shootout.


----------



## Ximori

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> Well, I still have an old 2.8 gain HP in my family room setup and am thinking about going to the F3.0 once it is available in an electric. Does that answer your question?


That's a great choice, Mike. I went with the F2 for better ALR. I'll visit Michael again and ask if he can set both materials up side by side, as they're mounted on different walls


----------



## ch1sox

Ximori said:


> That's a great choice, Mike. I went with the F2 for better ALR. I'll visit Michael again and ask if he can set both materials up side by side, as they're mounted on different walls


Did you already order the F2? Do you know when it's arriving?


----------



## Sam Ash

*Dave* - Thank you for correcting me, I meant the Black Diamond 1.4

*Bill *- Thank you so much for your kind input, I am looking forward to a detailed comparison between the Microlite F2/F3 and the Black Diamond 1.4/2.7, that will certainly be interesting. Aha! Now I totally understand what "Oil Slick" and "Pearlescent" mean, the way you explained it giving the example of a crow was quite clever .

*Ximori* - Nice to know that you're already using a Microlite F2, what projector are you using with it and tell us more about your overall experience in terms of image fidelity. I take note of the fact that F2 has better ALR than the F3. Does the F2 have better image fidelity than the F3 ? - I mean for like watching blu ray movies as opposed to sports ? If you've seen a Black Diamond 1.4 in action, how would you compare a Microlite F2 with it ? Yes, it would be nice to include dnp in the detailed comparison.

*Mike* - Sorry about that, my mistake, I was referring to the Black Diamond 1.4 compared to the Microlite F2. I asked Ximori this too but would it not be better to invest in a brighter projector with an F2 as opposed to a higher gain screen with a less bright projector for the sake of image quality and to avoid hot spotting ?


----------



## ch1sox

@Sam Ash 
It sounds like the F3 image quality must be pretty good since that's what they recommend for theater applications. If this screen isn't effected by hot spotting that much I'd think you'd want to choose the screen based on your viewing setup. I think?

I suppose you could go with a higher lumen projector and F2, but if the F3 is about the same as F2 for image fideliy than choosing based on your environment I'd think is probably better.

Of course I could also be totally wrong about all of this.


----------



## Mike Garrett

Sam Ash said:


> *Dave* - Thank you for correcting me, I meant the Black Diamond 1.4
> 
> *Bill *- Thank you so much for your kind input, I am looking forward to a detailed comparison between the Microlite F2/F3 and the Black Diamond 1.4/2.7, that will certainly be interesting. Aha! Now I totally understand what "Oil Slick" and "Pearlescent" mean, the way you explained it giving the example of a crow was quite clever .
> 
> *Ximori* - Nice to know that you're already using a Microlite F2, what projector are you using with it and tell us more about your overall experience in terms of image fidelity. I take note of the fact that F2 has better ALR than the F3. Does the F2 have better image fidelity than the F3 ? - I mean for like watching blu ray movies as opposed to sports ? If you've seen a Black Diamond 1.4 in action, how would you compare a Microlite F2 with it ? Yes, it would be nice to include dnp in the detailed comparison.
> 
> *Mike* - Sorry about that, my mistake, I was referring to the Black Diamond 1.4 compared to the Microlite F2. I asked Ximori this too but would it not be better to invest in a brighter projector with an F2 as opposed to a higher gain screen with a less bright projector for the sake of image quality and to avoid hot spotting ?



I am thinking F3 because I did not really see any negatives to the image compared to the F2, so the same projector will get me more brightness for my high ambient light room. Now if I did not have as much ambient light as I have, I would have considered the F2.


----------



## Sam Ash

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> I am thinking F3 because I did not really see any negatives to the image compared to the F2, so the same projector will get me more brightness for my high ambient light room. Now if I did not have as much ambient light as I have, I would have considered the F2.


That is certainly very interesting Mike because from what I've been told, image fidelity does deteriorate as the gain increases. High gain screens work well in areas with lots of ambient light but such screens are being used for sports and general TV viewing where a pristine image is not really required. I'm not sure how to interpret this but a higher gain screen would effect the subtle detail in very light or white areas and dark areas would become lighter too, although this may to help to accentuate details in dark areas, the overall contrast would be effected as blacks would appear to be dark grey. Colors are effected too with the increased brightness. I suppose this could be fixed with a calibration procedure but then there are trade offs. The fact that you did not notice any negatives with the F3 is fascinating and that says something about Microlite screens. Did you get to see the results of an image being played back from a blue ray movie that you know well ?

Furthermore, you did not mention any hot spotting issues and this tells me that it is possible to obtain good results from a higher gain optical screen with a standard brightness projector as opposed to the vice versa in terms of gain and projector brightness.


----------



## Sam Ash

ch1sox said:


> @Sam Ash
> It sounds like the F3 image quality must be pretty good since that's what they recommend for theater applications.


Very interesting, I am waiting for a more comprehensive review of the F2 and F3. I'm hoping that more people who have these screens or have seen them in action will keep on providing input. Mike seems to appreciate the F3 enough to get one for his own use. Hope he gives us more information in regards to overall image fidelity.


----------



## Mike Garrett

Sam Ash said:


> That is certainly very interesting Mike because from what I've been told, image fidelity does deteriorate as the gain increases. High gain screens work well in areas with lots of ambient light but such screens are being used for sports and general TV viewing where a pristine image is not really required. I'm not sure how to interpret this but a higher gain screen would effect the subtle detail in very light or white areas and dark areas would become lighter too, although this may to help to accentuate details in dark areas, the overall contrast would be effected as blacks would appear to be dark grey. Colors are effected too with the increased brightness. I suppose this could be fixed with a calibration procedure but then there are trade offs. The fact that you did not notice any negatives with the F3 is fascinating and that says something about Microlite screens. Did you get to see the results of an image being played back from a blue ray movie that you know well ?
> 
> Furthermore, you did not mention any hot spotting issues and this tells me that it is possible to obtain good results from a higher gain optical screen with a standard brightness projector as opposed to the vice versa in terms of gain and projector brightness.


I have an all black dedicated room and a family room setup with lots of ambient light. The family room setup is mostly used for TV, sports and Netflix. F3.0 is better choice for that room.


----------



## Ericglo

Sam Ash said:


> That is certainly very interesting Mike because from what I've been told, image fidelity does deteriorate as the gain increases. High gain screens work well in areas with lots of ambient light but such screens are being used for sports and general TV viewing where a pristine image is not really required. I'm not sure how to interpret this but a higher gain screen would effect the subtle detail in very light or white areas and dark areas would become lighter too, although this may to help to accentuate details in dark areas, the overall contrast would be effected as blacks would appear to be dark grey. Colors are effected too with the increased brightness. I suppose this could be fixed with a calibration procedure but then there are trade offs. The fact that you did not notice any negatives with the F3 is fascinating and that says something about Microlite screens. Did you get to see the results of an image being played back from a blue ray movie that you know well ?
> 
> Furthermore, you did not mention any hot spotting issues and this tells me that it is possible to obtain good results from a higher gain optical screen with a standard brightness projector as opposed to the vice versa in terms of gain and projector brightness.


This is incorrect. It is not gain that causes any issues it is the screen or screen material. The biggest problem with high gain screens is hot spotting. The easiest way to eliminate that problem is curving the screen like a Torus. Of course, digital pjs have an issue with curved screens like a Torus unless you use an outboard box. To my knowledge, Stewart made the best high gain screen about 15 years ago that some CRTers used in a Torus. Supposedly it had none of the issues that high gain screens suffer from. Unfortunately, it didn't work well for a flat screen.


----------



## Sam Ash

Ericglo said:


> This is incorrect. It is not gain that causes any issues it is the screen or screen material. The biggest problem with high gain screens is hot spotting. The easiest way to eliminate that problem is curving the screen like a Torus. Of course, digital pjs have an issue with curved screens like a Torus unless you use an outboard box. To my knowledge, Stewart made the best high gain screen about 15 years ago that some CRTers used in a Torus. Supposedly it had none of the issues that high gain screens suffer from. Unfortunately, it didn't work well for a flat screen.


Thanks for your input Eric, I am hoping that Mike and other users that own or have seen the F3 can give us a little more information in regards to the hot spotting issue. Could you kindly explain what a torus curve is or looks like ?


----------



## Dominic Chan

Ericglo said:


> This is incorrect. It is not gain that causes any issues it is the screen or screen material. The biggest problem with high gain screens is hot spotting. The easiest way to eliminate that problem is curving the screen like a Torus.


High gain screens _tend to _have three problems:
1. Hotspotting
2. Narrow viewing angle (directly related to 1 above)
3. Non-smooth surface texture ("sparkles" or "oil slick").
The Microlite screens seem to "defy physics" in its ability to minimize these issues.
A torus screen reduces hotspotting but makes the viewing angle even narrower.


----------



## Ericglo

Sam Ash said:


> Thanks for your input Eric, I am hoping that Mike and other users that own or have seen the F3 can give us a little more information in regards to the hot spotting issue. Could you kindly explain what a torus curve is or looks like ?


A Torus screen is a screen that is curved both horizontally and vertically with different radii for each. Think of cutting the end off of a doughnut.



Dominic Chan said:


> High gain screens _tend to _have three problems:
> 1. Hotspotting
> 2. Narrow viewing angle (directly related to 1 above)
> 3. Non-smooth surface texture ("sparkles" or "oil slick").
> The Microlite screens seem to "defy physics" in its ability to minimize these issues.
> A torus screen reduces hotspotting but makes the viewing angle even narrower.


Have you seen a Torus? Most owners said that the viewing angle was much wider than they thought. 

I really have never understood viewing angle and why some seem to obsess over it. If you are to far off of center, then the viewing experience isn't enjoyable anyway.


----------



## ch1sox

Ericglo said:


> I really have never understood viewing angle and why some seem to obsess over it. If you are to far off of center, then the viewing experience isn't enjoyable anyway.


Many of us looking for an ALR screen are putting them in media rooms, family rooms, etc, so seating varies greatly. Viewing angles might not be a big deal in a dedicated space, but for spaces like mine where seating is all over, it greatly helps having a wide viewing cone.


----------



## venkatesh_m

PJC Bill said:


> The pearlescent effect was pretty subtle compared to some of the ALR screens we've seen in previous reviews. Still, it really bothers some people, so I felt I had to at least mention it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was actually using these screens while doing a shootout review of the InFocus IN119HDx versus the Optoma HD141X, so I used both of those projectors. However, I did all of my actual measurements with the same projector at the same time in an attempt to ensure consistency.
> 
> 
> 
> I was pleasantly surprised. It's a little unusual to see a new company enter the market with such a strong product, but the F2.0 is pretty great.
> 
> 
> 
> We are currently talking to several screen vendors about sending additional samples and doing a major expansion of the shootout. Hopefully, Microlite will send us their F3.0 material so we can include it in the article.


Bill,

I know PJC carried another shootout some time ago comparing the draper react alr and the Stewart. How does the microlite compare to the draper react?


----------



## millerwill

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> I have an all black dedicated room and a family room setup with lots of ambient light. The family room setup is mostly used for TV, sports and Netflix. F3.0 is better choice for that room.


Just discovered this thread since I haven't looked at screens in quite a while; still with my HP2.4, which is doing fine, but this Microlite F3.0 seems like it might be a step up.

Mike, does it really produce 3.3 gain (or close to it) on axis? And no hot-spotting, or sheen, even at very short throws (1.2 to 1.4)? Is it close to the Stewart1.0 screen for 4K detail, etc? If so, it sounds like a breakthrough.

PS And with 'new eyes' (lens replacement in both--amazing!), I could perhaps see the difference!


----------



## thezaks

Sam Ash said:


> *Dave* - Thank you for correcting me, I meant the Black Diamond 1.4


With all of the talk of the Microlite 1.8, numbers can easily get switched around. 

I'd also like to know how the Microlite 2.0 and 3.0 screens do against the BD 1.4. The BD 1.4 can look very impressive at certain angles and with certain light. Then again, at certain other angles/light it is not very impressive. I asked Mike a few specific questions about the 3.0 vs BD 1.4 on the phone:

1) Better with angles than BD 1.4? He said yes.
2) As bright as the BD 1.4? He mentioned it has even more light output.
3) Blacks as good as the BD 1.4? I thought he had mentioned that they were. If this is the case, then there will probably be more contrast than the BD 1.4. Perhaps this ties in to question #5 too.
4) Artifacts? He thought the 3.0 had much less artifacts than the BD1.4.
5) This is the question I did not ask - is it better at rejecting ambient light than the BD 1.4? We see that it's better than the SI Slate at rejecting ambient light, but is it as good as the BD 1.4?


Dave


----------



## Ximori

thezaks said:


> With all of the talk of the Microlite 1.8, numbers can easily get switched around.
> 
> I'd also like to know how the Microlite 2.0 and 3.0 screens do against the BD 1.4. The BD 1.4 can look very impressive at certain angles and with certain light. Then again, at certain other angles/light it is not very impressive. I asked Mike a few specific questions about the 3.0 vs BD 1.4 on the phone:
> 
> 1) Better with angles than BD 1.4? He said yes.
> 2) As bright as the BD 1.4? He mentioned it has even more light output.
> 3) Blacks as good as the BD 1.4? I thought he had mentioned that they were. If this is the case, then there will probably be more contrast than the BD 1.4. Perhaps this ties in to question #5 too.
> 4) Artifacts? He thought the 3.0 had much less artifacts than the BD1.4.
> 5) This is the question I did not ask - is it better at rejecting ambient light than the BD 1.4? We see that it's better than the SI Slate at rejecting ambient light, but is it as good as the BD 1.4?
> 
> 
> Dave


The F3 definitely has better angles compared to the BD...not to mention, it has better brightness uniformity, which exceeded my expectations when viewed off axis. It's very ideal for a wide-seating range with family and friends under low lighting conditions. Also, BD has a tint that bothers me and their sheen is quite obvious.

I know you're on the fence between the F2 and F3. I'll see if I can visit Michael's office sometime this week to determine which would be more suitable for certain lighting. I'm curious to find out the degree of lighting up to where I can attain an optimally good image.


----------



## Ximori

ch1sox said:


> @Sam Ash
> It sounds like the F3 image quality must be pretty good since that's what they recommend for theater applications. If this screen isn't effected by hot spotting that much I'd think you'd want to choose the screen based on your viewing setup. I think?
> 
> I suppose you could go with a higher lumen projector and F2, but if the F3 is about the same as F2 for image fideliy than choosing based on your environment I'd think is probably better.
> 
> Of course I could also be totally wrong about all of this.


Actually, none of what you said is incorrect . There was no hot-spotting at all, but setup should be what was recommended.

Btw, what fascinated me was the ansi cr retention that was measured off that screen in Bill's review. If he used a DLP, I would've suspected a much higher reading but I just remembered now that his dark room had white walls and ceiling, thus affecting the accuracy of the projector's measurement. As a result, it sounds promising than, let's say the High Power material, in terms of avoiding any of that washout effect...what do you guys think?


----------



## millerwill

Ximori said:


> The F3 definitely has better angles compared to the BD...not to mention, it has better brightness uniformity, which exceeded my expectations when viewed off axis. It's very ideal for a wide-seating range with family and friends under low lighting conditions. Also, BD has a tint that bothers me and their sheen is quite obvious.
> 
> I know you're on the fence between the F2 and F3. I'll see if I can visit Michael's office sometime this week to determine which would be more suitable for certain lighting. I'm curious to find out the degree of lighting up to where I can attain an optimally good image.


The Microlite website emphasizes that it is good for 4K and higher resolutions. Anybody have any information on how it compares to the Stewart 100 in this regard (supposedly the gold standard for 4K material)?

My interest in the F3.0 has nothing to do with light rejection, but the gain (if it is free of hotspotting, sheen, or other artifacts). Is it significantly better than the Dalite HP2.4?


----------



## Ximori

millerwill said:


> The Microlite website emphasizes that it is good for 4K and higher resolutions. Anybody have any information on how it compares to the Stewart 100 in this regard (supposedly the gold standard for 4K material)?
> 
> My interest in the F3.0 has nothing to do with light rejection, but the gain (if it is free of hotspotting, sheen, or other artifacts). Is it significantly better than the Dalite HP2.4?


Hi Bill, when I visited Michael all his demos were in 4K thrown on the F3 material and they were astoundingly beautiful. The colors looked dead on, white was white and bright, uniformity was excellent, it had wide-viewing range, and the contrast perception was very good in dark scenes.
With your "new eyes" you might notice that oily effect but as I mentioned earlier the effect is somewhat similar to that of my Kuro plasma which I only notice from time to time. You probably may want to request a sample for this. I think if that effect doesn't bother you, then it is significantly better than the High Power based on what was mentioned above.


----------



## Sam Ash

thezaks said:


> With all of the talk of the Microlite 1.8, numbers can easily get switched around.
> 
> I'd also like to know how the Microlite 2.0 and 3.0 screens do against the BD 1.4. The BD 1.4 can look very impressive at certain angles and with certain light. Then again, at certain other angles/light it is not very impressive. I asked Mike a few specific questions about the 3.0 vs BD 1.4 on the phone:
> 
> 1) Better with angles than BD 1.4? He said yes.
> 2) As bright as the BD 1.4? He mentioned it has even more light output.
> 3) Blacks as good as the BD 1.4? I thought he had mentioned that they were. If this is the case, then there will probably be more contrast than the BD 1.4. Perhaps this ties in to question #5 too.
> 4) Artifacts? He thought the 3.0 had much less artifacts than the BD1.4.
> 5) This is the question I did not ask - is it better at rejecting ambient light than the BD 1.4? We see that it's better than the SI Slate at rejecting ambient light, but is it as good as the BD 1.4?
> 
> 
> Dave


Thanks Dave, very informative


----------



## noah katz

PJC Bill said:


> Oil slick and pearlescent describe the same effect -- a slight shimmer. Have you ever seen the shimmer on, for example, the feathers of a crow?


When is this visible - all of the time, only with an image in a darkened room, only when you move your head, only with a certain minimum brightness...?


----------



## Mike Garrett

Ericglo said:


> A Torus screen is a screen that is curved both horizontally and vertically with different radii for each. Think of cutting the end off of a doughnut.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you seen a Torus? Most owners said that the viewing angle was much wider than they thought.
> 
> *I really have never understood viewing angle and why some seem to obsess over it. If you are to far off of center, then the viewing experience isn't enjoyable anyway.*


Same here. If the person is watching from that much angle, then they are not that interested in what is being watched. Only exception that I can think of would be a really wide room showing a sporting event with a lot of people over. Even then, those that are really interested, will be more in front of the screen.

Added
Though there are a few ALR screens that do have a pretty narrow viewing angle, but for most rooms, this is usually less of a problem than many people think.


----------



## thezaks

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> Same here. If the person is watching from that much angle, then they are not that interested in what is being watched. Only exception that I can think of would be a really wide room showing a sporting event with a lot of people over. Even then, those that are really interested, will be more in front of the screen.
> 
> Added
> Though there are a few ALR screens that do have a pretty narrow viewing angle, but for most rooms, this is usually less of a problem than many people think.


I'm not sure I agree. Take the Black Diamond 1.4, for example. We have a 120" white screen in our conference room. I take the BD 1.4 sample and put it in the bottom right corner of the screen. Straight on, it looks good. As I move to the left, it gets darker and darker. By the time I get to the middle of the screen, it's already taken a big hit - it's much darker. By the time I get to the left side of the screen, it's nearly black. Distance from the screen (5'-15') does not matter. 

OK, that's a sample. On a 106" screen at Star Power (in Scottsdale), I can see the same issue. It's not as noticeable, because we're now looking at the full screen, and there's a lot of image up there. However, knowing that this is an issue, I notice how it gets darker, the further the screen gets from my seating position. Keep in mind, I'm not going way outside of anything here - my extremes are one screen corner to the other. This is in the dark, with a motorized shade covering the window.

Star Power has the entire left wall as a window, so when the shade is up, the screen is watchable from the left side of the screen. However, as you move to the middle and especially the right side of the screen, the image becomes unwatchable. My wife said "NO WAY".

I see the same exact thing at my friend's house - he had a BD 1.4 put in. He loves it. However, I can tell you that if he opens the shutters on the right side of the room, the view from the left side (even the middle of the room) is severely compromised.

To me - angles matter.

Dave


----------



## Craig Peer

thezaks said:


> I'm not sure I agree. Take the Black Diamond 1.4, for example. We have a 120" white screen in our conference room. I take the BD 1.4 sample and put it in the bottom right corner of the screen. Straight on, it looks good. As I move to the left, it gets darker and darker. By the time I get to the middle of the screen, it's already taken a big hit - it's much darker. By the time I get to the left side of the screen, it's nearly black. Distance from the screen (5'-15') does not matter.
> 
> OK, that's a sample. On a 106" screen at Star Power (in Scottsdale), I can see the same issue. It's not as noticeable, because we're now looking at the full screen, and there's a lot of image up there. However, knowing that this is an issue, I notice how it gets darker, the further the screen gets from my seating position. Keep in mind, I'm not going way outside of anything here - my extremes are one screen corner to the other. This is in the dark, with a motorized shade covering the window.
> 
> Star Power has the entire left wall as a window, so when the shade is up, the screen is watchable from the left side of the screen. However, as you move to the middle and especially the right side of the screen, the image becomes unwatchable. My wife said "NO WAY".
> 
> I see the same exact thing at my friend's house - he had a BD 1.4 put in. He loves it. However, I can tell you that if he opens the shutters on the right side of the room, the view from the left side (even the middle of the room) is severely compromised.
> 
> *To me - angles matter.*
> 
> Dave



Same here. I have one row of seating 14' wide, at about 11' from either a 118" wide 2.35:1 screen or a 106" wide 16:9 screen. The screens I have work really well off center - both the Stewart Cima Neve and StudioTek 130 G3 are pretty forgiving. Good thing too - I usually let the guests sit in the center sweet spot seats !


----------



## Dominic Chan

Craig Peer said:


> Same here. I have one row of seating 14' wide, at about 11' from either a 118" wide 2.35:1 screen or a 106" wide 16:9 screen. The screens I have work really well off center - both the Stewart Cima Neve and StudioTek 130 G3 are pretty forgiving. Good thing too - I usually let the guests sit in the center sweet spot seats !


The StudioTeck 130 G3 may be forgiving, but for an ALR screen with half gain angle of 21 degrees and a viewing distance of 11', the gain drops by 50% at 4.2' off the centre of the screen - and that's when viewing from the sweet spot.

That shows the screen viewing angle spec _does_ matter.


----------



## Mike Garrett

thezaks said:


> I'm not sure I agree. Take the Black Diamond 1.4, for example. We have a 120" white screen in our conference room. I take the BD 1.4 sample and put it in the bottom right corner of the screen. Straight on, it looks good. As I move to the left, it gets darker and darker. By the time I get to the middle of the screen, it's already taken a big hit - it's much darker. By the time I get to the left side of the screen, it's nearly black. Distance from the screen (5'-15') does not matter.
> 
> OK, that's a sample. On a 106" screen at Star Power (in Scottsdale), I can see the same issue. It's not as noticeable, because we're now looking at the full screen, and there's a lot of image up there. However, knowing that this is an issue, I notice how it gets darker, the further the screen gets from my seating position. Keep in mind, I'm not going way outside of anything here - my extremes are one screen corner to the other. This is in the dark, with a motorized shade covering the window.
> 
> Star Power has the entire left wall as a window, so when the shade is up, the screen is watchable from the left side of the screen. However, as you move to the middle and especially the right side of the screen, the image becomes unwatchable. My wife said "NO WAY".
> 
> I see the same exact thing at my friend's house - he had a BD 1.4 put in. He loves it. However, I can tell you that if he opens the shutters on the right side of the room, the view from the left side (even the middle of the room) is severely compromised.
> 
> To me - angles matter.
> 
> Dave


As you noticed, the difference appears much larger, when you are looking at a small sample, compared to a full screen. You are specifically testing for brightness, when most people just viewing from a little bit of an angle will think nothing of it. It is sort of like 3D ghosting. You have guys that absolutely run down some projectors for 3D ghosting and yet to the casual viewer, the 3D is often times fine. I am that way. I watched a 3D movie that was known for ghosting on a JVC. I saw bad ghosting in about 3 scenes. I turned around and immediately watched the movie a second time (son wanted to watch it). This time, rather than pay attention to the movie, I only watched for ghosting. I was surprised at how much minor ghosting I missed, when engrossed in the movie.


----------



## thezaks

Mike Garrett said:


> As you noticed, the difference appears much larger, when you are looking at a small sample, compared to a full screen...


Hi Mike,

While that is true, the angle issue was bad enough on viewing a full screen BD 1.4 to turn me off from it, just from the point of view of the width of the seating at Star Power - three chairs. I could probably try to live with it in a dark room, or a room with only ambient light from the ceiling, but in a room with any ambient light coming from the side, I could not ignore it. Without even sharing my opinion, my wife shared her disapproval - no WAF for the BD 1.4.

Now, the Microlite 3.0, with a very wide viewing cone, should be able to get the WAF, assuming it's as good as I hope it is. 

Dave


----------



## Sam Ash

thezaks said:


> I'm not sure I agree. Take the Black Diamond 1.4, for example. We have a 120" white screen in our conference room. I take the BD 1.4 sample and put it in the bottom right corner of the screen. Straight on, it looks good. As I move to the left, it gets darker and darker. By the time I get to the middle of the screen, it's already taken a big hit - it's much darker. By the time I get to the left side of the screen, it's nearly black. Distance from the screen (5'-15') does not matter.
> 
> OK, that's a sample. On a 106" screen at Star Power (in Scottsdale), I can see the same issue. It's not as noticeable, because we're now looking at the full screen, and there's a lot of image up there. However, knowing that this is an issue, I notice how it gets darker, the further the screen gets from my seating position. Keep in mind, I'm not going way outside of anything here - my extremes are one screen corner to the other. This is in the dark, with a motorized shade covering the window.
> 
> Star Power has the entire left wall as a window, so when the shade is up, the screen is watchable from the left side of the screen. However, as you move to the middle and especially the right side of the screen, the image becomes unwatchable. My wife said "NO WAY".
> 
> I see the same exact thing at my friend's house - he had a BD 1.4 put in. He loves it. However, I can tell you that if he opens the shutters on the right side of the room, the view from the left side (even the middle of the room) is severely compromised.
> 
> To me - angles matter.
> 
> Dave


Interesting analysis and description Dave, thank you for sharing.


----------



## Mike Garrett

"I see the same exact thing at my friend's house - he had a BD 1.4 put in. He loves it. However, I can tell you that if he opens the shutters on the right side of the room, the view from the left side (even the middle of the room) is severely compromised."




Sam Ash said:


> Interesting analysis and description Dave, thank you for sharing.


That is not viewing angle. That is physics. Light from anywhere is going to hurt an image. It is just the matter of degree. Some screens take less of a hit, but all screens take a hit, when light is introduced. The BD is one of the better screens for side ambient light.


----------



## thezaks

Mike Garrett said:


> That is not viewing angle. That is physics. Light from anywhere is going to hurt an image. It is just the matter of degree. Some screens take less of a hit, but all screens take a hit, when light is introduced. The BD is one of the better screens for side ambient light.


Thanks Mike! It seemed like the Elite Screens Darkstar/Polarstar handled side ambient light better than the BD from what I saw, but I didn't have the two full screens side by side. Still, it was not enough to convince me that I would be happy using these screens as a full time TV. It just kind of cemented my decision to get a flat panel TV for day time use (shutters open along the left side of my room), and to use a motorized ALR screen for night use and for day time use (shutters closed). That's just me though - YMMV.

Dave


----------



## MCaugusto

Well, i must say that when i started this thread 5 years ago i never thought it would have taken Microlite Screens so long to set up a distributorship in the USA, it's about time !
Unfortunately in my current circumstance of eagerly waiting for the imminent release of affordable 80" UHDTV with FALD, HDR, HDMI 2.0, HDCP 2.2 for no more than $5K msrp (Vizio 2015 P-Series, hopefully) i cannot justify spending $1.3K + shipping for the 88" Microlite screen with 3.0 material.
Granted that compared to other high profile screens such pricing is not really that absurd, but it would be great if it would cost no more than $500, again, considering current pricing for smaller and yet projection-sized LCD flat panel displays such as the 2015 Vizio M-Series 80" currently on sale at Costco for less than $4K.
On the other hand i was rather impressed with the chart at the company's website showing how wide and even the onscreen illumination for the 3.0 material is compared to standard screen material, hardly showing any "hotspotting" at all...


----------



## ch1sox

Got some goodies today, I'll post some thoughts when I get the time either tonight or in a few days.


----------



## millerwill

ch1sox said:


> Got some goodies today, I'll post some thoughts when I get the time either tonight or in a few days.


If you are able to make any comparative evaluations compared to Dalite HP screens, that would be most illuminating (no pun intended).

PS I would be most interested in the image quality under fully light-controlled conditions (e.g. bat cave) rather than how they deal with ambient light.


----------



## thezaks

ch1sox said:


> Got some goodies today, I'll post some thoughts when I get the time either tonight or in a few days.


I received two samples - the 2.0 and the 3.0. I cannot wait to look at them this afternoon. So far though, I can say that they seem to be scratch resistant, so the score so far is PROS: 1, CONS: 0. 


Dave


----------



## blee0120

So, to get max gain, do it have to be shelf mounted at eye level like the HP screen?


----------



## millerwill

blee0120 said:


> So, to get max gain, do it have to be shelf mounted at eye level like the HP screen?


Presumably not (because of the much wider viewing cone), but this is a good question, so would be very relevant to hear from those who know.


----------



## Dominic Chan

millerwill said:


> Presumably not (because of the much wider viewing cone), but this is a good question, so would be very relevant to hear from those who know.


I believe the wide viewing angle of the Microlite screens is only in the horizontal direction - unless someone has confirmed otherwise or seen the specification.


----------



## blee0120

If it always at least 2 gain ceiling mounted, I'm sold but I doubt it. I just want to use a cheaper LED projector ceiling mounted.


----------



## Dominic Chan

blee0120 said:


> If it always at least 2 gain ceiling mounted, I'm sold but I doubt it. I just want to use a cheaper LED projector ceiling mounted.


The F2 gain tested 1.8 in the Projector Central test, so presumably the F3 gain should be higher than 2.


----------



## blee0120

Dominic Chan said:


> The F2 gain tested 1.8 in the Projector Central test, so presumably the F3 gain should be higher than 2.


I seen that and I wondered how that mounted the projector to get 1.8 max gain.


----------



## Ximori

Here's a shot taken from my iphone around 3 ft away. In person, both screens appeared to have higher luminance level and you don't see that slight bright clipping below the lower eyelid, so take this shot w/ a pinch of salt. One is a DNP, while the other a Micro-lite. 

We know photos don't tell much coz of my phone; hence, let's just focus primarily on the color side, since one source was only used. Your thoughts?


----------



## MCaugusto

To my eyes it is obvious : the image on the left has much better colors, specifically saturation, and i did not even have to enlarge the image to see the difference. Once enlarged it is plain and simple...
Which test screen material was used for the picture on the left and for the picture on the right ?


----------



## Pip

Are the Microlites retro reflective or angular reflective? 

Thanks,

Pip


----------



## Sam Ash

Ximori said:


> Here's a shot taken from my iphone around 3 ft away. In person, both screens appeared to have higher luminance level and you don't see that slight bright clipping below the lower eyelid, so take this shot w/ a pinch of salt. One is a DNP, while the other a Micro-lite.
> 
> We know photos don't tell much coz of my phone; hence, let's just focus primarily on the color side, since one source was only used. Your thoughts?


Much appreciated Ximori. The one on the left seems to have better colours, is more saturated, definitely brighter and seems to have better blacks although black levels is a bit difficult to judge arising from the fact that the image on the left is not the same as the image on the right.

So I'm presuming the image on the left is the Microlite and the one on the right is dnp. Is the Microlite an F2 or an F3 ?


----------



## Elix

millerwill said:


> Presumably not (because of the much wider viewing cone), but this is a good question, so would be very relevant to hear from those who know.





Pip said:


> Are the Microlites retro reflective or angular reflective?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Pip


I quote Michael from Microlite:


> Installation requirement: projector must be install with 16" above the center of projection screen. Projector must be 12 feet away. Audience's eye must be the center of screen


From this we can draw a conclusion that angular-reflective properties are prevalent in this screen.


----------



## noah katz

PJC Bill said:


> Oil slick and pearlescent describe the same effect -- a slight shimmer. Have you ever seen the shimmer on, for example, the feathers of a crow?
> 
> 
> 
> noah katz said:
> 
> 
> 
> When is this visible - all of the time, only with an image in a darkened room, only when you move your head, only with a certain minimum brightness...?
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone answer this?
Click to expand...


----------



## noah katz

I quote Michael from Microlite:

Quote:Installation requirement: projector must be install with 16" above the center of projection screen. Projector must be 12 feet away. Audience's eye must be the center of screen

That's awfully restrictive; maybe he meant a minimum of 12'?


----------



## ch1sox

I'm guessing he probably means at least 12 feet away for the projector placement. I'd imagine it also varies depending on your screen size like other companies.


----------



## Sam Ash

noah katz said:


> I quote Michael from Microlite:
> 
> Quote:Installation requirement: projector must be install with 16" above the center of projection screen. Projector must be 12 feet away. Audience's eye must be the center of screen
> 
> That's awfully restrictive; maybe he meant a minimum of 12'?


Hi Noah, yes, the 12 feet he quoted is probably a minimum recommended distance. With such screens it is recommended that the projector be placed away from the screen by a factor of about 1.5 to 1.8 times the width of the screen to prevent hot spotting and shimmering effects.

What concerns me more is the projector and eye-level positions that he mentioned. With bigger sized screens, it would be rather difficult and not practical to position the screen so that its centre is at eye-level when seated, often a centre speaker would need to be positioned right below the centre of the screen. Again, for a large screen, the projector being 16 inches above the centre of the screen would mean that the projector would need to come down pretty low from the ceiling.

There are some things to take into consideration such as the brightness and throw distances of the projector. A brighter projector can be placed further back. Placing a projector further back would change the angle of incidence of the light beam. Although, for watching in rooms with significant ambient light, one would be tempted to go for the minimum throw distance in order to achieve the brightest image possible on screen.

Can someone please clarify these 2 issues (projector offset and eye-level relative to the screen), I think it's important to get a clear understanding.


----------



## ch1sox

Sam Ash said:


> Hi Noah, yes, the 12 feet he quoted is probably a minimum recommended distance. With such screens it is recommended that the projector be placed away from the screen by a factor of about 1.5 to 1.8 times the width of the screen to prevent hot spotting and shimmering effects.
> 
> What concerns me more is the projector and eye-level positions that he mentioned. With bigger sized screens, it would be rather difficult and not practical to position the screen so that its centre is at eye-level when seated, often a centre speaker would need to be positioned right below the centre of the screen. Again, for a large screen, the projector being 16 inches above the centre of the screen would mean that the projector would need to come down pretty low from the ceiling.
> 
> There are some things to take into consideration such as the brightness and throw distances of the projector. A brighter projector can be placed further back. Placing a projector further back would change the angle of incidence of the light beam. Although, for watching in rooms with significant ambient light, one would be tempted to go for the minimum throw distance in order to achieve the brightest image possible on screen.
> 
> Can someone please clarify these 2 issues (projector offset and eye-level relative to the screen), I think it's important to get a clear understanding.


I don't think Michael meant your eyes literally need to be at the center of the screen. He probably means the *angle *of your eyes to the center of the screen. If it's an angular reflective screen which I believe it is, the picture will show at the opposite, but mirrored angle back at the viewer. So if the angle of your eye to the center of the screen is 15 degrees, the projector would angle 15 degrees up (opposite, mirrored direction). 

Elite explains this pretty well:

*Step 1*: *Establish the general "eye level" of the viewers*
*Step 2*:_* Set the appropriate projection level*_


"Desktop" or "Table-mounted", projects at an upward level


Ceiling mount, projects at a downward level
*Step 3*: Adjust your_ screen height level _and _projection angle_

Input Angle (Θ1 = Output Angle (Θ2) aligns with the viewer's eye level.


----------



## thezaks

Ximori said:


> Here's a shot taken from my iphone around 3 ft away. In person, both screens appeared to have higher luminance level and you don't see that slight bright clipping below the lower eyelid, so take this shot w/ a pinch of salt. One is a DNP, while the other a Micro-lite.
> 
> We know photos don't tell much coz of my phone; hence, let's just focus primarily on the color side, since one source was only used. Your thoughts?


Hi Ximori,

Are you going to share any more about this?

Dave


----------



## Ximori

thezaks said:


> Hi Ximori,
> 
> Are you going to share any more about this?
> 
> Dave


 
Sure, Dave. I'm not at home right now so will be quick. Sam's guess was correct. Notice how colors were accentuated from the 1080p source, compared to DNP - which already has been considered ISF certified, 4K ready, and color accurate compared to most grey materials. The DNP actually stood out...but not till we put them side by side.
Also keep in mind that a true good color must be attained by a consistent uniform and bright image, just as you see it as a whole package to completely immerse yourself in.


Questioning the screen type, if pertaining to that image, was actually a good point. The Micro-lite is angular, while DNP is retro-reflective. The projector was set up perpendicularly to both screens at center level position. So you'd think that this benefitted the DNP more, and yet, it got smoked by the other screen, imo.


Noah, I'll drop a comment later (maybe tonight) re the oily shimmer effect. I have a small F2 sample which I'd like to evaluate. It was mentioned though by Michael that it's more pronounced with the F2 than the F3. The F3 he had on display, which was also used for that photo, didn't seem to show this on a normal viewing distance. However, if you noticed it I like the way Mike put it - "it doesn't draw you out of the action". It's that subtle and hope they continue to improve it in the manufacturing process.


----------



## thezaks

Ximori said:


> Sure, Dave. I'm not at home right now so will be quick. Sam's guess was correct. Notice how colors were accentuated from the 1080p source, compared to DNP - which already has been considered ISF certified, 4K ready, and color accurate compared to most grey materials. The DNP actually stood out...but not till we put them side by side.
> Also keep in mind that a true good color must be attained by a consistent uniform and bright image, just as you see it as a whole package to completely immerse yourself in.
> 
> 
> Questioning the screen type, if pertaining to that image, was actually a good point. The Micro-lite is angular, while DNP is retro-reflective. The projector was set up perpendicularly to both screens at center level position. So you'd think that this benefitted the DNP more, and yet, it got smoked by the other screen, imo.
> 
> 
> Noah, I'll drop a comment later (maybe tonight) re the oily shimmer effect. I have a small F2 sample which I'd like to evaluate. It was mentioned though by Michael that it's more pronounced with the F2 than the F3. The F3 he had on display, which was also used for that photo, didn't seem to show this on a normal viewing distance. However, if you noticed it I like the way Mike put it - "it doesn't draw you out of the action". It's that subtle and hope they continue to improve it in the manufacturing process.


Thanks! So, which DNP material was it on the right side - the 0.8 or the 2.3? Also, just to confirm - it was the 3.0 Microlite material on the left (not the 2.0) ?

Dave


----------



## Ximori

thezaks said:


> Thanks! So, which DNP material was it on the right side - the 0.8 or the 2.3? Also, just to confirm - it was the 3.0 Microlite material on the left (not the 2.0) ?
> 
> Dave



0.8 DNP on the right side. The left was a F3. I know someone might question the viewing angle as it appeared that I was leaning more on the Micro-lite side; however, both screens are the only two exceptional screens that possess wide-viewing angles with minimal light drop-off, so this didn't matter at all.


----------



## Ximori

Btw, the blacks actually appeared darker on the DNP but it was also dimmer. The Micro-lite, on the other hand, had better perceived contrast due to its ability to exhibit a brighter image without the blacks suffering that much.


----------



## thezaks

Ximori said:


> Btw, the blacks actually appeared darker on the DNP but it was also dimmer. The Micro-lite, on the other hand, had better perceived contrast due to its ability to exhibit a brighter image without the blacks suffering that much.


Hi - what projector was used on these two screens?

Thanks,
Dave


----------



## noah katz

Ximori said:


> Noah, I'll drop a comment later (maybe tonight) re the oily shimmer effect.


Appreciate it, thanks.



Ximori said:


> 0.8 DNP on the right side. The left was a F3.


That doesn't strike me as a fair comparison, as the brightness difference makes a huge difference in perceived color saturation.


----------



## thezaks

noah katz said:


> That doesn't strike me as a fair comparison, as the brightness difference makes a huge difference in perceived color saturation.


I'd have to agree. A better comparison would be the DNP 2.3 vs the Microlite 3.0.

Dave


----------



## ch1sox

noah katz said:


> Appreciate it, thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't strike me as a fair comparison, as the brightness difference makes a huge difference in perceived color saturation.


The DNP 23-23 material is a closer comparison. I'll have time Wednesday to do an extensive look at the F2 and F3 compared to a ton of different screen samples I have.


----------



## Ximori

thezaks said:


> Hi - what projector was used on these two screens?
> 
> Thanks,
> Dave


When I asked Michael that he said it was a hybrid laser one. I took a glance and noticed the name Crestron...anyone familiar with that?

On the other wall, he had a Sony 4K projector with a F2 motorized screen around 110".


----------



## Ximori

noah katz said:


> Appreciate it, thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't strike me as a fair comparison, as the brightness difference makes a huge difference in perceived color saturation.


Ah what was I thinking here?  Well I posted that shot for you to see how this ALR screen can display colors similar to that of a white screen and, for some of you, to rethink your decision before considering an expensive screen, such as the DNP. I almost bought one myself and realized that it will take a light cannon for this screen to reach the same luminance level as that one on the left. You really want that uniform and bright color - but I doubt many of us here have that the kind of bright projector for a screen that can do this and at the same time do ALR duty. 

While you're absolutely correct that it's not a fair comparison, would you consider it fair then if I had shown that same photo but under some degree of ambient lighting that would've put it in DNP's favor this time?


----------



## Ximori

I can see now why Michael was reluctant in sending out these samples - it's not easy evaluating them. I remember him clearly warning me to make sure to view it the proper way that you'd view an angular-reflective screen. There's only so much you can get out of these tiny samples, such as - color, texture, brightness, and wide-viewing angles. Unfortunately, I don't think it'll accurately help in determining the presence of hot-spotting, uniformed brightness, or even color temperature. 

Anyhow, for this sample I noticed this oil slick is visible only with certain vertical viewing angles, especially when the projector is not at its ideal position. So if you position your projector the way you would on a retro-reflective screen, then the artifact becomes more apparent on overly bright areas. I think you need to follow the diagram that was earlier posted in order to mitigate this. Also, with low apl scenes, it becomes a none issue. 
However keep in mind that this is a F2 material, and not the more recommended F3 for hometheater use, as that one has less of that issue. 
To be honest, I need a much bigger screen than this.


----------



## ch1sox

Ximori said:


> Ah what was I thinking here?  Well I posted that shot for you to see how this ALR screen can display colors similar to that of a white screen and, for some of you, to rethink your decision before considering an expensive screen, such as the DNP. I almost bought one myself and realized that it will take a light cannon for this screen to reach the same luminance level as that one on the left. You really want that uniform and bright color - but I doubt many of us here have that the kind of bright projector for a screen that can do this and at the same time do ALR duty.
> 
> While you're absolutely correct that it's not a fair comparison, would you consider it fair then if I had shown that same photo but under some degree of ambient lighting that would've put it in DNP's favor this time?


It depends on the application I'd say. Comparing one screen directy to another is always difficult when you have to factor in different gains, amount of ambient light, etc. 

I own a Draper xs850e and it's an amazing screen extremely similar to the DNP 08-85. However, when I play video games or sports I want a punchier picture which is why I've been looking for a new screen. The black level with the F2 and F3 will probably not be as black as a dnp 08-85 during the day with lights on, but that's fine because I turn my lights off during movies. The whites will be a lot more vibrant though with the F2 and F3. During the day I want a picture that pops for games and tv. The dnp 08-85 requires a ton of lumens to get a very bright poppy image with lights on and even then the whites will still seem dull compared to high gain screens. I could go on about the differences, but I'm doing my own screen comparisons Wednesday and will post more thoughts about it then.


----------



## thrang

Ximori said:


> I can see now why Michael was reluctant in sending out these samples - it's not easy evaluating them. I remember him clearly warning me to make sure to view it the proper way that you'd view an angular-reflective screen. There's only so much you can get out of these tiny samples, such as - color, texture, brightness, and wide-viewing angles. Unfortunately, I don't think it'll accurately help in determining the presence of hot-spotting, uniformed brightness, or even color temperature.
> 
> Anyhow, for this sample I noticed this oil slick is visible only with certain vertical viewing angles, especially when the projector is not at its ideal position. So if you position your projector the way you would on a retro-reflective screen, then the artifact becomes more apparent on overly bright areas. I think you need to follow the diagram that was earlier posted in order to mitigate this. Also, with low apl scenes, it becomes a none issue.
> However keep in mind that this is a F2 material, and not the more recommended F3 for hometheater use, as that one has less of that issue.
> To be honest, I need a much bigger screen than this.


I received two samples from Michael, who was very nice and helpful via email and on the phone.

I wanted larger samples, and was willing to pay, but that doesn't seem possible. As I suspected, the samples are too small to get a proper feel on how the material performs...in a darkened room, from my seated position, the F2 was darker than my 1.3 Affinity screen, an appeared to sparkle a fair amount. The F3 was brighter than the Affinity, but it didn't seem even twice as bright. There was less sparkle than the F3, but some sense of he screen presence (sheen?) vs the Affinity. Whites on the Affinity seems milky white, whites on the F3 seemed slightly "digitized" if that's a fair way to describe it. 

Still, I'm very open to exploring this material further but would need a larger sample or a demo site for the price to better assess the overall quality.

My projector (VPL-VW1100) lens is 17.25 feet from the screen, 6.25 off the floor. Lens is centered on the upper third of my screen, viewer eyeline is centered on the bottom quarter of the screen


----------



## Dominic Chan

thrang said:


> As I suspected, the samples are too small to get a proper feel on how the material performs...in a darkened room, from my seated position, the F2 was darker than my 1.3 Affinity screen, an appeared to sparkle a fair amount. The F3 was brighter than the Affinity, but it didn't seem even twice as bright. There was less sparkle than the F3, but some sense of he screen presence (sheen?) vs the Affinity.


How far is the viewing position from the screen? Where on the screen were the samples placed?
Thanks.


----------



## thrang

Dominic Chan said:


> How far is the viewing position from the screen? Where on the screen were the samples placed?
> Thanks.


Eyeballs 14 feet from screen

Samples were mounted at the eyeline (1/4 from screen bottom)

My build thread has several photos in the first post which should help show the general layout...


----------



## Dominic Chan

thrang said:


> Eyeballs 14 feet from screen
> 
> Samples were mounted at the eyeline (1/4 from screen bottom)


That most likely is not the optimal height for gain, as the projector is located higher up.


----------



## thrang

Well honestly when I had the samples mounted at midline and looked at it standing up (very near the lens line), there was no appreciable difference...


----------



## thrang

Dominic Chan said:


> That most likely is not the optimal height for gain, as the projector is located higher up.


Actually, maybe I missed the definitive answer, but is the F3 and angular or retro reflective screen? If retro, my projector could be lower, but not by much as the light cone would hit the back of heads. When I had the High Power 2.8 and 2.4 with this projector position, they were certainly brighter than the F3. But I did not like the uneven grain those screens showed.

If it is angular reflective, it could be higher a bit, but my standing test very near the horizontal light emission angle showed there was not any appreciable change. Anyway, there has to be high uniformity on the overall screen so reflection angles will also vary greatly. If it benefits from a higher angle, I suppose I can sit on the floor temporarily to increase the angle from lens to eyes and see if the samples appear different. That would tell me is a higher projector position would be beneficial.

However, it is possible such small samples, especially against an existing screen, is making it tough for the eyes and brains to discern what is going on...


----------



## thezaks

thrang said:


> I received two samples from Michael, who was very nice and helpful via email and on the phone.
> 
> I wanted larger samples, and was willing to pay, but that doesn't seem possible. As I suspected, the samples are too small to get a proper feel on how the material performs...in a darkened room, from my seated position, the F2 was darker than my 1.3 Affinity screen, an appeared to sparkle a fair amount. The F3 was brighter than the Affinity, but it didn't seem even twice as bright. There was less sparkle than the F3, but some sense of he screen presence (sheen?) vs the Affinity. Whites on the Affinity seems milky white, whites on the F3 seemed slightly "digitized" if that's a fair way to describe it.
> 
> Still, I'm very open to exploring this material further but would need a larger sample or a demo site for the price to better assess the overall quality.
> 
> My projector (VPL-VW1100) lens is 17.25 feet from the screen, 6.25 off the floor. Lens is centered on the upper third of my screen, viewer eyeline is centered on the bottom quarter of the screen


Hi thrang,

Good to see you here! I also was willing to pay for larger samples, but nothing came of it. I know that Mike Garrett (AV Science sales) was able to get 44" samples, which is a much better size than the samples that were sent out.

Just curious - with your JKP Affinity 1.3 screen, what are you lacking or wanting to get in another screen?


Thanks,
Dave


----------



## thrang

thezaks said:


> Hi thrang,
> 
> Good to see you here! I also was willing to pay for larger samples, but nothing came of it. I know that Mike Garrett (AV Science sales) was able to get 44" samples, which is a much better size than the samples that were sent out.
> 
> Just curious - with your JKP Affinity 1.3 screen, what are you lacking or wanting to get in another screen?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Dave


So is AVS Science sending/selling the larger sample upon inquiry?

The Affinity is a great screen, but the next advances in screen technology is something I'm hoping is forthcoming...its been a somewhat stagnant area of our hobby. I wouldn't mind a brighter screen without sheen or visible grain if possible, so I'm sniffing around here...


----------



## thezaks

thrang said:


> So is AVS Science sending/selling the larger sample upon inquiry?
> 
> The Affinity is a great screen, but the next advances in screen technology is something I'm hoping is forthcoming...its been a somewhat stagnant area of our hobby. I wouldn't mind a brighter screen without sheen or visible grain if possible, so I'm sniffing around here...


I received my samples from Mike Garrett - he's also posted in this thread and provided his comparison to many other screens (post #213 ). You could probably give him a call at 585-671-2968 - he's a great guy to talk to, since he's had a lot of experience with many screen materials. Who knows, he might be able to get you a larger sample. Let us know how it goes and what you find out...

Thanks,
Dave


----------



## noah katz

Ximori said:


> While you're absolutely correct that it's not a fair comparison, would you consider it fair then if I had shown that same photo but under some degree of ambient lighting that would've put it in DNP's favor this time?


I wish I hadn't used a loaded word like "fair"; "utility" would have been more useful.

So that comparison wasn't a useful one for comparing color; the alternative you suggest would certainly be more so for light rejection.


----------



## thezaks

Ximori said:


> Correct, but an improved 1.8 I saw recently looked more impressive than the 3.0 he previously had shown me. Over there, he played the movie Troy and I was just glued to the screen and forgot all what he told me. Sorry Michael, I'll have to bug you again to clarify which of these is the better screen for hometheater.


Hi Ximori,

So, is the improved 1.8 material the same as the F2 material? Do you still feel that it is a lot better than the 3.0 material? I'm still deciding on F2 vs F3 materials. I want to use a flat panel for day time, but at night, I'd like to use one of these two materials in a motorized application for evening (no side light) applications with recessed can lights, as well as dark room. My room has a white ceiling and tan walls.

Thanks,
Dave


----------



## thezaks

Ximori said:


> Yes.
> 
> The 3.0 is 65% rejection. With low ambient lighting and a bright pj, I think it exhibits images nicely, especially in *high APL content*. It's also quite ideal in dark-theater rooms and can help low lumen pjs as noted earlier.


How does the 3.0 do, in a dark room, with low APL content?

Thanks,
Dave


----------



## thezaks

Ximori said:


> When I asked Michael that he said it was a hybrid laser one. I took a glance and noticed the name Crestron...anyone familiar with that?
> 
> On the other wall, he had a Sony 4K projector with a F2 motorized screen around 110".


I wonder if the F2 looks better to you, because it has a better projector on it? 

Dave


----------



## thezaks

thrang said:


> F3:
> 
> This is straight on, sitting on the floor to increase the vertical angle:
> .
> .
> .
> This is from my rightmost seat!
> .
> .
> .
> The effect is less in both directions. To my eye, the direct view is a bit brighter than above, while the fourth seat view is even darker.
> 
> (note: the screen its against is the Affinity 1.3)
> 
> Worth checking is the sample has an orientation...


I didn't see that kind of darkening at all with my sample. However, each of my two samples had an arrow sticker on the back of them, and the orientation was landscape, not portrait as you have yours. Are you sure you have it the correct way?

Dave


----------



## thrang

thezaks said:


> I didn't see that kind of darkening at all with my sample. However, each of my two samples had an arrow sticker on the back of them, and the orientation was landscape, not portrait as you have yours. Are you sure you have it the correct way?
> 
> Dave












Didn't see the arrow, and yes, as you said and I had begun to suspect, there was an orientation issue...so testing now, and will repost samples shortly...


----------



## thezaks

thrang said:


> Didn't see the arrow, and yes, as you said and I had begun to suspect, there was an orientation issue...so testing now, and will repost samples shortly...


Looking forward to your thoughts thrang!

Dave


----------



## thrang

So, getting the orientation correct (ahem) - F3 sample:

Center, seated



























One from the rightmost seat:










Ironically, now the wide position appears brighter than the center, though center is clearly brighter than my earlier sideways attempt...

So much better than before...


----------



## ch1sox

I was just about to say you had the orientation wrong. Perhaps delete it so people don't get confused with this being a newer material? The arrow on the back of the sample needs to be pointing up. The side seat probably seems brighter because I'm guessing your current screen doesn't have as wide a viewing angle as the F3.

Edit: someone beat me to it.


----------



## thrang

ch1sox said:


> I was just about to say you had the orientation wrong. Perhaps delete it so people don't get confused with this being a newer material? The arrow on the back of the sample needs to be pointing up. The side seat probably seems brighter because I'm guessing your current screen doesn't have as wide a viewing angle as the F3.
> 
> Edit: someone beat me to it.


Yes, me!


----------



## millerwill

Very interesting, thrang. So how does the picture quality compare to that of your JPK1.3 (which is very good). Also, any thoughts about how the microlite3 compares to an HP2.4 (though I realize it's been some time since you had this)?

Also, it looks like the 'retro-reflective' location of the viewer still showed very good results; is this correct?


----------



## thrang

millerwill said:


> Very interesting, thrang. So how does the picture quality compare to that of your JPK1.3 (which is very good). Also, any thoughts about how the microlite3 compares to an HP2.4 (though I realize it's been some time since you had this)?
> 
> Also, it looks like the 'retro-reflective' location of the viewer still showed very good results; is this correct?


Good questions, but hard to answer with such a small sample.

Right now, my Sony and Lumagen are calibrated for the Affinity 1.3, which, according the Jeff Meier in his screen report, is not ideal in terms of color accuracy. So the current calibration does not necessarily work with the Microlite sample.

Its also impossible to tell hot spotting with such a sample. When I correctly oriented the sample, I'd say the sparkle was no worse, perhaps slightly better, than the Affinity.

Yes, there was benefit with my setup, which is probably between a retro and angular mounting. I could probably raise the projector another 3 or four inches on the current mount, but there is a sconce behind the projector there that prevents anything further up, or I'd have to lose the sconce...


----------



## millerwill

OK, thanks; sounds like something to keep an eye on. I'm quite happy with my HP2.4, but always interested in what might be better, but still of quite high gain since my screen is 12 ft wide (in 2.35 config; 11.3 wide in 16x9). 

Also interesting to hear about the throw distance, etc. My sony1100 pj is at its closest throw ratio (1.25), i.e., lens is ~ 15 ft from the 12ft wide screen; this is dictated by my room. (I sit ~ 11 ft away; I like it BIG!). And the pj projects just over my head, i.e., optimally configured for the HP screen. 

It sounds like the gain of the F3 is even higher than that of the HP 2.4. If it's picture quality is even better, that might make it worth the hassle to change screens.


----------



## Ximori

thrang said:


> I received two samples from Michael, who was very nice and helpful via email and on the phone.
> 
> I wanted larger samples, and was willing to pay, but that doesn't seem possible. As I suspected, the samples are too small to get a proper feel on how the material performs...in a darkened room, from my seated position, the F2 was darker than my 1.3 Affinity screen, an appeared to sparkle a fair amount. The F3 was brighter than the Affinity, but it didn't seem even twice as bright. There was less sparkle than the F3, but some sense of he screen presence (sheen?) vs the Affinity. Whites on the Affinity seems milky white, whites on the F3 seemed slightly "digitized" if that's a fair way to describe it.
> 
> Still, I'm very open to exploring this material further but would need a larger sample or a demo site for the price to better assess the overall quality.
> 
> My projector (VPL-VW1100) lens is 17.25 feet from the screen, 6.25 off the floor. Lens is centered on the upper third of my screen, viewer eyeline is centered on the bottom quarter of the screen


Your setup is almost similar to Michael's. He said his projector, which I believe was positioned at the same upper third level of your screen, wasn’t in an ideal position as it needed to be higher and leveled with the top screen frame. It was on a shelf which couldn’t be placed any higher due to stability issues. 

The F3 is angular-reflective type and definitely the material of choice for hometheater use. During my first visit, he had a 110” F3 fixed frame with a Sony projector throwing around 1400 lumens. My immediate reaction of the 4K demos on his screen was very positive in terms of the uniform brightness across the entire image. I also tried to look for sparkles and sheens as we sat roughly 12 ft. away. There were none of that, until I mentioned to him a very faint pearlescent effect. It was subtle but not distracting compared to other ALR gray materials. He said that it could sometimes be a flaw in their manufacturing process. 

Now with the sample F2 I had on hand, upon close examination revealed the same sparkle you described. But it was only evident when the projector was in a retro-reflective position…around 3 ft. away. I was on the side viewing this. When I lowered my head or slightly tilted the screen vertically they seemed to have disappeared, surprisingly matching the smoothness of the DNP material in appearance. 

It made me wonder if any of these visible artifact can be mitigated by changing your vertical viewing angle because it seemed to have worked earlier. But I haven’t explored any further to determine at what expense will it affect other attributes, e.g. sharpness, coz it's such a small sample.


----------



## Ximori

thezaks said:


> Hi Ximori,
> 
> So, is the improved 1.8 material the same as the F2 material? Do you still feel that it is a lot better than the 3.0 material? I'm still deciding on F2 vs F3 materials. I want to use a flat panel for day time, but at night, I'd like to use one of these two materials in a motorized application for evening (no side light) applications with recessed can lights, as well as dark room. My room has a white ceiling and tan walls.
> 
> Thanks,
> Dave


Hi Dave - clearly the F3 because it’s more color accurate and ISF certified. The higher gain will benefit you more in the coming years ahead. 

It's also Mike and Michael's choice, if that helps  Oh and I've changed my mind and went with the F3 as well.


----------



## Ximori

thezaks said:


> How does the 3.0 do, in a dark room, with low APL content?
> 
> Thanks,
> Dave





thezaks said:


> I wonder if the F2 looks better to you, because it has a better projector on it?
> 
> Dave


Btw, the 1.8 and F2 are the same but the problem with this material is you might see more of that visible artifact if that'll be of any concern. With my earlier comment of it being better, it was probably because of both the Sony and 4K demo material that was played at that moment.

In a dark room with low apl scenes if elevated blacks bother you due to the higher gain or brightness you can always use a ND filter(?) to get a better perception of the contrast as this will lower everything down. 
Maybe consider a higher on/off CR projector like the JVC for such screen because it provides you now with better dynamic range to appreciate both ends of the floor. Moreover, with a good ansi cr measurement off of that F2 screen that was reviewed by Bill in projector central - if that same holds true with the F3 then the JVC/F3 combo should all the more complement each other because JVC hasn't scored quite well in that department and this screen will help retain the image pop better than any other screens. Just a thought.


----------



## thezaks

Ximori said:


> Btw, the 1.8 and F2 are the same but the problem with this material is you might see more of that visible artifact if that'll be of any concern. With my earlier comment of it being better, it was probably because of both the Sony and 4K demo material that was played at that moment.
> 
> In a dark room with low apl scenes if elevated blacks bother you due to the higher gain or brightness you can always use a ND filter(?) to get a better perception of the contrast as this will lower everything down.
> Maybe consider a higher on/off CR projector like the JVC for such screen because it provides you now with better dynamic range to appreciate both ends of the floor. Moreover, with a good ansi cr measurement off of that F2 screen that was reviewed by Bill in projector central - if that same holds true with the F3 then the JVC/F3 combo should all the more complement each other because JVC hasn't scored quite well in that department and this screen will help retain the image pop better than any other screens. Just a thought.


Yes, if I had to get a projector now to go with the F3, it would be the JVC X500 or the Sony HW55. However, new projectors may be arriving in the next couple of months...

Dave


----------



## Qualunquemente

thrang said:


> So, getting the orientation correct (ahem) - F3 sample:
> 
> Center, seated
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One from the rightmost seat:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ironically, now the wide position appears brighter than the center, though center is clearly brighter than my earlier sideways attempt...
> 
> So much better than before...


Is the main screen the jkp 1.3 ?


----------



## thrang

Qualunquemente said:


> Is the main screen the jkp 1.3 ?


yes


----------



## Qualunquemente

thrang said:


> yes


I was just about to get one myself !
Now I really want this Microlite 3.0 instead


----------



## Qualunquemente

Qualunquemente said:


> I was just about to get one myself !
> Now I really want this Microlite 3.0 instead


Just browsed the microlite site and I'm a bit confused: the f3 model is the 3.3 gain model (the red line) ?










Can I buy this from Italy ?


----------



## ch1sox

Qualunquemente said:


> Just browsed the microlite site and I'm a bit confused: the f3 model is the 3.3 gain model (the red line) ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can I buy this from Italy ?


What are you confused about? I'm not sure if AVS ships to Italy, but I'm sure @Mike Garrett could tell you. If they can't, you can contact Michael at Microlite.


----------



## Qualunquemente

ch1sox said:


> What are you confused about? I'm not sure if AVS ships to Italy, but I'm sure @Mike Garrett could tell you. If they can't, you can contact Michael at Microlite.


Please forgive my poor english: I was demanding if the red line represent the F3 model.


----------



## ch1sox

Qualunquemente said:


> Please forgive my poor english: I was demanding if the red line represent the F3 model.


Yes the F3 is the red line.


----------



## blee0120

thrang said:


> Good questions, but hard to answer with such a small sample.
> 
> Right now, my Sony and Lumagen are calibrated for the Affinity 1.3, which, according the Jeff Meier in his screen report, is not ideal in terms of color accuracy. So the current calibration does not necessarily work with the Microlite sample.
> 
> Its also impossible to tell hot spotting with such a sample. When I correctly oriented the sample, I'd say the sparkle was no worse, perhaps slightly better, than the Affinity.
> 
> Yes, there was benefit with my setup, which is probably between a retro and angular mounting. I could probably raise the projector another 3 or four inches on the current mount, but there is a sconce behind the projector there that prevents anything further up, or I'd have to lose the sconce...


If a projector is ceiling mounted, do you think the F3 would take a huge hit like a HP screen?


----------



## thrang

blee0120 said:


> If a projector is ceiling mounted, do you think the F3 would take a huge hit like a HP screen?


Well no, higher up the better it seems for the angular reflective benefits...


----------



## blee0120

thrang said:


> Well no, higher up the better it seems for the angular reflective benefits...


Sounds great. I need to order a sample. I'm using a HP2.4 screen now. Would love to mount dual projectors with 2 rows of seating


----------



## Qualunquemente

Talking about sparkling, how do F2 and F3 permorm in that regard ? I had a Black Diamond wich I hated for that reason.


----------



## ch1sox

millerwill said:


> If you are able to make any comparative evaluations compared to Dalite HP screens, that would be most illuminating (no pun intended).
> 
> PS I would be most interested in the image quality under fully light-controlled conditions (e.g. bat cave) rather than how they deal with ambient light.


I meant to post Wednesday, but got a bit busy...unfortunately I haven't seen the Dalite screens. I have seen a lot of other samples though. With that said, I'm planning on getting a F3 this October unless my plans change. 


I first used my angle finder to match the angle from the viewer's eye to the screen and screen to the projector.










I then attached lots of samples with tape that wouldn't leave any leftover marks. From top left (SI Slate, Microlite F3, Microlite F2, SI BD 1.4, Seymour Matinee Black, DNP 23-23, StudioTek 130). From bottom left (Elite PolarStar, DNP 08-85, Stewart Firehawk G4, Seymour Matinee Silver, SI Pure, Elite DarkStar 1.4, Elite DarkStar 9).










Edit: Lumens set to ~800 on projector.

I then spent a lot of time looking at the samples from various distances and angles. I basically want a screen that is bright and vibrant for games and tv during the day as well as movies with lights off. A wide viewing angle is also preferred, but not a deal breaker unless it's an extremely small viewing cone. The majority of the samples are ambient light rejecting screens, but I also wanted to put up a sample of the StudioTek 130 and SI Pure White to see how the F2 and F3 compared during night viewing. The F3 is brighter than the F2 which is to be expected with the higher gain. 

Night viewing: I felt the F3 looked like a brighter, more vibrant SudioTek 130. For those that have seen the StudioTek 130, it's an awesome screen. I'm guessing this is because if you look at the samples, most of them are fairly dark. The F3 is actually a lot lighter than the rest of the samples which is maybe why it looks like a brighter StudioTek 130. What I'm trying to say is that of the samples I had, the F3 looked closer to the StudioTek than the other samples. Like I said, this is probably because the other samples are mostly a darker shade. 

Daytime viewing: The F3 looked similar to the DNP 23-23 material. Both are bright with wide viewing angles. The black levels during the day weren't as dark as some of the other screens, but I think that's to be expected being it's a lighter material compared to the others. The trade off is you get a very bright picture which is what I personally want for gaming/tv daytime viewing. Based on one's lighting though I suppose the F2 might be better as it has higher ambient light rejecting capabilities.

Screen artifacts: This one is tricky as a lot of people say many ambient light rejection screens have sparkles or shimmering, but the trade off is you get ambient light rejecting technology. Some of the samples shown in the picture had a lot more shimmer than the others. I tested "shimmer" on multiple full screen colors as this is usually the easiest way to see it (red, green, blue cyan, magenta, yellow, black and white). I used this video: 




Beyond a 10-10 1/2 ft viewing distance it was _incredibly_ difficult to notice any shimmer on the F3. If there was, it was very minor. I went back and forth several times between the other samples and the F3 to make sure what I was seeing was correct. It's a night and day difference compared to many of the other samples. I looked at some of the other samples and could immediately see a shimmer and then go right back to the F3 and not see much of any shimmer. Now, this is a small sample so I have no idea how this would look on a full 133" screen, but I'm willing to roll the dice this October based on the sample. I'm doing a bit of a basement remodel around October so I'll be making a purchase when we get a bit closer to October.

Edit: I just want to make sure everyone understands that just because I liked the F3 and F2, you need to make sure whatever screen you get works for your viewing environment. We all have different needs and setups such as your projector lumens, throw distance, location of ambient light in your room, how much ambient light, whether you watch movies with lights on or off, tv viewing, etc. So just because a screen works in one environment, you'll want to make sure it works for your setup.


----------



## blee0120

Thanks ch1sox. I'm almost sold on the F3


----------



## Qualunquemente

ch1sox said:


> Beyond a 10-10 1/2 ft viewing distance it was _incredibly_ difficult to notice any shimmer on the F3.


Thankyou very much ch1sox.
I would watch mine from only 7' distance: could you please tell me if shimmers from this distance is much evident/distracting ?

I'm interested in the 100" 2.35:1 F3 screen listed on the website but I didn't understand if 100" is the viewing area or the overall dimension with the frame. Does anyone know ?


----------



## Dominic Chan

ch1sox said:


> I then attached lots of samples with tape that wouldn't leave any leftover marks. From top left (SI Slate, Microlite F3, Microlite F2, SI BD 1.4, Seymour Matinee Black, DNP 23-23, StudioTek 130). From bottom left (Elite PolarStar, DNP 08-85, Stewart Firehawk G4, Seymour Matinee Silver, SI Pure, Elite DarkStar 1.4, Elite DarkStar 9).


Thanks for posting the comparison. What is the source of the illumination for the image Samples.jpg? It seems to be from something on the right, rather than from the projector itself.


----------



## loggeo

How did the microlite F2 performed then? Somehow I find the F3 gain to much for my taste.


----------



## thezaks

OK, prospective first time projector/screen owner here (although I'm in charge of the ones at our office), and so far, I like the idea of the F3 from Microlite. However, for night time viewing, how do you dim the projector enough to get decent blacks? I know there was the mention of using the JVC. Low lamp obviously. Is there something you can do with the iris do help dim the picture as well? 

Thanks,
Dave


----------



## Ximori

ch1sox said:


> I meant to post Wednesday, but got a bit busy...unfortunately I haven't seen the Dalite screens. I have seen a lot of other samples though. With that said, I'm planning on getting a F3 this October unless my plans change.
> 
> 
> I first used my angle finder to match the angle from the viewer's eye to the screen and screen to the projector.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I then attached lots of samples with tape that wouldn't leave any leftover marks. From top left (SI Slate, Microlite F3, Microlite F2, SI BD 1.4, Seymour Matinee Black, DNP 23-23, StudioTek 130). From bottom left (Elite PolarStar, DNP 08-85, Stewart Firehawk G4, Seymour Matinee Silver, SI Pure, Elite DarkStar 1.4, Elite DarkStar 9).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I then spent a lot of time looking at the samples from various distances and angles. I basically want a screen that is bright and vibrant for games and tv during the day as well as movies with lights off. A wide viewing angle is also preferred, but not a deal breaker unless it's an extremely small viewing cone. The majority of the samples are ambient light rejecting screens, but I also wanted to put up a sample of the StudioTek 130 and SI Pure White to see how the F2 and F3 compared during night viewing. The F3 is brighter than the F2 which is to be expected with the higher gain.


 
Nice work, ch1sox. Are you going to narrow them down to half, at least, as you further evaluate them? It would be much easier to come down to a decision, I presume.
Reminded me of Tryg. Would be nice to have him back and look at this material coz I think he'll prefer the F3 over his HighPower. On a side note, I've asked Michael to contact UMR (Jeff Meier) or Darinp to get a more in-depth evaluation of his screen materials.


----------



## Ximori

ch1sox said:


> Night viewing: I felt the F3 looked like a brighter, more vibrant SudioTek 130. For those that have seen the StudioTek 130, it's an awesome screen. I'm guessing this is because if you look at the samples, most of them are fairly dark. The F3 is actually a lot lighter than the rest of the samples which is maybe why it looks like a brighter StudioTek 130.


Not only that, as Michael noted - optical screens don't add any coating to their material so color isn't altered and will look as rich and more vibrant with the gain advantage.
I've never seen a Studiotek 130 but read it's an excellent screen. 



ch1sox said:


> Daytime viewing: The F3 looked similar to the DNP 23-23 material. Both are bright with wide viewing angles. The black levels during the day weren't as dark as some of the other screens, but I think that's to be expected being it's a lighter material compared to the others. The trade off is you get a very bright picture which is what I personally want for gaming/tv daytime viewing. Based on one's lighting though I suppose the F2 might be better as it has higher ambient light rejecting capabilities.


Unfortunately, there's not a single screen that can have both but the F3 comes close to it. Are you bothered more by dimmer whites or milky blacks...and is it more in a dark room or ambient lighting? If you narrow your screen choices down to, let's say, between a F3 and DNP (or F2) your answer might lead to either one particular screen or back to the fence. Your projector and room setup plays a huger role.



ch1sox said:


> Screen artifacts: This one is tricky as a lot of people say many ambient light rejection screens have sparkles or shimmering, but the trade off is you get ambient light rejecting technology. Some of the samples shown in the picture had a lot more shimmer than the others. I tested "shimmer" on multiple full screen colors as this is usually the easiest way to see it (red, green, blue cyan, magenta, yellow, black and white). I used this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeQuelXsUYA
> 
> Beyond a 10-10 1/2 ft viewing distance it was _incredibly_ difficult to notice any shimmer on the F3. If there was, it was very minor. I went back and forth several times between the other samples and the F3 to make sure what I was seeing was correct. It's a night and day difference compared to many of the other samples. I looked at some of the other samples and could immediately see a shimmer and then go right back to the F3 and not see much of any shimmer. Now, this is a small sample so I have no idea how this would look on a full 133" screen, but I'm willing to roll the dice this October based on the sample. I'm doing a bit of a basement remodel around October so I'll be making a purchase when we get a bit closer to October.


My thoughts exactly. This is why it's important to see the actual whole screen because you may not be distracted at all. I think the only minor issue, as far as texture goes, might be that oily effect and not any of the shimmering or sparkle. I don't believe it's the elephant in the room if you just look at the bigger picture...its pros will outweigh its cons by 6-2 of something


----------



## Ximori

thezaks said:


> OK, prospective first time projector/screen owner here (although I'm in charge of the ones at our office), and so far, I like the idea of the F3 from Microlite. However, for night time viewing, how do you dim the projector enough to get decent blacks? I know there was the mention of using the JVC. Low lamp obviously. Is there something you can do with the iris do help dim the picture as well?
> 
> Thanks,
> Dave


I wish I could help you on that but I only have a JVC-RS1 which doesn't have the iris adjustment capability. I should be due for an upgrade very soon.


----------



## ch1sox

Dominic Chan said:


> Thanks for posting the comparison. What is the source of the illumination for the image Samples.jpg? It seems to be from something on the right, rather than from the projector itself.


The light coming from the right was just a basement ceiling light.



Qualunquemente said:


> Thankyou very much ch1sox.
> I would watch mine from only 7' distance: could you please tell me if shimmers from this distance is much evident/distracting ?
> 
> I'm interested in the 100" 2.35:1 F3 screen listed on the website but I didn't understand if 100" is the viewing area or the overall dimension with the frame. Does anyone know ?


I'll have to check again later tonight to see what it looks like from 7 feet. 100" would most likely be the diagonal length of the screen.



loggeo said:


> How did the microlite F2 performed then? Somehow I find the F3 gain to much for my taste.


You could always turn brightness down I suppose. To be honest I spent more time on the F3 since I liked it more. I'll probably go back and look at the F2 some more when I have some time off.



thezaks said:


> OK, prospective first time projector/screen owner here (although I'm in charge of the ones at our office), and so far, I like the idea of the F3 from Microlite. However, for night time viewing, how do you dim the projector enough to get decent blacks? I know there was the mention of using the JVC. Low lamp obviously. Is there something you can do with the iris do help dim the picture as well?
> 
> Thanks,
> Dave


Getting darker blacks might be dependent on the projector. I'm sure someone here can speak more on that. Most people in bat caves are using white screens so I'm sure they must be doing something to get darker blacks. When all the lights are off my guess is one wouldn't even notice unless you literally had one screen next to another. 



Ximori said:


> Nice work, ch1sox. Are you going to narrow them down to half, at least, as you further evaluate them? It would be much easier to come down to a decision, I presume.
> Reminded me of Tryg. Would be nice to have him back and look at this material coz I think he'll prefer the F3 over his HighPower. On a side note, I've asked Michael to contact Jeff Meier of Darinp to get a more in-depth evaluation of his screen materials.


I've already decided on the F3 for now unless my basement plans change. Some of the other screens had way too much of a shimmer/sparkle and small viewing cone for me to consider them. A lot of the other samples also had a dark shade which caused the picture to have a dark tint.


----------



## millerwill

Ximori said:


> Nice work, ch1sox. Are you going to narrow them down to half, at least, as you further evaluate them? It would be much easier to come down to a decision, I presume.
> Reminded me of Tryg. Would be nice to have him back and look at this material coz I think he'll prefer the F3 over his HighPower. On a side note, I've asked Michael to contact Jeff Meier of Darinp to get a more in-depth evaluation of his screen materials.


Yes, it would indeed be nice to hear from Tryg on this (if he's still around). I think DarinP also uses a HP screen and is very high on them, so it would certainly be useful if he were able to see the Microlite F3 and evaluate it in comparison,


----------



## Dominic Chan

ch1sox said:


> The side light is a light in the basement. This picture shows it better. FYI the screen shown is my current screen, a Draper XS850E.


I believe that picture demonstrates the ambient light rejection capability, but not the gain. For the latter, it's best to have a plain white image projected on the samples.


----------



## ch1sox

Dominic Chan said:


> I believe that picture demonstrates the ambient light rejection capability, but not the gain. For the latter, it's best to have a plain white image projected on the samples.


You had asked what the stray of light was so I was letting you know it was just a basement light I had on. The picture with all the samples was just to show what samples I had. I did use a plain white image as well which was shown in the YouTube video I posted.


----------



## blee0120

thezaks said:


> OK, prospective first time projector/screen owner here (although I'm in charge of the ones at our office), and so far, I like the idea of the F3 from Microlite. However, for night time viewing, how do you dim the projector enough to get decent blacks? I know there was the mention of using the JVC. Low lamp obviously. Is there something you can do with the iris do help dim the picture as well?
> 
> Thanks,
> Dave


With a jvc projector, the iris goes from -15 to 0. So, on low lamp you get around 250 lumens at -15 to 700 lumens at 0. So, you can cut the brightness by a good amount.


----------



## Sam Ash

The F3 sounds good but I'm still waiting for someone to conduct proper full screen evaluations because the human eye is extremely adaptive and it can get rather difficult to make evaluations. However, thank you so much to those individuals who have initiated a comparison to provide initial insight. There are a few things that I am sensitive to and appreciate when they are in effect:-

1. Image sharpness - this is dependant mostly on the projection technology being used and good glass.
2. Colour accuracy - This is important to me.
3. Highlight detail - Subtle details in very light areas of the image should not blow-out to white (0% tone) unless it's intentional.
4. Shadow detail - Subtle detail in very dark areas of an image should not be crushed to black (100% tone) unless it's intentional.

I notice the F3 is being recommended for home theatre use but does it not become too bright for night time viewing when there is absolutely no natural ambient light in a room apart from the typical LED down-lighters in modern homes ? In such situations are white levels retained to sensible levels to avoid the subtle details from being blown out of highlights or white areas ? In this respect, is the F2 better for night time viewing ? During daytime with the presence of natural ambient light, are the black levels retained to preserve image fidelity in terms of decent contrasts ?

Based on member experiences here, the F3 seems to be a very good screen and I like the fact that it provides a bright colour accurate image. I'm just trying to figure out how the screen performs at night in reduced ambient light conditions. The use of a neutral density filter makes sense but it works in a linear fashion which means highlights, mid-tones and shadow areas would be darkened with the use of an ND filter. An adjustable iris would make sense but I wonder how that would turn out in real world tests. JVC projectors are very good for their amazing black-levels and cinematic image but I'm not sure how it would perform in a daytime indoor ambient-lit environment with it's approximately 700 lumens spec, can someone with a JVC PJ try this and report their findings ? In a bat cave the JVC is awesome although I personally prefer single chip DLP engines as opposed to LCOS engines for their image-pop and sharpness. I think saying the F3 is better for home theatre can be a bit misleading because to some the term "home-theatre" is associated with dedicated rooms that are completely dark and often have white screens in them. I think what people mean to say is that the F3 can provide close to home theatre like image quality in typical indoor ambient light environments.

I like what I'm reading about the F3 but need some of these issues clarified.


----------



## Dominic Chan

Sam Ash said:


> 1. Image sharpness - this is dependant mostly on the projection technology being used and good glass.
> 2. Colour accuracy - This is important to me.
> 3. Highlight detail - Subtle details in very light areas of the image should not blow-out to white (0% tone) unless it's intentional.
> 4. Shadow detail - Subtle detail in very dark areas of an image should not be crushed to black (100% tone) unless it's intentional.


These are all important attributes to a quality image, but are predominantly limited by the projector rather than the screen. For colour accuracy, minor screen tints can be "calibrated out".



> I notice the F3 is being recommended for home theatre use but does it not become too bright for night time viewing when there is absolutely no natural ambient light in a room apart from the typical LED down-lighters in modern homes?


Assuming you have a projector with manual iris control, that should not be a problem.


----------



## Dominic Chan

ch1sox said:


> You had asked what the stray of light was so I was letting you know it was just a basement light I had on. The picture with all the samples was just to show what samples I had. I did use a plain white image as well which was shown in the YouTube video I posted.


I was asking because I was not (and still not) able to find to the comparison video.
Which post # is it? Thanks.


----------



## Mike Garrett

Qualunquemente said:


> Thankyou very much ch1sox.
> I would watch mine from only 7' distance: could you please tell me if shimmers from this distance is much evident/distracting ?
> 
> I'm interested in the 100" 2.35:1 F3 screen listed on the website but I didn't understand if 100" is the viewing area or the overall dimension with the frame. Does anyone know ?


100" means diagonal viewing area.


----------



## Mike Garrett

thezaks said:


> OK, prospective first time projector/screen owner here (although I'm in charge of the ones at our office), and so far, I like the idea of the F3 from Microlite. However, for night time viewing, how do you dim the projector enough to get decent blacks? I know there was the mention of using the JVC. Low lamp obviously. Is there something you can do with the iris do help dim the picture as well?
> 
> Thanks,
> Dave


This is where projectors like the JVC shine. Along with a dynamic iris, they have an adjustable iris, that is used to control light output. So in low lamp you have 15 settings and the same for high lamp. You will be able to have a huge range in the light output, so reducing the light output for nighttime use is not a problem.


----------



## thezaks

Mike Garrett said:


> This is where projectors like the JVC shine. Along with a dynamic iris, they have an adjustable iris, that is used to control light output. So in low lamp you have 15 settings and the same for high lamp. You will be able to have a huge range in the light output, so reducing the light output for nighttime use is not a problem.


Thanks Mike! 

Dave


----------



## thezaks

Mike Garrett said:


> This is where projectors like the JVC shine. Along with a dynamic iris, they have an adjustable iris, that is used to control light output. So in low lamp you have 15 settings and the same for high lamp. You will be able to have a huge range in the light output, so reducing the light output for nighttime use is not a problem.


Hi Mike,

Does the Sony HW55 have similar adjustments for an adjustable iris, or is this unique to the JVC?

Thanks,
Dave


----------



## Mike Garrett

thezaks said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> Does the Sony HW55 have similar adjustments for an adjustable iris, or is this unique to the JVC?
> 
> Thanks,
> Dave


No, the Sony does not have the same ability. The Sony has one iris. If set manually, then you no longer have the dynamic iris.


----------



## thezaks

Mike Garrett said:


> No, the Sony does not have the same ability. The Sony has one iris. If set manually, then you no longer have the dynamic iris.


OK then, it sounds like the Microlite F3 and the JVC X500 are the perfect pairing (for now 

Dave


----------



## Sam Ash

Mike Garrett said:


> This is where projectors like the JVC shine. Along with a dynamic iris, they have an adjustable iris, that is used to control light output. So in low lamp you have 15 settings and the same for high lamp. You will be able to have a huge range in the light output, so reducing the light output for nighttime use is not a problem.


Hi Mike,

RE: F3 + JVC Projector

The adjustable iris that controls the light output would certainly solve the night time viewing problem. However, with the iris fully open for max brightness, do the JVC projectors have enough light output for daylight viewing ?

Ay possibility of conducting a test for us Mike ?


----------



## Sam Ash

Dominic Chan said:


> These are all important attributes to a quality image, but are predominantly limited by the projector rather than the screen. For colour accuracy, minor screen tints can be "calibrated out".
> 
> 
> Assuming you have a projector with manual iris control, that should not be a problem.


Thanks Dominic, I have requested Mike to carry out a test for us using the F3 and a JVC projector. If anyone else here has tried this or is able to try it out, please share your findings.


----------



## Sam Ash

> This is where projectors like the JVC shine


Hi Mike I just read your post again and noticed your comment about JVC projectors. The way I perceive this is that you may have already tried out the F3 and JVC combination. Can you please give us more details, especially concerning daylight viewing in typical daylight ambient light environments.


----------



## ch1sox

thezaks said:


> OK then, it sounds like the Microlite F3 and the JVC X500 are the perfect pairing (for now
> 
> Dave


If you want to wait, I'll be the guinea pig here in a couple months. I wish we had more people in California to go check out the screen at their store. As it stands now, we still haven't had many reports of users that have seen it full screen. Sure the sample might look good, but seeing it full screen will answer a lot more questions.


----------



## blee0120

Sam Ash said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> RE: F3 + JVC Projector
> 
> The adjustable iris that controls the light output would certainly solve the night time viewing problem. However, with the iris fully open for max brightness, do the JVC projectors have enough light output for daylight viewing ?
> 
> Ay possibility of conducting a test for us Mike ?


Not sure if it was you who mentioned 100in screen but the JVC has a max calibrated output of 1000 lumens. If 3 gain at 100in, you will have over 100ftL.


----------



## thrang

Here is the F3 on a piece of cardboard, against my JKP 1.3

I'm sure its an optical illusion, but the F3 seems to raise brightness in white more than in black. 










Test pattern from my Lumagen...


----------



## Sam Ash

thrang said:


> Here is the F3 on a piece of cardboard, against my JKP 1.3
> 
> I'm sure its an optical illusion, but the F3 seems to raise brightness in white more than in black.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Test pattern from my Lumagen...


Interesting Thrang, yes it may very well be an illusion but the non-linear approach would be the way to go if technology allowed it.The F3 seems very interesting but a full screen test between day and night time is what I am waiting for, this is presuming that ambient light would still be present at night in the form of light emanated by typical living room ceiling or wall lights. Furthermore, it would be nice to hear from someone who eventually has a JVC/F3 combo. Does anyone know if specific iris settings can be saved as part of a settings profile on the JVC ? Mike could probably answer that.

This raises additional questions, would it be better to use a higher lumens (1500-1,800 lumens) projector with the F2 or a normal lumens (700 - 1000 lumens) projector with the F3 in terms of image fidelity ? The later is the one I find interesting.


----------



## Dominic Chan

thrang said:


> I'm sure its an optical illusion, but the F3 seems to raise brightness in white more than in black.


If you have a digital camera with manual aperture / shutter speed control, you can make some "measurements" to compare the contrast ratio. A colorimeter would be more accurate, but it is hard to measure a small area.


----------



## CoryW

thrang said:


> Here is the F3 on a piece of cardboard, against my JKP 1.3
> 
> I'm sure its an optical illusion, but the F3 seems to raise brightness in white more than in black.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Test pattern from my Lumagen...


Being able to compare the two screens right next to each other and not perceiving an increase in black levels is truly incredible. 

That is very impressive, actual measurements aside.


----------



## noah katz

thrang said:


> Well no, higher up the better it seems for the angular reflective benefits...


No, max gain is when the angle from the pj down to screen center equals the angle from screen center down to eyes.


----------



## Wondercarrot

So just to be clear since earlier in the thread it had been mentioned several times that PJ placement should be at the top of the screen...
That is not accurate? 

If not what is the best way to sort out the angles? I seem to have misplaced my protracter


----------



## Mike Garrett

Sam Ash said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> RE: F3 + JVC Projector
> 
> The adjustable iris that controls the light output would certainly solve the night time viewing problem. However, with the iris fully open for max brightness, do the JVC projectors have enough light output for daylight viewing ?
> 
> Ay possibility of conducting a test for us Mike ?


It depends on the room. I have a family room setup and with the number and size of uncovered windows in this room, it is very hard for any projector/screen combination to work. If I went with an F3.0 and a really high lumen projector, I could get it to work during the day, but then I would have problems at night. Now if you have some way of knocking off some of the incoming light, then it can work. The windows I have in my family room are:

2- 6' x 12.5'
2-2' x 6'
4-3.5' x 3.5'
1-8' x 16'
1- 5' x 7' french door with 15 lites
1-5' x 1' transom above french door. 
Walls are gray, but so lite that they look white. 

A 2.8 gain HP screen does not work in this room during the day. I like the windows, looking out to the woods and the lake, so I am not covering them. Luckily, I have a dedicated room, so that I do not have to cover the windows.


----------



## Mike Garrett

noah katz said:


> No, max gain is when the angle from the pj down to screen center equals the angle from screen center down to eyes.


Correct.


----------



## ch1sox

Wondercarrot said:


> So just to be clear since earlier in the thread it had been mentioned several times that PJ placement should be at the top of the screen...
> That is not accurate?
> 
> If not what is the best way to sort out the angles? I seem to have misplaced my protracter



For angular reflective screens like this you would place it at the top of the screen usually. You could place it lower on a table, but that would depend on your screen location and eye level. I posted more on it here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/23-screens/1267206-microlite-optical-screen-10.html#post36555186


----------



## thezaks

OK, so I take it that you get less gain, when not in perfect alignment. For example:

* 9' ceiling
* 110" diagonal screen
* Lens and screen lined up about 27"-28" from ceiling to center of lens (assuming 24" extension rod for projector mount)
* Bottom of screen is around 27" (give or take) from the floor
* Seating ear height is round 36"-42"

I like the screen position, because it is lower and will be more immersive. However, looks like I will give up some gain because the angle is not optimal. I'd probably need the screen at 36" to get the optimal gain, but then it won't be as immersive.

Does that sound right?

Dave


----------



## Sam Ash

Mike Garrett said:


> It depends on the room. I have a family room setup and with the number and size of uncovered windows in this room, it is very hard for any projector/screen combination to work. If I went with an F3.0 and a really high lumen projector, I could get it to work during the day, but then I would have problems at night. Now if you have some way of knocking off some of the incoming light, then it can work. The windows I have in my family room are:
> 
> 2- 6' x 12.5'
> 2-2' x 6'
> 4-3.5' x 3.5'
> 1-8' x 16'
> 1- 5' x 7' french door with 15 lites
> 1-5' x 1' transom above french door.
> Walls are gray, but so lite that they look white.
> 
> A 2.8 gain HP screen does not work in this room during the day. I like the windows, looking out to the woods and the lake, so I am not covering them. Luckily, I have a dedicated room, so that I do not have to cover the windows.


Very informative Mike, so would a JVC work in conjunction with an F3 Screen in your living room during the day or would you need a higher lumen projector than the JVC ? The thought of having the F3 with a PJ like Optoma HD91+ is also enticing because of the LED light source and the fact that it is long lasting. Have you had the opportunity to see both these projectors being used with the F3 ? I suppose the HD91+ does not have an iris to control light output like the JVC.

Please ignore my question in regards to the Optoma HD91+ (Just noticed the disappointing specs)


----------



## Mike Garrett

Sam Ash said:


> Very informative Mike, so would a JVC work in conjunction with an F3 Screen in your living room during the day or would you need a higher lumen projector than the JVC ? The thought of having the F3 with a PJ like Optoma HD91+ is also enticing because of the LED light source and the fact that it is long lasting. Have you had the opportunity to see both these projectors being used with the F3 ? I suppose the HD91+ does not have an iris to control light output like the JVC.
> 
> Please ignore my question in regards to the Optoma HD91+ (Just noticed the disappointing specs)


I just have too much light in this room to use the JVC during the day. This room has so much ambient light that a flat panel does not do great during the day.


----------



## millerwill

noah katz said:


> No, max gain is when the angle from the pj down to screen center equals the angle from screen center down to eyes.


Noah, so this sounds like it would also be OK to have the pj located as is optimally for an HP screen, i.e., about midway (or a bit above) of the screen height, projecting just over one's head. The two angles would then both be very small but about the same.


----------



## Ximori

Sam Ash said:


> The F3 sounds good but I'm still waiting for someone to conduct proper full screen evaluations because the human eye is extremely adaptive and it can get rather difficult to make evaluations. However, thank you so much to those individuals who have initiated a comparison to provide initial insight. There are a few things that I am sensitive to and appreciate when they are in effect:-
> 
> 1. Image sharpness - this is dependant mostly on the projection technology being used and good glass.



I'd rate his F3 high in terms of sharpness...in my book, at least. The DNP sample looked a tad soft, in comparison, while both were viewed in proximity to each other at near-field.


----------



## Ximori

thrang said:


> Here is the F3 on a piece of cardboard, against my JKP 1.3
> 
> I'm sure its an optical illusion, but the F3 seems to raise brightness in white more than in black.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Test pattern from my Lumagen...



The photo actually tells a lot - now imagine adding layers of colors and what it results to.


----------



## Craig Peer

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Sam Ash*  
_*1. Image sharpness - this is dependant mostly on the projection technology being used and good glass*.
2. Colour accuracy - This is important to me.
3. Highlight detail - Subtle details in very light areas of the image should not blow-out to white (0% tone) unless it's intentional.
4. Shadow detail - Subtle detail in very dark areas of an image should not be crushed to black (100% tone) unless it's intentional._






Dominic Chan said:


> These are all important attributes to a quality image, but are predominantly limited by the projector rather than the screen. For colour accuracy, minor screen tints can be "calibrated out".
> 
> 
> Assuming you have a projector with manual iris control, that should not be a problem.



Actually, in my experience, a screen can affect picture sharpness. One example - when I switched from a Da Lite High Contrast Cinema Vision screen - which has a bit of surface texture, to a Stewart Cima Neve screen - which is pretty smooth, my picture appeared sharper. The difference was noticeable.


----------



## Wondercarrot

ch1sox said:


> Wondercarrot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So just to be clear since earlier in the thread it had been mentioned several times that PJ placement should be at the top of the screen...
> That is not accurate?
> 
> If not what is the best way to sort out the angles? I seem to have misplaced my protracter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For angular reflective screens like this you would place it at the top of the screen usually. You could place it lower on a table, but that would depend on your screen location and eye level. I posted more on it here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/23-screens/1267206-microlite-optical-screen-10.html#post36555186
Click to expand...

Would anyone mind telling me where you think my PJ placement should be given this info?
Greatly appreciated!


----------



## Wondercarrot

Just hoping someone will pop in and give me their thoughts on my last post. 
Trying to make sure I end up cutting a PJ hole in the right spot in the wall


----------



## CoryW

Wondercarrot said:


> Just hoping someone will pop in and give me their thoughts on my last post.
> Trying to make sure I end up cutting a PJ hole in the right spot in the wall


First you have to consider your projectors throw angle. If you have a vertical lens shift that can allow for the lens to project at 0 degrees, then that is not relevant.

If you go here:
http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/calrtri.htm

For the 47 inch eye example:

And put in 192" (I'm guessing 16 feet because it is the distance from your eye to the screen) for the distance ("edge b") and 8" for the height to the middle of the screen from your eyes ("edge a" which is screen height of 55 which is 64 / 2 = 32 + 23 (height to floor) and subtract the 47 eye height), you get an "angle A" of 2.39 degrees for your reference.

To match that same angle in the reverse direction, the measurements have to be the same so you want the projector 8 inches higher from the middle of the screen at 55 + 8 = 63".

Am I right?


----------



## Craig Peer

I have two Microlite samples - F2.0 dark grey and F3.0 Silver. I will try and review them this weekend.


----------



## Sam Ash

Craig Peer said:


> I have two Microlite samples - F2.0 dark grey and F3.0 Silver. I will try and review them this weekend.


We are really looking forward to that Craig !


----------



## Wondercarrot

CoryW said:


> Wondercarrot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just hoping someone will pop in and give me their thoughts on my last post.
> Trying to make sure I end up cutting a PJ hole in the right spot in the wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First you have to consider your projectors throw angle. If you have a vertical lens shift that can allow for the lens to project at 0 degrees, then that is not relevant.
> 
> If you go here:
> http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/calrtri.htm
> 
> For the 47 inch eye example:
> 
> And put in 192" (I'm guessing 16 feet because it is the distance from your eye to the screen) for the distance ("edge b") and 8" for the height to the middle of the screen from your eyes ("edge a" which is screen height of 55 which is 64 / 2 = 32 + 23 (height to floor) and subtract the 47 eye height), you get an "angle A" of 2.39 degrees for your reference.
> 
> To match that same angle in the reverse direction, the measurements have to be the same so you want the projector 8 inches higher from the middle of the screen at 55 + 8 = 63".
> 
> Am I right?
Click to expand...

Yes. That looks right to me from what you've shown and it seems to pass the eyeball test as well. It would appear I have enough back wall height for either front row or back row ideal angle set up. 
Thank you very much for your help!!


----------



## Wondercarrot

Craig Peer said:


> I have two Microlite samples - F2.0 dark grey and F3.0 Silver. I will try and review them this weekend.


F5 F5 F5 F5
Too soon? lol


----------



## noah katz

millerwill said:


> Noah, so this sounds like it would also be OK to have the pj located as is optimally for an HP screen, i.e., about midway (or a bit above) of the screen height, projecting just over one's head. The two angles would then both be very small but about the same.


right, Bill


----------



## thezaks

Craig Peer said:


> I have two Microlite samples - F2.0 dark grey and F3.0 Silver. I will try and review them this weekend.


How'd it go Craig?

Thanks,

Dave


----------



## Craig Peer

thezaks said:


> How'd it go Craig?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Dave


I got delayed this weekend - stay tuned !


----------



## Craig Peer

This is very interesting material. It can be hard to get a 100% impression with sample size pieces of screens, but here is what I think so far - 


F3.0 Silver - this material is very smooth. It definitely throws a brighter picture than my StudioTek 130 G3 ( which is what I used for comparison ). It could help with a dimmer projector if you have to have a big screen. Of course everything will look brighter including blacks, but that is to be expected.


F2.0 dark grey - I tried this screen sample primarily with some lighting on. In the dark it looked darker than my StudioTek 130 ( which it should since its grey ). With some lighting on ( a fair amount - brighter than I normally would have it ) I thought the picture looked pretty close to what the StudioTek looked like with no lights on. 


Neither screen seemed to be affected by viewing angle. Your height in relation to the screen did cause a shift in brightness. My projector is mounted relatively low, just FYI. 


These screens are definitely worth considering if you need a high gain / grey screen. I'll play with my samples more later this week or next.


----------



## Craig Peer

millerwill said:


> Noah, so this sounds like it would also be OK to have the pj located as is optimally for an HP screen, i.e., about midway (or a bit above) of the screen height, projecting just over one's head. The two angles would then both be very small but about the same.



That's pretty much where I have my Lumis mounted, which I used when checking these samples out !


----------



## Sam Ash

Ximori said:


> The photo actually tells a lot - now imagine adding layers of colors and what it results to.


Ximori, can you kindly give us more details about your experience with the F3 and possibly the F2. I presume you've bought an F3.


----------



## Dominic Chan

Craig Peer said:


> F2.0 dark grey - I tried this screen sample primarily with some lighting on. In the dark it looked darker than my StudioTek 130 ( which it should since its grey ).


The gains for Microlite F2 and StudioTek 130 are 1.8 and 1.3 respectively, both confirmed by independent measurements, so I expect the F2 to be _brighter_, when viewed from the optimum angle. 



> With some lighting on ( a fair amount - brighter than I normally would have it ) I thought the picture looked pretty close to what the StudioTek looked like with no lights on.


That is pretty impressive.


----------



## millerwill

Still looking forward to hearing someone's direct side-by-side view of the F3 and a Dalite HP2.4.


----------



## Wondercarrot

millerwill said:


> Still looking forward to hearing someone's direct side-by-side view of the F3 and a Dalite HP2.4.


Yes, me too!


----------



## Craig Peer

Dominic Chan said:


> The gains for Microlite F2 and StudioTek 130 are 1.8 and 1.3 respectively, both confirmed by independent measurements, so I expect the F2 to be _brighter_, when viewed from the optimum angle.
> 
> 
> *That is pretty impressive*.



That's my initial impression based on the 8" x 10" sample I have. It is difficult to judge without a full size screen. But this material is promising for people that need a grey screen.


----------



## Dominic Chan

Craig Peer said:


> That's my initial impression based on the 8" x 10" sample I have. It is difficult to judge without a full size screen. But this material is promising for people that need a grey screen.


Hopefully Microlite will provide a full size screen for evaluation, if AVS is to become a dealer of their screens.


----------



## Craig Peer

millerwill said:


> Still looking forward to hearing someone's direct side-by-side view of the F3 and a Dalite HP2.4.


Too bad I sold my manual HP 2.4 tripod screen 2 years or so ago !


----------



## blee0120

Good news. I'm going to be comparing the Microlite F 3.0 to my HP 2.4 screen. I'm getting a 92in F.3. I have a JVC RS35 at the moment and I am going to be using a Mit 7900 for 3D. I'm just getting a small sample of the F2 but I'll try to give my impressions of that compared to the HP 2.4 and F3. I'm hoping to have the screen by next week.


----------



## millerwill

blee0120 said:


> Good news. I'm going to be comparing the Microlite F 3.0 to my HP 2.4 screen. I'm getting a 92in F.3. I have a JVC RS35 at the moment and I am going to be using a Mit 7900 for 3D. I'm just getting a small sample of the F2 but I'll try to give my impressions of that compared to the HP 2.4 and F3. I'm hoping to have the screen by next week.


Super! Don't care much about the F2, but the F3-HP2.4 comparison will be extremely interesting and relevant since they both have gains that are about the same. Question is whether there is a significant difference between the two in pic quality.


----------



## ch1sox

blee0120 said:


> Good news. I'm going to be comparing the Microlite F 3.0 to my HP 2.4 screen. I'm getting a 92in F.3. I have a JVC RS35 at the moment and I am going to be using a Mit 7900 for 3D. I'm just getting a small sample of the F2 but I'll try to give my impressions of that compared to the HP 2.4 and F3. I'm hoping to have the screen by next week.


Did you get a sample of the F3 before buying it?


----------



## blee0120

ch1sox said:


> Did you get a sample of the F3 before buying it?


No, from what I hear, its something that can be a game changer for the projector market.


----------



## ch1sox

blee0120 said:


> No, from what I hear, its something that can be a game changer for the projector market.


Hopefully you like it! All of us have only seen small little samples so far so who knows what a large screen will look like. I was going to take the bait next month, but I guess you'll be the 1st.


----------



## blee0120

millerwill said:


> Super! Don't care much about the F2, but the F3-HP2.4 comparison will be extremely interesting and relevant since they both have gains that are about the same. Question is whether there is a significant difference between the two in pic quality.


I'm very excited after speaking with Michael Chien from Microlite. We had a great conversation. He sold me on it. I want to have that image that I can watch during the day, then at night I can clamp down on my RS35. I'm looking at over 25ftL in 3D with the Mitsubishi 7900 and the 20ftL with 60K+ CR with the RS35. Even during the day, I'm looking at 100ftL to fight ambient light. Going to be fun. I love new things to try. I guess that's why I get at least 3 projectors every year.


----------



## blee0120

ch1sox said:


> Hopefully you like it! All of us have only seen small little samples so far so who knows what a large screen will look like. I was going to take the bait next month, but I guess you'll be the 1st.


I'm the first to take the bait. I have a 72in Carada 1.0 CW screen that I can throw in the shoot out.


----------



## Ximori

Sam Ash said:


> Ximori, can you kindly give us more details about your experience with the F3 and possibly the F2. I presume you've bought an F3.


Hi Sam, I haven't received mine yet as I was told early this month. Hopefully, same time as blee0120's.


----------



## Ximori

Craig Peer said:


> That's my initial impression based on the 8" x 10" sample I have. It is difficult to judge without a full size screen. But this material is promising for people that need a grey screen.


Indeed. But maybe it's for people that need a white screen as well - since it resembles very similar properties of a white screen, however, with an advantage of not washing out certain mixed scenes due to its higher ansi CR retention properties. 

I'm actually referring more to the F3 above, that is, if the ansi measure holds true or similar with the F2. The F2 is quite promising too, being a dark grey material, similar to that of the DNP, giving you perceived blacks while simultaneously providing a 1.8 gain. You'd never imagine it was a gray material at all. I just wish there's an improvement in color and smoothness; otherwise, it would've been my top choice.


----------



## Ximori

I'll be dropping by the Micro-lite office today and see if I can steal some large samples today


----------



## blee0120

Ximori said:


> Indeed. But maybe it's for people that need a white screen as well - since it resembles very similar properties of a white screen, however, with an advantage of not washing out certain mixed scenes due to its higher ansi CR retention properties.
> 
> I'm actually referring more to the F3 above, that is, if the ansi measure holds true or similar with the F2. The F2 is quite promising too, being a dark grey material, similar to that of the DNP, giving you perceived blacks while simultaneously providing a 1.8 gain. You'd never imagine it was a gray material at all. I just wish there's an improvement in color and smoothness; otherwise, it would've been my top choice.


What projector Are you using?


----------



## Ximori

blee0120 said:


> What projector Are you using?


I currently have a LG1500 and JVC RS1 which I can use with his screen temporarily. Eventually, I would like one that can throw enough light output, similar to Michael's, at aroud 1400 lumens.


----------



## thezaks

Ximori said:


> I currently have a LG1500 and JVC RS1 which I can use with his screen temporarily. Eventually, I would like one that can throw enough light output, similar to Michael's, at aroud 1400 lumens.


I thought the LG1500 was spec'd at 1400 lumens?

Dave


----------



## Ximori

thezaks said:


> I thought the LG1500 was spec'd at 1400 lumens?
> 
> Dave


 
No that was the Sony. LG, I'm guessing 600 lumens, similar to my RS1, and that won't cut it for next gen media.

Check this out:
http://www.projection-homecinema.fr/forum/topic/889-ifa-2015-les-nouveautés-chez-lg/?s-chez-lg%2F=

Coincidentally, yesterday I was having a conversation with Michael and he showed me several types of his optical screen samples for front, rear, and short-throw projection. I asked if he can produce a short-throw version of the F3. He says it can be done but the gain or light output will be cut in half. I didn't bother asking why but I'm guessing due to a combination of the extreme light angle directive nature and lack of power (lumens) limits and makes it difficult to stretch more light towards the viewer.
He also says short-throw projection is very popular in Asia to accommodate tight spaces in smaller rooms, which are quite common over there.
Do you think ALR properties work better with short-throw setups? seems likely, huh.


----------



## thezaks

Ximori said:


> No that was the Sony. LG, I'm guessing 600 lumens, similar to my RS1, and that won't cut it for next gen media.
> 
> Check this out:
> http://www.projection-homecinema.fr/forum/topic/889-ifa-2015-les-nouveautés-chez-lg/?s-chez-lg/=


Sorry, I guess Projector Central has it wrong then.

http://www.projectorcentral.com/LG-PF1500.htm


Dave


----------



## Ximori

thezaks said:


> Sorry, I guess Projector Central has it wrong then.
> 
> http://www.projectorcentral.com/LG-PF1500.htm
> 
> 
> Dave


 
I see where the confusion went - 1400 by their spec sheet, however, 600 is after calibration. 
But the 1400 that I've been mentioning in previous posts were always referred with the Sony.


----------



## Craig Peer

thezaks said:


> Sorry, I guess Projector Central has it wrong then.
> 
> http://www.projectorcentral.com/LG-PF1500.htm
> 
> 
> Dave



Never take manufacturer's specification numbers at face value. You need to read a qualified review done by someone that knows what they are doing to find out the true lumens and contrast numbers. Everything else is just " pie in the sky ". Or flat out BS.


----------



## Thain

Short throw version?! Just what I'm looking for. Any more info on the specs. Haven't seen anything on the site about it.


----------



## Sam Ash

An ultra short-throw version would be ideal because it would enable the projector to be placed on a cabinet close to the screen and still get a nice image within an ambient lit environment.


----------



## Dominic Chan

Sam Ash said:


> An ultra short-throw version would be ideal because it would enable the projector to be placed on a cabinet close to the screen and still get a nice image within an ambient lit environment.


An ultra short-throw version would likely compromise the ambient light rejection capability, as it becomes harder to "distinguish" between the projected light and the ambient light (both would be coming at steep angles near the edge). [EDIT: That would be true for angular-reflective screens, probably not for retro-reflective].


----------



## CINERAMAX

*Microlite shown in display summit looked great on Infocomm showfloor not as much*

I did enjoy the image of the unit shown in the display summit shootout room as viewed head on specially using a lcos PJ.

The infocomm show boot was designed to look at screen from hallway at extrem angles, and not having gone in the image was washed out with the showlights and extra wide angles.

The 1st conditions get my seal of approval FWIW.

Cheers!


----------



## Sam Ash

CINERAMAX said:


> I did enjoy the image of the unit shown in the display summit shootout room as viewed head on specially using a lcos PJ.
> 
> The infocomm show boot was designed to look at screen from hallway at extrem angles, and not having gone in the image was washed out with the showlights and extra wide angles.
> 
> The 1st conditions get my seal of approval FWIW.
> 
> Cheers!


Cineramax, could you kindly clarify and elaborate your experience.


----------



## CINERAMAX

*I liked it because....*



Sam Ash said:


> Cineramax, could you kindly clarify and elaborate your experience.


After this session semi hijacking necessary to catalyze the implementation of UHD BLU RAY in DCI laser projectors by 2016. Which I take the credit of helping Barco put on roadmap.






I found new friends in the audience backslapping, high fiving , and knuckle bumping me. The owner of Microlite was among them and he pulled me aside and showed me his screen in the display summit dim lit shootout room.

MY PICTURES AND COMMENTARY i have shared here.


----------



## ch1sox

@CINERAMAX do you remember what screen they were showing? Like is it the current purchasable version, prototype, etc? Did he mention anything about it being F2 or F3? I contacted him (Michael) for more info, but was curious if you knew.


----------



## CINERAMAX

ch1sox said:


> @CINERAMAX do you remember what screen they were showing? Like is it the current purchasable version, prototype, etc? Did he mention anything about it being F2 or F3? I contacted him (Michael) for more info, but was curious if you knew.


I am going to say by memory gain 2 dark. Please confirm.

Look Lcos lovers to me 4k on lcos leaves me gasping for air, something to do with the lack of dleiniation of the interpixels gap, I must say between the excellent uniformity and its associated phenomenom akin to maximum depth of field as a result of even luminosity (what I attribute this insane DOF to), compounded by dark blacks light rejecting element, I would permit SONY to put one in my bedroom with this screen, imagine with HDR.

Mike and Father you need bigger machines to do 7 feet high!!!

What about laser nanoperforations? How is THAT coming along?


----------



## ch1sox

CINERAMAX said:


> I am going to say by memory gain 2 dark. Please confirm.
> 
> Look Lcos lovers to me 4k on lcos leaves me gasping for air, something to do with the lack of dleiniation of the interpixels gap, I must say between the excellent uniformity and its associated phenomenom akin to maximum depth of field as a result of even luminosity (what I attribute this insane DOF to), compounded by dark blacks light rejecting element, I would permit SONY to put one in my bedroom with this screen, imagine with HDR.
> 
> Mike and Father you need bigger machines to do 7 feet high!!!
> 
> What about laser nanoperforations? How is THAT coming along?


Yep, per Michael it's the F2.0 material. Those pictures from your post look pretty good. I'm going to have to look at my samples some more. I wish I could see the screen somewhere around here. Maybe a trip to Cedia is what I need, lol.


----------



## CINERAMAX

*Good Enough for a signature moon in my book..*



ch1sox said:


> Yep, per Michael it's the F2.0 material. Those pictures from your post look pretty good. I'm going to have to look at my samples some more. I wish I could see the screen somewhere around here. Maybe a trip to Cedia is what I need, lol.


I name my turnkey signature installs after Saturn and now Jupiter moons (you can read in the UHE/DCI forum section), but for partial/limited technical assistance modest scope of work moons they get a Neptune name if worthy.Here is Nereid (down Under) where I am specifying this screen.

That good I consider for a mere mortal's HT.


----------



## we7313

Does anyone know when this screen will become available to purchase? The website seems incomplete, but it seems the company has been around since 2010 at least. Have they ever produced a consumable product, or are they still in research and development phase?


----------



## ch1sox

we7313 said:


> Does anyone know when this screen will become available to purchase? The website seems incomplete, but it seems the company has been around since 2010 at least. Have they ever produced a consumable product, or are they still in research and development phase?


They just started selling this year. You can call them to order or contact one of the AVS people like Mike Garrett since they sell it too.


----------



## Ximori

we7313 said:


> Does anyone know when this screen will become available to purchase? The website seems incomplete, but it seems the company has been around since 2010 at least. Have they ever produced a consumable product, or are they still in research and development phase?


I was told that 150 units of different types and sizes will arrive in October. I also think there are some shipping right now but haven't checked with him lately.

They are in selling phase


----------



## millerwill

Ximori said:


> I was told that 150 units of different types and sizes will arrive in October. I also think there are some shipping right now but haven't checked with him lately.
> 
> They are in selling phase


Looking forward to hearing reports, esp comparisons to the Dalite HP screens for which they could possibly be an upgrade in PQ.


----------



## Ximori

CINERAMAX said:


> I name my turnkey signature installs after Saturn and now Jupiter moons (you can read in the UHE/DCI forum section), but for partial/limited technical assistance modest scope of work moons they get a Neptune name if worthy.Here is Nereid (down Under) where I am specifying this screen.
> 
> That good I consider for a mere mortal's HT.


I read the link and completely agree how well it exceptionally performs in the dark. I can't think of a better screen to use for HDR and the F3 material certainly fits the bill to help create that immersive effect.

With a 3.3 gain and excellent viewing angle - throwing 1000 lumens on his 100" screen will yield 111 ft.L WOW! 

Nice work!  What desired screen size are you planning for the HT project?


----------



## Ximori

millerwill said:


> Looking forward to hearing reports, esp comparisons to the Dalite HP screens for which they could possibly be an upgrade in PQ.


Yup, it should happen soon I believe someone's gonna do that.


----------



## Ximori

Sam Ash said:


> An ultra short-throw version would be ideal because it would enable the projector to be placed on a cabinet close to the screen and still get a nice image within an ambient lit environment.


I agree and it may come down to the design work for short-throw on how effective can it reject above and side lighting. If ft lambert measures the same compared with his regular one then I think there shouldn’t be no difference at all. However, I’m curious though how sharpness and uniformity come into play as I’ve never seen one before. It's like a flat panel w/o the glass


----------



## CoryW

Ximori said:


> I'm actually referring more to the F3 above, that is, if the ansi measure holds true or similar with the F2. The F2 is quite promising too, being a dark grey material, similar to that of the DNP, giving you perceived blacks while simultaneously providing a 1.8 gain. You'd never imagine it was a gray material at all. I just wish there's an improvement in color and smoothness; otherwise, it would've been my top choice.


I understand that the 2.0, being a darker gray screen, will affect color accuracy (and maybe that is why it does not have an ISF certification), but why do you say you wish the 2.0 had better smoothness?


----------



## Ximori

CoryW said:


> I understand that the 2.0, being a darker gray screen, will affect color accuracy (and maybe that is why it does not have an ISF certification), but why do you say you wish the 2.0 had better smoothness?


There's a slight pearlescent effect that may bother certain viewers and it seems more pronounced on the F2. It may not bother you from your normal viewing distance. This got me thinking now - maybe this effect becomes more obvious as it gets dimmer. On a brighter image it is less obvious, from what I recall when watching it in his demo room.


----------



## ch1sox

Ximori said:


> There's a slight pearlescent effect that may bother certain viewers and it seems more pronounced on the F2. It may not bother you from your normal viewing distance. This got me thinking now - maybe this effect becomes more obvious as it gets dimmer. On a brighter image it is less obvious, from what I recall when watching it in his demo room.


I wish I could see these in person. Cineramax saw the F2 in dimmed lighting at Infocomm and liked it quite a bit. So much that I need to look at my samples some more and consider the F2 for my environment. It seems that you really need to see the screen in person to understand it. Cineramax talked about the screen having an awesome depth to the picture which the samples won't show since it's not the full screen.


----------



## Ximori

ch1sox said:


> I wish I could see these in person. Cineramax saw the F2 in dimmed lighting at Infocomm and liked it quite a bit. So much that I need to look at my samples some more and consider the F2 for my environment. It seems that you really need to see the screen in person to understand it. Cineramax talked about the screen having an awesome depth to the picture which the samples won't show since it's not the full screen.


I'm sure he can explain that better but I suspect the DOF has a lot to do with the sharp performance of the screen. It is 4K ready after all. This screen to me seems to mirror every aspect of your pj's performance, no more no less...actually you get a bit more in the dark as I kept posting it a few pages back. It handles bright areas wonderfully without causing some type of compression, idk how to explain that, at the same time without any compromise in darker areas.


----------



## millerwill

Interesting that the higher gain version, the F3, seems to be more artifact-free than the lower gain (gray) version, the F2, at least according to reports.


----------



## biliam1982

Is anyone able to get samples yet? I'm seriously considering getting the 144" 16:9 but am not sure if I should go with the F2 or F3. I have a fair amount of ambient light during the day but most can be controlled with blinds and curtains.

I'm currently just projecting (I think it's about 138" 16:9 at the moment) on a neutral earth tone beige wall which surprisingly looks very good. At normal seating distance of 12', you can't see anything, but up close, the finishing texture on wall is very visible.

I'm using a Sharp XV-Z30000 and have a JVC 6710 coming in probably sometime next week. 

I do have a 116" wide 2.35 Da-Lite High Contrast High Power sitting boxed up in the garage. I might be able to bring that in for a shoot-out and also throw up a white linen sheet for good measure. 

As for the setup... eye level is just over 40" from the ground. With the AVR stand and Center Channel Speaker, the bottom of the screen will be about 30" or so off the ground. So about 10" of the screen from bottom will be at eye level. The projector is about 5'6" off the ground. Some of these measurements could change depending on what screen I get and the height of an upgraded center channel speaker. 

As you can see, the room is pretty wide so the outer seats are not in a "sweet spot." I'd say they're close to 45 degrees off center and more towards the edge of the screen. Though they are only occupied half the time. Most of the time the main couch is used. But, with such wide viewing angles, this screen sounds like it would fir the bill.

Facing the wall where the screen will go, off to the left is the kitchen where there is a fairly large window but it has blinds and curtains. Behind the screen you can see the large sliding glass doors that lead to the back patio which also has blinds and curtains. But, off to the right of that, that you can't see, is a regular door that leads to the back patio and doesn't have and curtains or coverings. And facing the wall where the screen will go, to the right in that hallway is the front door with windows that doesn't have any coverings either.

During the day, we can close all the blinds and curtains and controls most of the light. There is some light that leaks through directly onto the screen wall and from the front door area but it doesn't hit the screen directly from there.

There are only two main lights in the room from above light fixtures which you can kinda see in the pictures. They are not recessed. One is directly over the seating area and another directly behind the seating area in the open space. Usually they are not on. Sometimes we leave the kitchen lights on and those are four recessed 60 watt equivalent CFL bulbs. 

Hope this helps explain the room and environment. Any thoughts?


----------



## Ximori

biliam1982, just give him a call tomorrow and show him your setup and photos. The projector's location isn't in the ideal position as it needs to be higher. He might suggest the F2 coz it rejects light better than the F3 one.


----------



## biliam1982

Ximori said:


> biliam1982, just give him a call tomorrow and show him your setup and photos. The projector's location isn't in the ideal position as it needs to be higher. He might suggest the F2 coz it rejects light better than the F3 one.


Thanks. I was talking with Michael briefly over email and did send him this info with the pics, but never heard back from him.


----------



## ch1sox

biliam1982 said:


> Thanks. I was talking with Michael briefly over email and did send him this info with the pics, but never heard back from him.


Hmm maybe try again. He's always responded to me within 1 day. You can also call 1-877-668-8856.


----------



## Craig Peer

biliam1982 said:


> Is anyone able to get samples yet? I'm seriously considering getting the 144" 16:9 but am not sure if I should go with the F2 or F3. I have a fair amount of ambient light during the day but most can be controlled with blinds and curtains.
> 
> I'm currently just projecting (I think it's about 138" 16:9 at the moment) on a neutral earth tone beige wall which surprisingly looks very good. At normal seating distance of 12', you can't see anything, but up close, the finishing texture on wall is very visible.
> 
> I'm using a Sharp XV-Z30000 and have a JVC 6710 coming in probably sometime next week.
> 
> I do have a 116" wide 2.35 Da-Lite High Contrast High Power sitting boxed up in the garage. I might be able to bring that in for a shoot-out and also throw up a white linen sheet for good measure.
> 
> As for the setup... eye level is just over 40" from the ground. With the AVR stand and Center Channel Speaker, the bottom of the screen will be about 30" or so off the ground. So about 10" of the screen from bottom will be at eye level. The projector is about 5'6" off the ground. Some of these measurements could change depending on what screen I get and the height of an upgraded center channel speaker.
> 
> As you can see, the room is pretty wide so the outer seats are not in a "sweet spot." I'd say they're close to 45 degrees off center and more towards the edge of the screen. Though they are only occupied half the time. Most of the time the main couch is used. But, with such wide viewing angles, this screen sounds like it would fir the bill.
> 
> Facing the wall where the screen will go, off to the left is the kitchen where there is a fairly large window but it has blinds and curtains. Behind the screen you can see the large sliding glass doors that lead to the back patio which also has blinds and curtains. But, off to the right of that, that you can't see, is a regular door that leads to the back patio and doesn't have and curtains or coverings. And facing the wall where the screen will go, to the right in that hallway is the front door with windows that doesn't have any coverings either.
> 
> During the day, we can close all the blinds and curtains and controls most of the light. There is some light that leaks through directly onto the screen wall and from the front door area but it doesn't hit the screen directly from there.
> 
> There are only two main lights in the room from above light fixtures which you can kinda see in the pictures. They are not recessed. One is directly over the seating area and another directly behind the seating area in the open space. Usually they are not on. Sometimes we leave the kitchen lights on and those are four recessed 60 watt equivalent CFL bulbs.
> 
> Hope this helps explain the room and environment. Any thoughts?



Move that AVR rack so you can mount the screen lower. I wouldn't want to be distracted by equipment LED's myself. Put the center channel on a low stand ( Sanus makes a good one ). My screens are more like 17" off the floor ( 123" diagonal 16:9 ). Much easier to watch. Get a low center channel stand. Those are my thoughts.


----------



## Mike Garrett

Ximori said:


> biliam1982, just give him a call tomorrow and show him your setup and photos. The projector's location isn't in the ideal position as it needs to be higher. He might suggest the F2 coz it rejects light better than the F3 one.


F2 is what I recommended to Bill.


----------



## Mike Garrett

biliam1982 said:


> Thanks. I was talking with Michael briefly over email and did send him this info with the pics, but never heard back from him.


Michael has samples to send out to several people. Your name is on the list.


----------



## Rathiem

Mike asked me to put up a purchase post here. I just ordered the Microlite F2.0 screen, 100", 16x9. 


Attaching pic so you can see my setup. Light controlled basement, however want to use the screen both completely dark and with lights for sports. 130" throw and 145" seating at couch. Projector is 5-6" above the screen height. I'm pushing the throw and size, but not maxed out. Interested to see how this will turn out. 


Epson 5030UB with screen goo current. Keeping everything but the screen the same. I'll let you know my impressions after install and tweaks to picture.


This sight has been very helpful over the years - pretty sure this is my first post....


----------



## Craig Peer

Rathiem said:


> Mike asked me to put up a purchase post here. I just ordered the Microlite F2.0 screen, 100", 16x9.
> 
> 
> Attaching pic so you can see my setup. Light controlled basement, however want to use the screen both completely dark and with lights for sports. 130" throw and 145" seating at couch. Projector is 5-6" above the screen height. I'm pushing the throw and size, but not maxed out. Interested to see how this will turn out.
> 
> 
> Epson 5030UB with screen goo current. Keeping everything but the screen the same. I'll let you know my impressions after install and tweaks to picture.
> 
> 
> This sight has been very helpful over the years - pretty sure this is my first post....



Looking forward to your feedback !


----------



## ch1sox

Rathiem said:


> Mike asked me to put up a purchase post here. I just ordered the Microlite F2.0 screen, 100", 16x9.
> 
> 
> Attaching pic so you can see my setup. Light controlled basement, however want to use the screen both completely dark and with lights for sports. 130" throw and 145" seating at couch. Projector is 5-6" above the screen height. I'm pushing the throw and size, but not maxed out. Interested to see how this will turn out.
> 
> 
> Epson 5030UB with screen goo current. Keeping everything but the screen the same. I'll let you know my impressions after install and tweaks to picture.
> 
> 
> This sight has been very helpful over the years - pretty sure this is my first post....


Nice! Do you know when you'll be receiving it? I think a couple other members are getting theirs this month.


----------



## blee0120

My F 3.0 will be here on the 15th.


----------



## millerwill

blee0120 said:


> My F 3.0 will be here on the 15th.


Will certainly be interested in your evaluation.


----------



## thrang

Apparently a delay until November for larger than 120" screen sizes...


----------



## Rathiem

ch1sox said:


> Rathiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mike asked me to put up a purchase post here. I just ordered the Microlite F2.0 screen, 100", 16x9.
> 
> 
> Attaching pic so you can see my setup. Light controlled basement, however want to use the screen both completely dark and with lights for sports. 130" throw and 145" seating at couch. Projector is 5-6" above the screen height. I'm pushing the throw and size, but not maxed out. Interested to see how this will turn out.
> 
> 
> Epson 5030UB with screen goo current. Keeping everything but the screen the same. I'll let you know my impressions after install and tweaks to picture.
> 
> 
> This sight has been very helpful over the years - pretty sure this is my first post....
> 
> 
> 
> Nice! Do you know when you'll be receiving it? I think a couple other members are getting theirs this month.
Click to expand...

October sometime. Don't have the tracking notice yet. Pretty sure it's shipping from China rather than domestic.


----------



## thezaks

thrang said:


> Apparently a delay until November for larger than 120" screen sizes...


And you know that because......perhaps you are getting one??

Dave


----------



## thrang

thezaks said:


> And you know that because......perhaps you are getting one??
> 
> Dave


Oh, I'm just an inquisitive soul....


----------



## thezaks

thrang said:


> Oh, I'm just an inquisitive soul....


Me too...at this point. Hopefully, I will be on the purchasing side of it one day - most likely, when the motorized version arrives. 

Dave


----------



## liloatavs

Rathiem said:


> Mike asked me to put up a purchase post here. I just ordered the Microlite F2.0 screen, 100", 16x9.
> 
> 
> Attaching pic so you can see my setup. Light controlled basement, however want to use the screen both completely dark and with lights for sports. 130" throw and 145" seating at couch. Projector is 5-6" above the screen height. I'm pushing the throw and size, but not maxed out. Interested to see how this will turn out.
> 
> 
> Epson 5030UB with screen goo current. Keeping everything but the screen the same. I'll let you know my impressions after install and tweaks to picture.
> 
> 
> This sight has been very helpful over the years - pretty sure this is my first post....


Thanks for posting the picture. I am also looking forward to your review. I am planning to buy a projector and a screen for a similar setup (fully light controlled media room with white ceiling and beige walls to be used for movies and sports). I have never had a projector before. Even though I tried to learn as much as I could about the issues and compromises involved in projector setup it is almost impossible to make a decision without having actually seen the picture resulting from the set of trade-offs one chooses.


----------



## Rathiem

liloatavs said:


> Rathiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mike asked me to put up a purchase post here. I just ordered the Microlite F2.0 screen, 100", 16x9.
> 
> 
> Attaching pic so you can see my setup. Light controlled basement, however want to use the screen both completely dark and with lights for sports. 130" throw and 145" seating at couch. Projector is 5-6" above the screen height. I'm pushing the throw and size, but not maxed out. Interested to see how this will turn out.
> 
> 
> Epson 5030UB with screen goo current. Keeping everything but the screen the same. I'll let you know my impressions after install and tweaks to picture.
> 
> 
> This sight has been very helpful over the years - pretty sure this is my first post....
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for posting the picture. I am also looking forward to your review. I am planning to buy a projector and a screen for a similar setup (fully light controlled media room with white ceiling and beige walls to be used for movies and sports). I have never had a projector before. Even though I tried to learn as much as I could about the issues and compromises involved in projector setup it is almost impossible to make a decision without having actually seen the picture resulting from the set of trade-offs one chooses.
Click to expand...

I really am hoping this is the magic combination. I started with a Panny 100u and a fixed elite white screen. Can't remember which. Then to current projector and DYI white paint and then the screen goo in grey. It's definitely gotten better with each iteration. So hard to tell with projectors and screens cause ready ability to preview them is nothing like TVs. You can't go wrong in the dark. It's the lights that the guess work starts.


----------



## thezaks

Rathiem said:


> I really am hoping this is the magic combination. I started with a Panny 100u and a fixed elite white screen. Can't remember which. Then to current projector and DYI white paint and then the screen goo in grey. It's definitely gotten better with each iteration. So hard to tell with projectors and screens cause ready ability to preview them is nothing like TVs. You can't go wrong in the dark. It's the lights that the guess work starts.


Looking forward to your thoughts, and hopefully, some pics as well!

Dave


----------



## Wondercarrot

Gents, I'm in. 
144" F3 16:9

Ordered from the always helpful [email protected] 
Replacing a 133" HP 2.4
Very excited.


----------



## ch1sox

Wondercarrot said:


> Gents, I'm in.
> 144" F3 16:9
> 
> Ordered from the always helpful [email protected]
> Replacing a 133" HP 2.4
> Very excited.


Nice, looks like we'll finally start seeing a bunch of user reviews.


----------



## millerwill

Wondercarrot said:


> Gents, I'm in.
> 144" F3 16:9
> 
> Ordered from the always helpful [email protected]
> Replacing a 133" HP 2.4
> Very excited.


Wow, this is very close to my setup, a 144'W x 72"H HP2.4 screen; I zoom to 144"W for 2.35 pic (which are then ~ 60"H), and to 136x72 for 17x9 HDTV (using all the Sony1100's pixels). What is your projector? I will be very interested to hear if you think the MicroLite gives a higher quality pic than the HP2.4.


----------



## Wondercarrot

I've got a Sony vw95es
PJ is 18' from the screen in light controlled cave. 
While I'm certainly no expert like many here, I'll be more than happy to give you my thoughts between the 2 screens when it comes in. 

Can't wait!


----------



## we7313

For those who have successfully ordered, can you share some idea of what these screens are going for?


----------



## ch1sox

we7313 said:


> For those who have successfully ordered, can you share some idea of what these screens are going for?


Contact Mike Garrett.


----------



## biliam1982

Craig Peer said:


> Move that AVR rack so you can mount the screen lower. I wouldn't want to be distracted by equipment LED's myself. Put the center channel on a low stand ( Sanus makes a good one ). My screens are more like 17" off the floor ( 123" diagonal 16:9 ). Much easier to watch. Get a low center channel stand. Those are my thoughts.


I just measured it and I might be able to move the center console to the corner by the recliner. May be a little tricky with some of the remotes that need line of sight though
.


Mike Garrett said:


> F2 is what I recommended to Bill.


I thought you told me F3? Well when I get the samples I'll hopefully be able to tell what would work best.



Mike Garrett said:


> Michael has samples to send out to several people. Your name is on the list.


Thanks!


----------



## we7313

ch1sox said:


> we7313 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who have successfully ordered, can you share some idea of what these screens are going for?
> 
> 
> 
> Contact Mike Garrett.
Click to expand...

Mike has not replied. Is there another contact?


----------



## ch1sox

we7313 said:


> Mike has not replied. Is there another contact?


fyi, I just sent you his contact info.


----------



## chickenhogg

ch1sox said:


> Contact Mike Garrett.





Wondercarrot said:


> I've got a Sony vw95es
> PJ is 18' from the screen in light controlled cave.
> While I'm certainly no expert like many here, I'll be more than happy to give you my thoughts between the 2 screens when it comes in.
> 
> Can't wait!


I'm curious about your comparison as well. I have a similar, but smaller setup (110" HP 2.8) and am looking to upgrade to a ~135" screen.

I will contact Mike about pricing and samples as well, as some have mentioned.


----------



## Mike Garrett

we7313 said:


> Mike has not replied. Is there another contact?


How did you try to contact me? I have not received a PM nor an email?


----------



## thrang

Mike Garrett said:


> How did you try to contact me? I have not received a PM nor an email?


Possibly Snapchat, so you have to look quick...?


----------



## Wondercarrot

A bit of a delay, looks like a November delivery for me as per mike.
Hopefully it's sooner, we'll see.


----------



## ch1sox

blee0120 said:


> My F 3.0 will be here on the 15th.


Have you set it up yet?


----------



## thrang

blee0120 said:


> My F 3.0 will be here on the 15th.


what size was this?


----------



## blee0120

ch1sox said:


> Have you set it up yet?


Been working too much. It's in the box still. Going to set it up tomorrow evening


----------



## blee0120

thrang said:


> what size was this?


100in


----------



## thrang

blee0120 said:


> 100in


looking forward to feedback, and perhaps some screen shots...


----------



## thezaks

thrang said:


> looking forward to feedback, and perhaps some screen shots...


Ditto!

Dave


----------



## blee0120

Just did a little comparison before going to bed. The image is just as bright but the contrast and black levels look much better on the F3 compared to the HP 2.4. The F3 is smaller, so I was able to just place the F3 in a position so I could see both. The HP is on the edge. This image is with the JVC RS35 with the iris fully closed.


----------



## blee0120

This image is with max brightness on the JVC RS35. You can still see the black background looks better on the F3. Well, I'll be doing a lot more over the weekend. Just had to compared them very quick before going to bed.


----------



## mbw23air

blee0120 said:


> This image is with max brightness on the JVC RS35. You can still see the black background looks better on the F3. Well, I'll be doing a lot more over the weekend. Just had to compared them very quick before going to bed.


Black levels do look better on F3. I'm real interested to see if you see any artifacts in bright backgrounds when camera pans like there are on the 2.4 Da-lite HP. You've got a fun weekend ahead of you.

Mike


----------



## ch1sox

Nice, looking forward to your thoughts tomorrow.


----------



## ch1sox

mbw23air said:


> Black levels do look better on F3. I'm real interested to see if you see any artifacts in bright backgrounds when camera pans like there are on the 2.4 Da-lite HP. You've got a fun weekend ahead of you.
> 
> Mike


Based on my sample my guess is this depends on seating distance and how many lumens are being output. I haven't seen the Dalite though so I can't say how they compare.


----------



## mbw23air

ch1sox said:


> Based on my sample my guess is this depends on seating distance and how many lumens are being output. I haven't seen the Dalite though so I can't say how they compare.


This artifact/texture is the only thing that bothers me with the 2.4 HP. I love watching sports on it for the brightness. It might be hard to notice artifacts like this on a sample. Blee0120 knows the artifact I am talking about as he's had quite a few projectors and screens so I'm looking forward to hear what he sees.


----------



## blee0120

mbw23air said:


> This artifact/texture is the only thing that bothers me with the 2.4 HP. I love watching sports on it for the brightness. It might be hard to notice artifacts like this on a sample. Blee0120 knows the artifact I am talking about as he's had quite a few projectors and screens so I'm looking forward to hear what he sees.


I had a sample of the ST130 before and the sparkles was a bit much. Watched a little of avatar and I didn't noticed any. It's a grey material, so the blacks looks pretty good.I was more interested in daytime viewing, but the blacks caught my eye. I just have to set it up properly to compare both screens. Brightness didn't seem as much as I hoped, but I'll do more tomorrow. From the 15min I compared, it looks good and the viewing cone is great. Blacks looked black.


----------



## Mike Garrett

blee0120 said:


> I had a sample of the ST130 before and the sparkles was a bit much. Watched a little of avatar and I didn't noticed any. It's a grey material, so the blacks looks pretty good.I was more interested in daytime viewing, but the blacks caught my eye. I just have to set it up properly to compare both screens. Brightness didn't seem as much as I hoped, but I'll do more tomorrow. From the 15min I compared, it looks good and the viewing cone is great. Blacks looked black.


With my F3 sample compared to my 2.8 gain HP, I was getting about the same brightness, but much better black levels. Means the F3 will give me a better image with ambient light.


----------



## millerwill

Mike Garrett said:


> With my F3 sample compared to my 2.8 gain HP, I was getting about the same brightness, but much better black levels. Means the F3 will give me a better image with ambient light.


How about screen texture (or lack thereof) or other pic quality issues; any significant difference between the two?


----------



## thrang

millerwill said:


> How about screen texture (or lack thereof) or other pic quality issues; any significant difference between the two?


yes, one of the largest issues with HP is its poor uniformity. If this has excellent uniformity, no (or minimal sparkles), with HP brightness and better blacks (something which I don't yet understand, but sort of experience myself with the sample image I posted a few weeks back), this is a seriously interesting screen.

Panning across bright solid areas is the best way to see the uniformity issue (the hockey fan said...)


----------



## biliam1982

blee0120 said:


> I had a sample of the ST130 before and the sparkles was a bit much. Watched a little of avatar and I didn't noticed any. It's a grey material, so the blacks looks pretty good.I was more interested in daytime viewing, but the blacks caught my eye. I just have to set it up properly to compare both screens. Brightness didn't seem as much as I hoped, but I'll do more tomorrow. From the 15min I compared, it looks good and the viewing cone is great. Blacks looked black.





Mike Garrett said:


> With my F3 sample compared to my 2.8 gain HP, I was getting about the same brightness, but much better black levels. Means the F3 will give me a better image with ambient light.


What was your projector placement at the time of comparison? As the HP's a retro-reflective, and (supposedly) the F3 is angular-reflective, it would give different results.


----------



## thrang

biliam1982 said:


> What was your projector placement at the time of comparison? As the HP's a retro-reflective, and (supposedly) the F3 is angular-reflective, it would give different results.


Good point on the projector angle...if it were optimized for the HP, you would not be maximizing brightness for the F3


----------



## Mike Garrett

millerwill said:


> How about screen texture (or lack thereof) or other pic quality issues; any significant difference between the two?


My F3 sample is small, but the F3 is ISF, so it should provide a nice image. I do have a larger (55" diagonal) sample of the F2 and the image uniformity did look good on it. Did not notice any texture. Screen does not completely disappear like an ST100, but does very well. I don't know of any existing screen 1.3 gain or higher that completely disappears.


----------



## Mike Garrett

biliam1982 said:


> What was your projector placement at the time of comparison? As the HP's a retro-reflective, and (supposedly) the F3 is angular-reflective, it would give different results.


In my family room, my projector is on an adjustable height pedestal. So I was able to raise the projector, so that I could get the correct angle. I also tried the projector lower, as setup for the HP screen. It did affect the brightness of the MicroLite, but not by much. I usually keep my projector lens about 2' above seated head position, when using the HP screen, so I am not maximizing the gain with it.


----------



## biliam1982

Mike Garrett said:


> In my family room, my projector is on an adjustable height pedestal. So I was able to raise the projector, so that I could get the correct angle. I also tried the projector lower, as setup for the HP screen. It did affect the brightness of the MicroLite, but not by much. I usually keep my projector lens about 2' above seated head position, when using the HP screen, so I am not maximizing the gain with it.


Excellent, thx!


----------



## blee0120

biliam1982 said:


> What was your projector placement at the time of comparison? As the HP's a retro-reflective, and (supposedly) the F3 is angular-reflective, it would give different results.


With the HP screen, the projector was about 10-12in above my head. My it's around 7ft high. I only have 8ft ceilings. I plan to have a good look at it today.


----------



## Mike Garrett

millerwill said:


> How about screen texture (or lack thereof) or other pic quality issues; any significant difference between the two?


Are you talking about differences between HP and F3 or between F3 and F2?


----------



## millerwill

Mike Garrett said:


> Are you talking about differences between HP and F3 or between F3 and F2?


HP and F3.


----------



## blee0120

mbw23air said:


> This artifact/texture is the only thing that bothers me with the 2.4 HP. I love watching sports on it for the brightness. It might be hard to notice artifacts like this on a sample. Blee0120 knows the artifact I am talking about as he's had quite a few projectors and screens so I'm looking forward to hear what he sees.


There are really no artifacts other than the screen can appear to sparkle if you are within 2-3 ft. From 5ft out, I didn't see any. Even watched Avatar with the brightest scenes and I didn't notice any sparkles.


----------



## thezaks

blee0120 said:


> There are really no artifacts other than the screen can appear to sparkle if you are within 2-3 ft. From 5ft out, I didn't see any. Even watched Avatar with the brightest scenes and I didn't notice any sparkles.


Any pictures you can share would be much appreciated!

Dave


----------



## ch1sox

blee0120 said:


> There are really no artifacts other than the screen can appear to sparkle if you are within 2-3 ft. From 5ft out, I didn't see any. Even watched Avatar with the brightest scenes and I didn't notice any sparkles.


Do you know many lumens your projector is outputting?


----------



## blee0120

thezaks said:


> Any pictures you can share would be much appreciated!
> 
> Dave


I'm not at home at the moment, so I'm going to upload a few pictures later. I'm not seeing a big difference between the HP and F3 like I hoped with brightness. Its close to the same. I took a lot of pictures comparing them.


----------



## blee0120

ch1sox said:


> Do you know many lumens your projector is outputting?


About 700 lumens


----------



## thezaks

blee0120 said:


> I'm not at home at the moment, so I'm going to upload a few pictures later. I'm not seeing a big difference between the HP and F3 like I hoped with brightness. Its close to the same. I took a lot of pictures comparing them.



For me, that's OK, the brightness on both screens is plenty for me. I like the better blacks though!


Dave


----------



## biliam1982

blee0120 said:


> About 700 lumens


Is that at max brightness with the iris fully open?


----------



## ch1sox

thezaks said:


> For me, that's OK, the brightness on both screens is plenty for me. I like the better blacks though!
> 
> 
> Dave


Yea since the F3 and HP are about the same gain I figured brightness would be about the same.


----------



## biliam1982

ch1sox said:


> Yea since the F3 and HP are about the same gain I figured brightness would be about the same.


Isn't the F3 supposed to be a 3.3 gain screen?

He's using the 2.4 gain HP version.

There should be a very noticeable difference in brightness.


----------



## ch1sox

biliam1982 said:


> Isn't the F3 supposed to be a 3.3 gain screen?
> 
> He's using the 2.4 gain HP version.
> 
> There should be a very noticeable difference in brightness.


My bad, I thought it was 2.8 for the HP.


----------



## mbw23air

blee0120 said:


> There are really no artifacts other than the screen can appear to sparkle if you are within 2-3 ft. From 5ft out, I didn't see any. Even watched Avatar with the brightest scenes and I didn't notice any sparkles.


If you aren't seeing any artifacts that is something. I never see any sparkles with my 2.4 HP but I did with the 2.8 HP. The artifact I see with the 2.4 HP is vertical lines(texture) on bright backgrounds when camera pans left or right. I think I may have to get a sample now.

Thanks,
Mike


----------



## blee0120

biliam1982 said:


> Is that at max brightness with the iris fully open?


Yes, max calibrated


----------



## blee0120

biliam1982 said:


> Isn't the F3 supposed to be a 3.3 gain screen?
> 
> He's using the 2.4 gain HP version.
> 
> There should be a very noticeable difference in brightness.


I was hoping for a noticeable difference too


----------



## blee0120

I was expecting a much highter gain. With the HP mounted higher, it's much less than 2. So the F3 should be over twice as bright. The viewing cone is much better on the F3 and I didn't see any artifacts. I'm wondering if I got the F2 by accident


----------



## ch1sox

blee0120 said:


> I was expecting a much highter gain. With the HP mounted higher, it's much less than 2. So the F3 should be over twice as bright. The viewing cone is much better on the F3 and I didn't see any artifacts. I'm wondering if I got the F2 by accident


Post a picture of the material and we'll (us with samples) let you know if it's f2 or f3. The f2 is a much darker material do it should be easy to tell the difference.


----------



## blee0120

The HP 2.4 screen is on top and F2 is on the bottom


----------



## blee0120

Good news and bad news. Bad news is that the demo sample I was given was of the F2. Good news is that I will be able to spend a lot of time with both materials. I'm being sent the F3 screen next week.


----------



## thrang

blee0120 said:


> Good news and bad news. Bad news is that the demo sample I was given was of the F2. Good news is that I will be able to spend a lot of time with both materials. I'm being sent the F3 screen next week.


I'm confused, I thought you had the entire 100 inch screen not a small sample...


----------



## blee0120

thrang said:


> I'm confused, I thought you had the entire 100 inch screen not a small sample...



I was being sent a 100in F3, but they sent me a 100in F2.


----------



## biliam1982

blee0120 said:


> Good news and bad news. Bad news is that the demo sample I was given was of the F2. Good news is that I will be able to spend a lot of time with both materials. I'm being sent the F3 screen next week.


Nice! So the F2 hold up pretty well compared to the HP 2.4. Let's see how the blacks hold up on the F3.


----------



## blee0120

biliam1982 said:


> Nice! So the F2 hold up pretty well compared to the HP 2.4. Let's see how the blacks hold up on the F3.


Ceiling mounted, the HP2.4 is slightly less bright, so I'm guessing around 1.5 for the HP and 1.6 for the F2. The viewing cone made the F2 better if you are ceiling mounting the projector or mounting it higher up. I'm sure in a light control room, blacks will be better and more fade to blacks with the F2. I started to see sparkles during brighter scenes on the F2. None on the HP but you can see texture on the hp 2.4.


----------



## thrang

blee0120 said:


> I was being sent a 100in F3, but they sent me a 100in F2.


So the above comparison photos should really say F2?


----------



## blee0120

thrang said:


> So the above comparison photos should really say F2?


Yes, I need to edit those to say F2


----------



## ch1sox

Well I guess that's cool you'll be able to see both the F2 and F3 now. You said you started to notice sparkles, but none on the job? Can you explain what that means?


----------



## blee0120

ch1sox said:


> Well I guess that's cool you'll be able to see both the F2 and F3 now. You said you started to notice sparkles, but none on the job? Can you explain what that means?


Auto correct, it's suppose to be HP not job


----------



## thrang

Which is more distracting? - the amount of sparkles on the f2 or the dirty grain of the HP 2.4?


----------



## blee0120

thrang said:


> Which is more distracting? - the amount of sparkles on the f2 or the dirty grain of the HP 2.4?


Sparkles on F2, because the texture on the HP is not noticed as much. On rare occasions, I can see the texture of the screen. I had a SI 1.1 gain screen and the sparkles forced me to sell it. I however didn't notice the F2 sparkles until I increased the lumens on my JVC


----------



## thrang

blee0120 said:


> Sparkles on F2, because the texture on the HP is not noticed as much. On rare occasions, I can see the texture of the screen. I had a SI 1.1 gain screen and the sparkles forced me to sell it. I however didn't notice the F2 sparkles until I increased the lumens on my JVC


I suppose it depends how non uniform your 2.4 is - for me, the uneven grain was fairly evident on lighter color backgrounds during horizontal panning - but the sparkles on the f2 is a bit of a bummer

Curious now if f3 is worse or better in this regard - when will they ship that to you? Thanks


----------



## mbw23air

thrang said:


> I suppose it depends how non uniform your 2.4 is - for me, the uneven grain was fairly evident on lighter color backgrounds during horizontal panning - but the sparkles on the f2 is a bit of a bummer
> 
> Curious now if f3 is worse or better in this regard - when will they ship that to you? Thanks


My 2.4 HP is very uniform but I see the texture easily when camera pans on lighter backgrounds. You would think with the higher gain of the F3 that sparkles will be more but you never know.

The 2.4 HP actually measures to a 1.8 gain from Jeff Meier's screen report so it being similar in brightness to the F2 now makes me think the brightness gain will be very noticeable with the F3 vs. 2.4 HP but the real question is what artifacts will be seen with the F3 material. 

Mike


----------



## Sam Ash

blee0120 said:


> Sparkles on F2, because the texture on the HP is not noticed as much. On rare occasions, I can see the texture of the screen. I had a SI 1.1 gain screen and the sparkles forced me to sell it. I however didn't notice the F2 sparkles until I increased the lumens on my JVC


Hi Blee, thank you so much for sharing your experience. I find the sparkles issue interesting because you noticed it but Bill Livolsi of Projector Central did not in his review. Could this be related to the distance between the projector and the screen ? I take note of the fact that the recommended distance for optical screens is 1.5 to 1.8 times the projection width of the screen. Bill also mentioned that the SI Slate showed the fewest gain-related artifacts, I suppose SI may have ironed out those issues that you experienced with their past 1.1 gain screen.

*Edited to add this line*: Sorry Blee, I noticed that you mentioned that you did not notice the F2 sparkles until you increased the lumens on your JVC. With average ambient light in a room (some light coming in through windows and LED down-lighters on the ceiling), I would presume that one would need about 1,500 to 2,000 lumens to get the best out of the F2.


----------



## Sam Ash

Sorry for asking this question as I know it may have been covered somewhere on this thread but does the F2 and F3 allow the projector to be ceiling mounted ? Where does the projector have to be in relation to the top part of the projection area of the screen ?


----------



## chickenhogg

blee0120 said:


> thrang said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm confused, I thought you had the entire 100 inch screen not a small sample...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was being sent a 100in F3, but they sent me a 100in F2.
Click to expand...

Those are some pretty huge samples.  What are you going to do with them once you are done sampling? 

Looking forward to your comparison with the f3 in the mix.


----------



## thezaks

Sam Ash said:


> Sorry for asking this question as I know it may have been covered somewhere on this thread but does the F2 and F3 allow the projector to be ceiling mounted ? Where does the projector have to be in relation to the top part of the projection area of the screen ?


Yes, ceiling mounting is ideal - at or above the top of the screen.


Dave


----------



## Wondercarrot

mbw23air said:


> thrang said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose it depends how non uniform your 2.4 is - for me, the uneven grain was fairly evident on lighter color backgrounds during horizontal panning - but the sparkles on the f2 is a bit of a bummer
> 
> Curious now if f3 is worse or better in this regard - when will they ship that to you? Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> My 2.4 HP is very uniform but I see the texture easily when camera pans on lighter backgrounds. You would think with the higher gain of the F3 that sparkles will be more but you never know.
> 
> The 2.4 HP actually measures to a 1.8 gain from Jeff Meier's screen report so it being similar in brightness to the F2 now makes me think the brightness gain will be very noticeable with the F3 vs. 2.4 HP but the real question is what artifacts will be seen with the F3 material.
> 
> Mike
Click to expand...

My experience as well with respect to the texture of the HP 2.4
It's uniform/even but in brighter images you definitely see the texture when it pans.
I watch a lot of hockey and I've really enjoyed the pop it's given my image but I do "see the screen" quite noticebly on against the white ice. 
I'm really hoping the F3 I've ordered will minimize that, and since my PJ is near the back of the throw that sparkles will be a non issue as well.


----------



## biliam1982

Sam Ash said:


> Sorry for asking this question as I know it may have been covered somewhere on this thread but does the F2 and F3 allow the projector to be ceiling mounted ? Where does the projector have to be in relation to the top part of the projection area of the screen ?





thezaks said:


> Yes, ceiling mounting is ideal - at or above the top of the screen. Dave


Somebody correct me if I'm wrong on thie but...

If it truly is angular reflective, I believe the projector should be mounted the exact angle opposite from the viewers eyes.

So, say the screen is 60" in height, and the viewers eyes are 10" above the bottom of the screen, the projector should be mounted 10" below the top of the screen.


----------



## blee0120

chickenhogg said:


> Those are some pretty huge samples.  What are you going to do with them once you are done sampling?
> 
> Looking forward to your comparison with the f3 in the mix.


Wish I could keep it. But I have to send it back when I'm finished with them


----------



## blee0120

Sam Ash said:


> Hi Blee, thank you so much for sharing your experience. I find the sparkles issue interesting because you noticed it but Bill Livolsi of Projector Central did not in his review. Could this be related to the distance between the projector and the screen ? I take note of the fact that the recommended distance for optical screens is 1.5 to 1.8 times the projection width of the screen. Bill also mentioned that the SI Slate showed the fewest gain-related artifacts, I suppose SI may have ironed out those issues that you experienced with their past 1.1 gain screen.
> 
> *Edited to add this line*: Sorry Blee, I noticed that you mentioned that you did not notice the F2 sparkles until you increased the lumens on your JVC. With average ambient light in a room (some light coming in through windows and LED down-lighters on the ceiling), I would presume that one would need about 1,500 to 2,000 lumens to get the best out of the F2.


Watching in a light control room, I did not notice the sparkles. It was not until I had ambient light in the room that made it visible. As soon as any light hit the screen, the sparkles was evident. If I had to ceiling mount a projector and needed at least 1.3 gain, I would choose the F2. I seen samples of the ST130 and those sparkles was too much. The BD1.4 had too many artifacts to use IMO. Can't wait to get the F3, I enjoyed the F2,and it gave a deeper black level with good brightness. I think anyone who is looking to have better blacks will enjoy the F2.


----------



## blee0120

I'm going to try to keep the F2 a little longer to test it with a cheaper DLP projector. If it improves the blacks on a JVC, then I need to see how it performs with a bright DLP projector.


----------



## Sam Ash

blee0120 said:


> I'm going to try to keep the F2 a little longer to test it with a cheaper DLP projector. If it improves the blacks on a JVC, then I need to see how it performs with a bright DLP projector.


That will be interesting and informative, a little surprised to learn about the sparkle effect in ambient light environment as others who reviewed the F2 did not mention or notice it. Any idea what could be causing it ?


----------



## blee0120

Sam Ash said:


> That will be interesting and informative, a little surprised to learn about the sparkle effect in ambient light environment as others who reviewed the F2 did not mention or notice it. Any idea what could be causing it ?


I see what I said. It was not from the projector that you see the screen material. Its from the sunlight or any light hitting directly on the screen. In a dark or light control environment, I did not notice the screen or any sparkles. Its only when other light, which is not from the projector. I'm getting my Mit 7900 this friday and it can go up to 1100-1200 lumens uncalibrated in its brightest mode, so I'm going to test it out with a brighter projector. In the brightest uncalibrated mode with the JVC, I got around 900 lumens and did not notice any sparkles. Which was still over 50ftL, and I did not see any sparkles. Even at 700 lumens, I was at 40ftL with the JVC. It was bright and punchy with no sparkles evident. The screen has a material that makes it look bright but from a distance of over 3ft, its not there. You will have to directly shine light on it to see it. Just needed to clear that up. Basically, you get at least 1.6gain with better blacks than any screen out there will no artifacts. That's why I can't wait to get the Mit 7900 which has ok blacks, but I can't wait to see how it looks. As I showed on my images before, which I have more, the picture is just as bright as the HP 2.4 screen while giving a image that looks to have more contrast.


----------



## noah katz

If I go with a Microlite I'd be replacing a 128" wide free-hanging HP electric, so I'm wondering how visible waves are.

Has anyone seen the flexible version yet?


----------



## mbw23air

blee0120 said:


> I see what I said. It was not from the projector that you see the screen material. Its from the sunlight or any light hitting directly on the screen. In a dark or light control environment, I did not notice the screen or any sparkles. Its only when other light, which is not from the projector. I'm getting my Mit 7900 this friday and it can go up to 1100-1200 lumens uncalibrated in its brightest mode, so I'm going to test it out with a brighter projector. In the brightest uncalibrated mode with the JVC, I got around 900 lumens and did not notice any sparkles. Which was still over 50ftL, and I did not see any sparkles. Even at 700 lumens, I was at 40ftL with the JVC. It was bright and punchy with no sparkles evident. The screen has a material that makes it look bright but from a distance of over 3ft, its not there. You will have to directly shine light on it to see it. Just needed to clear that up. Basically, you get at least 1.6gain with better blacks than any screen out there will no artifacts. That's why I can't wait to get the Mit 7900 which has ok blacks, but I can't wait to see how it looks. As I showed on my images before, which I have more, the picture is just as bright as the HP 2.4 screen while giving a image that looks to have more contrast.


That's quite impressive that you get gain and at the same time you appear to get more contrast. I've had the 2.8 and 2.4 HP and while those give you gain they also raise black level by a proportional amount. The artifacts always bothered me by seeing texture sometimes on the HP but I live with it to get a brighter picture. If you can get the gain while improving contrast with no visible artifacts then I may have to change my future screen plan of a Stewart Studiotek 100. 

Mike


----------



## blee0120

mbw23air said:


> That's quite impressive that you get gain and at the same time you appear to get more contrast. I've had the 2.8 and 2.4 HP and while those give you gain they also raise black level by a proportional amount. The artifacts always bothered me by seeing texture sometimes on the HP but I live with it to get a brighter picture. If you can get the gain while improving contrast with no visible artifacts then I may have to change my future screen plan of a Stewart Studiotek 100.
> 
> Mike


ST100 will not work for you. You like it too bright


----------



## blee0120

If you need at least 1.5 gain, then the F2 is the screen to get. Can't wait to see the F3


----------



## mbw23air

blee0120 said:


> ST100 will not work for you. You like it too bright


Yeah, I like it bright but without artifacts and that's been hard to do in the past. I sent an email to Microlite requesting samples of the F2 and F3 material. If that doesn't work I'll call Mike Garrett here at AV Science and request a sample. 

So, no artifacts at all for you with F2 material, right?(I will be using in a black velvet bat cave.)


----------



## blee0120

mbw23air said:


> Yeah, I like it bright but without artifacts and that's been hard to do in the past. I sent an email to Microlite requesting samples of the F2 and F3 material. If that doesn't work I'll call Mike Garrett here at AV Science and request a sample.
> 
> So, no artifacts at all for you with F2 material, right?(I will be using in a black velvet bat cave.)


I didn't notice any at all while watching it. I cant wait to see the F3. The F2 is a great HT screen in a light control room. Good brightness and no raised black levels. Fade to blacks will be much easier to see. With a JVC, I'm sure you can get Fade to blacks without a DI. I haven't tried it yet but I will.

Are you planning on getting a JVC or Sony this year?


----------



## ch1sox

With the black levels on the F2 being pretty good you got me contemplating F2 instead of F3 now.


----------



## mbw23air

blee0120 said:


> I didn't notice any at all while watching it. I cant wait to see the F3. The F2 is a great HT screen in a light control room. Good brightness and no raised black levels. Fade to blacks will be much easier to see. With a JVC, I'm sure you can get Fade to blacks without a DI. I haven't tried it yet but I will.
> 
> Are you planning on getting a JVC or Sony this year?


Will most likely be getting either a JVC X7000 or a Sony 620es. I'm probably going to wait and read reviews and user posts before deciding which one to get. I hope UHD players will show up sooner rather than later as I would like to hear how each projector does with these as well as HDR and I also want to make sure there are no HDMI issues as well, so I may be waiting until late winter or early spring.

Mike


----------



## Wondercarrot

blee0120 said:


> mbw23air said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I like it bright but without artifacts and that's been hard to do in the past. I sent an email to Microlite requesting samples of the F2 and F3 material. If that doesn't work I'll call Mike Garrett here at AV Science and request a sample.
> 
> So, no artifacts at all for you with F2 material, right?(I will be using in a black velvet bat cave.)
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't notice any at all while watching it. I cant wait to see the F3. The F2 is a great HT screen in a light control room. Good brightness and no raised black levels. Fade to blacks will be much easier to see. With a JVC, I'm sure you can get Fade to blacks without a DI. I haven't tried it yet but I will.
> 
> Are you planning on getting a JVC or Sony this year?
Click to expand...




ch1sox said:


> With the black levels on the F2 being pretty good you got me contemplating F2 instead of F3 now.



Don't be too hasty on the F2 over the F3, maybe Mike Garrett can chip in here since I believe he thought that the F3 might be the better one for a batcave environment which perhaps seems a little counter intuitive. I don't recall exactly what he said and I don't want to put words in his mouth here so hopefully he'll see this comment and comment.


----------



## Mike Garrett

millerwill said:


> HP and F3.


The F3 has the brightness of the 2.8 gain HP, but does not wash out in high ambient light near as much as the HP. So black levels and contrast was much better.


----------



## Mike Garrett

noah katz said:


> If I go with a Microlite I'd be replacing a 128" wide free-hanging HP electric, so I'm wondering how visible waves are.
> 
> Has anyone seen the flexible version yet?


There are no electrics. Those are several months out.


----------



## Mike Garrett

Wondercarrot said:


> Don't be too hasty on the F2 over the F3, maybe Mike Garrett can chip in here since I believe he thought that the F3 might be the better one for a batcave environment which perhaps seems a little counter intuitive. I don't recall exactly what he said and I don't want to put words in his mouth here so hopefully he'll see this comment and comment.


In a dedicated room, it comes down to screen size and projector used. If going with a JVC, that has the manual iris, that allows you complete control on light output, then I would certainly consider the F3. If using a projector that does not allow as good control on the light output of the projector, then I would base my decision between F2 and F3 on the required FL off the screen based off of your screen size.


----------



## millerwill

Mike Garrett said:


> The F3 has the brightness of the 2.8 gain HP, but does not wash out in high ambient light near as much as the HP. So black levels and contrast was much better.


So if one forgets about ambient light (i.e., a 'black hole') and is only interested in brightness and pq (i.e., lack of artifacts, contrast, etc.), it sounds like you think the F3 is superior, right? And does this depend very much on projector location; i.e., is this still true with the pj rather low, projecting just over one's head?


----------



## mbw23air

Mike Garrett said:


> In a dedicated room, it comes down to screen size and projector used. If going with a JVC, that has the manual iris, that allows you complete control on light output, then I would certainly consider the F3. If using a projector that does not allow as good control on the light output of the projector, then I would base my decision between F2 and F3 on the required FL off the screen based off of your screen size.


Mike,

How easily seen is screen texture on the F3 material on bright backgrounds with camera pans? I see them easily on my 2.4 HP and want a screen with equal or so gain but without seeing artifacts or screen texture. Do you have any F3 samples left? I contacted Michael at Microlite and he said he was out of samples. Thanks Mike!

Mike


----------



## noah katz

blee0120 said:


> With a JVC, I'm sure you can get Fade to blacks without a DI.


A screen can only prevent black levels from being elevated by ambient or re-reflected light; it cannot reduce the pj's inherent black level.



Mike Garrett said:


> There are no electrics. Those are several months out.


Thanks; how about pull-downs?


----------



## Mike Garrett

mbw23air said:


> Mike,
> 
> How easily seen is screen texture on the F3 material on bright backgrounds with camera pans? I see them easily on my 2.4 HP and want a screen with equal or so gain but without seeing artifacts or screen texture. Do you have any F3 samples left? I contacted Michael at Microlite and he said he was out of samples. Thanks Mike!
> 
> Mike


I need to see it on a larger sample, which I will be able to see at CEDIA. So will have answer in about three weeks.


----------



## Mike Garrett

noah katz said:


> A screen can only prevent black levels from being elevated by ambient or re-reflected light; it cannot reduce the pj's inherent black level.
> 
> 
> 
> *Thanks; how about pull-downs?*


Will not be an offering.


----------



## NextLevel217

Hey mike do they have the zero edge screens yet?


----------



## Mike Garrett

NextLevel217 said:


> Hey mike do they have the zero edge screens yet?


No, not yet.


----------



## millerwill

The F3 sounds like a very intriguing possibility, but before going to the hassle of replacing my HP2.4 with it I really need to be convinced that it provides improved PQ (forgetting about ambient light situations) for 4K projection, i.e., something approaching that of the Stewart ST100. Otherwise I just don't think it's worth the effort.


----------



## Ximori

millerwill said:


> The F3 sounds like a very intriguing possibility, but before going to the hassle of replacing my HP2.4 with it I really need to be convinced that it provides improved PQ (forgetting about ambient light situations) for 4K projection, i.e., something approaching that of the Stewart ST100. Otherwise I just don't think it's worth the effort.


Question, Bill - how would you compare the texture you see in the HP 2.4 against the ST100? It's been awhile since I've last seen a HP 2.4...and I've never seen a ST100.


----------



## millerwill

Ximori said:


> Question, Bill - how would you compare the texture you see in the HP 2.4 against the ST100? It's been awhile since I've last seen a HP 2.4...and I've never seen a ST100.


I have a HP2.4 (had a HP2.8 several yrs before) and have no complaints with it, though I do accept the evaluations from respected colleagues that the ST100 is superior, esp for 4K projectors. However I've never seen the two screens (HP2.4 and HT100) side by side. It may be that I'm just not discriminating enough to see the fallacies in the HP2.4 to make it worth my while to 'upgrade', but I would like to see the ST100 to compare with.


----------



## Ximori

millerwill said:


> I have a HP2.4 (had a HP2.8 several yrs before) and have no complaints with it, though I do accept the evaluations from respected colleagues that the ST100 is superior, esp for 4K projectors. However I've never seen the two screens (HP2.4 and HT100) side by side. It may be that I'm just not discriminating enough to see the fallacies in the HP2.4 to make it worth my while to 'upgrade', but I would like to see the ST100 to compare with.


I understand where you're coming from. It seems like the F3 might be your ticket but that depends mostly on what quality trait of the screen you prioritize foremost. Anyhow, I certainly hope it gets reviewed soon by some of our screen experts we know here. 

On another note, I saw a trailer of the new Jungle Book. I can't wait for this film to get the HDR treatment - there are some very dark and bright scenes in there that can truly benefit from a much higher dynamic range... 
I don't think I'll ever watch this one till it comes out in HDR - this, with a F3 + JVC combo, together with your Atmos system...WOW!


----------



## Ranger

millerwill said:


> So if one forgets about ambient light (i.e., a 'black hole') and is only interested in brightness and pq (i.e., lack of artifacts, contrast, etc.), it sounds like you think the F3 is superior, right? And does this depend very much on projector location; i.e., is this still true with the pj rather low, projecting just over one's head?


I tested F2 and F3 last night. If you are interested in brightness the F3 is superior. The black levels is about the same as my matte white 1.0 screen. It is on par with DNP 23-23 but with much less sparkles. I much preferred the F2 in my low ambient light living room. The F2 can produce deep blacks like the DNP 08-85 yet the whites are whiter than my matte screen (I reckon ~ 1.5). This is the best screen I have tested, blacks are blacker and whites are whiter ! Both F2 and F3 have incredible viewing angles. I can walk to the edges of the screen and they would still retain almost of their brightness. These screens are very uniform. I tested with a X500 mounted low, about 9" over my head. They should perform much better when mounted high.


----------



## henrich3

millerwill said:


> The F3 sounds like a very intriguing possibility, but before going to the hassle of replacing my HP2.4 with it I really need to be convinced that it provides improved PQ (forgetting about ambient light situations) for 4K projection, i.e., something approaching that of the Stewart ST100. Otherwise I just don't think it's worth the effort.


I've got a 126" HP 2.4 that I've been pleased with as well, especially for 3D. I've requested samples of Microlite F3, Stewart's Silver 5D, Da-Lite's Silver Lite 2.5, and Vutec's SilverStar. I had also requested a sample of Vutec's recently announced ISF certified SilverStar 2.2 fabric, but the company said "_all information regarding this product remains highly confidential and no timeline has been set for any type of release_".

Any HP replacement would have to have comparable gain, freedom from significant picture artifacts (sparkles, sheen, hot-spotting, or color issues), and would also need to work with my projector's (RS66) low, retro-reflective optimized mount location. I'm looking forward to seeing how they all compare, especially the F3, after the samples arrive.


----------



## millerwill

henrich3 said:


> I've got a 126" HP 2.4 that I've been pleased with as well, especially for 3D. I've requested samples of Microlite F3, Stewart's Silver 5D, Da-Lite's Silver Lite 2.5, and Vutec's SilverStar. I had also requested a sample of Vutec's recently announced ISF certified SilverStar 2.2 fabric, but the company said "_all information regarding this product remains highly confidential and no timeline has been set for any type of release_".
> 
> Any HP replacement would have to have comparable gain, freedom from significant picture artifacts (sparkles, sheen, hot-spotting, or color issues), and would also need to work with my projector's (RS66) low, retro-reflective optimized mount location. I'm looking forward to seeing how they all compare, especially the F3, after the samples arrive.


Your setup and preferences sound very similar to mine, so I will be esp interested to hear your future reports.


----------



## henrich3

millerwill said:


> Your setup and preferences sound very similar to mine, so I will be esp interested to hear your future reports.


I'll post a few impressions & pics. Some PQ attributes (eg. hot-spotting) are difficult to judge from small samples however.

Cheers.


----------



## Ximori

Ranger said:


> I tested F2 and F3 last night. If you are interested in brightness the F3 is superior. The black levels is about the same as my matte white 1.0 screen. It is on par with DNP 23-23 but with much less sparkles. I much preferred the F2 in my low ambient light living room. The F2 can produce deep blacks like the DNP 08-85 yet the whites are whiter than my matte screen (I reckon ~ 1.5). This is the best screen I have tested, blacks are blacker and whites are whiter ! Both F2 and F3 have incredible viewing angles. I can walk to the edges of the screen and they would still retain almost of their brightness. These screens are very uniform. I tested with a X500 mounted low, about 9" over my head. They should perform much better when mounted high.


Exactly. Wish I can have both for an all-day viewing.


----------



## CoryW

Did a thorough demo of the F2 sample and here are a few observations (F3 will be next). I was very impressed! Saw no texture or oil effect. Did notice that it shows quite a difference if not perfectly flat so be super careful with the installation.

- Currently using Optima Graywolf II which I happen to love... but whites are terrible and texture is bothersome

- Screenshots from scene in Gravity

- Projector on high lamp mode of Mitsubishi HC8000D which is pretty dim fully calibrated

1) Here you can see how the F2 very minimally raises the black level but the brightness otherwise is vastly improved (in person if you look close, you can see a very, very slight increase in black level but hardly noticeable):










2) For this screenshot, I stood outside of the proper viewing angle vertically - projector ceiling mounted and seating is low to the ground. So for this, I simply stood up. Not a big deal but important to note how much the image drops off when not viewing the proper way:










3) Here you can see the image with my overhead light a little more than halfway on (utilizing dimmer) showing an excellent improvement:










4) Look how drastically improved the whites are while surfing!


----------



## mbw23air

Thanks Cory......very interested to see how the F3 compares.


----------



## millerwill

Yes, thanks much for these pics. Your #2 is most disturbing for me. It suggests that having the projector mounted close (vertically) to the viewers eyes would significantly diminish the brightness; is this correct?


----------



## blee0120

I should be getting the F3 tomorrow hopefully. Curious to see this screen. The F2 was great and would do excellent in a light control room, now wondering how the F3 will do.


----------



## CoryW

millerwill said:


> Yes, thanks much for these pics. Your #2 is most disturbing for me. It suggests that having the projector mounted close (vertically) to the viewers eyes would significantly diminish the brightness; is this correct?


Absolutely. But I believe if the angle is the same from eye to screen and screen to projector, you should be fine. You have to consider the angle of projector offset in combonation with lens shift to make sure the angle is proper. In my instance, I was probably at an angle way less than that of the projector to the screen. There was a nice bit of wiggle room for optimum viewing where I could lay on my couch or sit quite upright and the screen still looked great and didn't lose brightness. I would love to know the exact numbers on that vertical viewing angle, and if there is indeed a range of optimum viewing other than the exact angle in the opposite direction of the projection angle.


----------



## millerwill

CoryW said:


> ..... But I believe if the angle is the same from eye to screen and screen to projector, you should be fine....


But if both of these angles are 0 (or at least very small), this is the ideal for retro-reflective screens such as the HP. But I hear that the ML is best when these angles are the same but significantly greater than 0, i.e., with the pj mounted significantly above eye level (i.e., ceiling mounted), in an angular reflective configuration. ???


----------



## Ximori

CoryW said:


> Absolutely. But I believe if the angle is the same from eye to screen and screen to projector, you should be fine. You have to consider the angle of projector offset in combonation with lens shift to make sure the angle is proper. In my instance, I was probably at an angle way less than that of the projector to the screen. There was a nice bit of wiggle room for optimum viewing where I could lay on my couch or sit quite upright and the screen still looked great and didn't lose brightness. I would love to know the exact numbers on that vertical viewing angle, and if there is indeed a range of optimum viewing other than the exact angle in the opposite direction of the projection angle.


Proper setup is key to truly get an optimal image. Those are great pics!


----------



## mbw23air

CoryW said:


> Absolutely. But I believe if the angle is the same from eye to screen and screen to projector, you should be fine. You have to consider the angle of projector offset in combonation with lens shift to make sure the angle is proper. In my instance, I was probably at an angle way less than that of the projector to the screen. There was a nice bit of wiggle room for optimum viewing where I could lay on my couch or sit quite upright and the screen still looked great and didn't lose brightness. I would love to know the exact numbers on that vertical viewing angle, and if there is indeed a range of optimum viewing other than the exact angle in the opposite direction of the projection angle.


If I wind up ordering this screen I will have to raise my shelf up about a foot and 1/2 to get maximum gain so it's important to look at requirements. I think it was lens needs to be about 16" above center of screen.


----------



## biliam1982

Someone needs to put their projector on a stand that can be moved vertically up and down to see what the best angle is!


----------



## Sam Ash

Hi Cory, how much ambient light was present when you took the first pic ?. On the second pic with the overhead light at 50%, the retention of black levels can be seen in the starlit sky but only near the horizon and at the top edge of the sample piece, I presume this is because the small sample screen is not sitting completely flat right ? Furthermore, in the second shot, the details in whites seem to have blow-out, is this an exposure issue whilst taking the photo ?

Some people are talking about using an F2 or F3 in a dedicated bat cave whereas these screens have been designed for ambient light environments. I need clarification on this as I think a normal white screen with a gain of 1 or slightly higher would be better in a bat cave. However, what would justify an F2 or F3 being used in a bat cave ? - is it the possibility of using them in a bat cave with low light output projectors such as the current JVCs or the Optoma HD91+ ? As mike said it depends on projector and screen size and I think he speaks with the same context in mind. Using an F2 in a bat cave may work but an F3 would just be far too bright, don't you think so ?


----------



## Dominic Chan

biliam1982 said:


> Someone needs to put their projector on a stand that can be moved vertically up and down to see what the best angle is!


It's much easier to just move your head up and down, as illustrated in sample picture #2 . Once you've found the optimal angle, then you can repositione the projector accordingly to provide that angle when you're in the normal viewing position.l


----------



## Dominic Chan

CoryW said:


> Did a thorough demo of the F2 sample and here are a few observations (F3 will be next). I was very impressed! Saw no texture or oil effect. Did notice that it shows quite a difference if not perfectly flat so be super careful with the installation.


Were pictures #1 and #4 taken from the same viewing angle? The difference in brightness (between the screen sample and the background screen) seems to be much more dramatic in #4 .


----------



## thrang

CoryW said:


> Did a thorough demo of the F2 sample and here are a few observations (F3 will be next). I was very impressed! Saw no texture or oil effect. Did notice that it shows quite a difference if not perfectly flat so be super careful with the installation.
> 
> - Currently using Optima Graywolf II which I happen to love... but whites are terrible and texture is bothersome
> 
> - Screenshots from scene in Gravity
> 
> - Projector on high lamp mode of Mitsubishi HC8000D which is pretty dim fully calibrated
> 
> 1) Here you can see how the F2 very minimally raises the black level but the brightness otherwise is vastly improved (in person if you look close, you can see a very, very slight increase in black level but hardly noticeable):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2) For this screenshot, I stood outside of the proper viewing angle vertically - projector ceiling mounted and seating is low to the ground. So for this, I simply stood up. Not a big deal but important to note how much the image drops off when not viewing the proper way:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3) Here you can see the image with my overhead light a little more than halfway on (utilizing dimmer) showing an excellent improvement:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4) Look how drastically improved the whites are while surfing!


Is it possible you're making the mistake I did? The back of my samples have small arrows showing which direction to orient the material. In both my cases, the arrow was in the vertical orientation, not horizontal as you have your sample...unless they changed this...


----------



## CoryW

Sam Ash said:


> Hi Cory, how much ambient light was present when you took the first pic ?. On the second pic with the overhead light at 50%, the retention of black levels can be seen in the starlit sky but only near the horizon and at the top edge of the sample piece, I presume this is because the small sample screen is not sitting completely flat right ? Furthermore, in the second shot, the details in whites seem to have blow-out, is this an exposure issue whilst taking the photo ?
> 
> Some people are talking about using an F2 or F3 in a dedicated bat cave whereas these screens have been designed for ambient light environments. I need clarification on this as I think a normal white screen with a gain of 1 or slightly higher would be better in a bat cave. However, what would justify an F2 or F3 being used in a bat cave ? - is it the possibility of using them in a bat cave with low light output projectors such as the current JVCs or the Optoma HD91+ ? As mike said it depends on projector and screen size and I think he speaks with the same context in mind. Using an F2 in a bat cave may work but an F3 would just be far too bright, don't you think so ?


In the 1st pic, the only ambient light was that which reflected off of light gray walls... very little.

Yes the F2 sample was not sitting completely flat so you could see the dropoff in brightness, which concerns me a bit. But I suppose a proper and careful install should prevent this from happening so it's not really a concern.

The blown out whites was due to exposure on the camera. I used a Sony mk2 which is outstanding but I'm not an expert on exposure. It is quite difficult to balance the darks and brights in a screenshot environment.

Some reasons for F2 for me: I'm obsessed with inky blacks but cannot afford JVC. So I'm running a pretty low lumen projector. I also have almost white walls so ambient light is an issue from reflections. Plus I like the perceived lower black levels from gray screens, but don't like the loss in brightness.


----------



## CoryW

Dominic Chan said:


> Were pictures #1 and #4 taken from the same viewing angle? The difference in brightness (between the screen sample and the background screen) seems to be much more dramatic in #4 .


It seems that way for sure... and the exposure from zooming more on my camera may have exaggerated it a bit. But I must say it was dramatic and the viewing angle was the same. The video had no actual all white scenes in my screenshot so it doesn't demonstrate the drastic improvement in whites.


----------



## Hawkmarket

First off allow to me to qualify myself as a complete novice when it comes to screen testing. I'm in the phase of selecting an appropriate screen for a finished basement project where I'll be putting in my first projector (Epson 5030) that I've ever owned. Currently I have been comparing black out cloth, Carada 1.4, Da-Lite HD 1.3, Microlite F2 and F3 so in this thread I'll just share my experiences with the F3.

Pro's:
The F3 sample I received held up against all the others mentioned above is vastly brighter. Not just a little bit, this thing is in it's own universe. I brought the wife down to look at it to compare the samples and she doesn't know Microlite from a microwave and she immediately says she likes the F3 far and above the others. I turned every light on in the room and made it as bright as possible and it still looked good. The obvious concern is what happens when it gets dark because I'll have pretty good light control in the basement. I turned out all the lights (this was at night) and with my projector just simply switched over to THX mode it had a gorgeous dark room picture that still shined above all the others without feeling like it was too bright. I have never watched this projector in THX mode before because I felt like it was a dull and flat picture so this was an entirely different viewing experience in that mode. All that said I still hadn't found my normal watching experience which was "some" lights on in a media room watching football so that was my last test with the Memphis/Cinncinati game. In a moderately lit room watching football/sports in general it really brought out the colors and added a pop I haven't seen yet on any other projector screen samples which I personally enjoy. The other samples certainly looked nice and all would work but the F3 was the only *"wow"* sample that I tested. 

Don't Knows:
I'm not ready to call them "cons" yet because I don't know so let me explain. A sample is obviously a very small representation of a large screen so I moved the sample around the screen viewing area to create many different viewing angles and also would stand up and lay down to get an idea of what the screen looks like from different perspectives. Side to side there is absolutely no loss in picture and I don't care what angle you're at, nothing lost. Up/down is where I want to know more. First off my projector isn't ceiling mounted yet so my projector was only about 6 feet up in the air (remember I said I was a complete novice at this). While seated the sample within about a couple feet up or down of my viewing area maintained it's appearance. The further I went up or down the more the brightness would drop below all the other samples. If I stood up or laid down on the floor it would also change where the screen would be bright and where it would become darker than the other samples. All the other samples maintained their uniformity which compared to the F3's best angle was far inferior and compared to the F3's worst angle was a superior picture. 

All that said I realize to do a completely accurate comparison I need to have the projector ceiling mounted and quite frankly I need to read the reviews of somebody who is working with a much bigger sample than I am which just isn't out yet. The potential of this screen feels like it's off the charts but........but I would like for someone who isn't a novice at this to provide more properly run vertical viewing angle tests to give us an accurate reflection of the trade offs with this screen. 

I will summarize by saying I liked the F3 sample infinitely more than the others at it's "proper angle" but would love to have a review from someone who can more accurately test a larger sample size to give us a full picture review. If I purchase the F3 I'll be purchasing the 144" so any hot spotting or lack of screen uniformity is a concern that I would like to have resolved. Fingers crossed. 
.
Rock Chalk


----------



## Ranger

millerwill said:


> Yes, thanks much for these pics. Your #2 is most disturbing for me. It suggests that having the projector mounted close (vertically) to the viewers eyes would significantly diminish the brightness; is this correct?


I don't think so. I have the projector mounted about 9" above my head and the F2 is brighter than my matte white screen. I estimate to be at least 1.5 gain. The F3 is probably 3x brighter, too bright to watch in a bat cave. My projector is mounted directly to the center of the screen. You will see brightness loss if you are in front of the screen looking up from the floor but that is an un-realistic viewing angle. I am more impressed by the side to side viewing angles. I can walk to the edges and the screens would still retain their brightness. I have not seen other ambient light rejection screens that can do that except the DNP's.


----------



## millerwill

Ranger said:


> I don't think so. I have the projector mounted about 9" above my head and the F2 is brighter than my matte white screen. I estimate to be at least 1.5 gain. The F3 is probably 3x brighter, too bright to watch in a bat cave. My projector is mounted directly to the center of the screen. You will see brightness loss if you are in front of the screen looking up from the floor but that is an un-realistic viewing angle. I am more impressed by the side to side viewing angles. I can walk to the edges and the screens would still retain their brightness. I have not seen other ambient light rejection screens that can do that except the DNP's.


Thanks much for the feedback. So having the pj projecting just over your head works well with the F3, correct? Nice!

You say that the F3 is too bright in bat cave mode; what size is your screen? (Mine is 81 ft^2 when zoomed for a 2.35 pic.) My interest in the F3 is its high gain (for a bright pic on a large screen) and the lack of artifacts (the screen 'disappears').


----------



## Hawkmarket

millerwill said:


> Thanks much for the feedback. So having the pj projecting just over your head works well with the F3, correct? Nice!
> 
> You say that the F3 is too bright in bat cave mode; what size is your screen? (Mine is 81 ft^2 when zoomed for a 2.35 pic.) My interest in the F3 is its high gain (for a bright pic on a large screen) and the lack of artifacts (the screen 'disappears').


From the small sample I've looked at with the F3 I just put it at THX mode in a dark environment and the screen pops without obnoxious blazing. The good news with that is the lamp life just got longer. Keep in mind I'm looking at a very small sample so I could go blind by the time I actually see it in 144". I do like the idea of not having to turn off every light to get the pic bright enough and that is certainly the case with the F3. I also measured and the bottom of the actual screen itself in my room will be approximately 22 inches from the floor and the top will of course be approximately 70 inches above that. I'm hoping with an overhead projector that it will give me a fairly uniform picture whether I'm sitting or standing up at the bar watching it from the side.


----------



## CoryW

thrang said:


> Is it possible you're making the mistake I did? The back of my samples have small arrows showing which direction to orient the material. In both my cases, the arrow was in the vertical orientation, not horizontal as you have your sample...unless they changed this...


Wow, you could be right! I'll need to do a redo tonight.


----------



## blee0120

Got the screen today. And yes its brighter than the HP 2.4.


----------



## millerwill

blee0120 said:


> Got the screen today. And yes its brighter than the HP 2.4.


Can you remind us where your pj is located (height-wise)--sorry that I can't keep all this straight--and also how the ML compares to the HP2.4 in screen quality, i.e., hotspotting, etc.?


----------



## henrich3

blee0120 said:


> Got the screen today. And yes its brighter than the HP 2.4.


How else does it compare to your HP, on-axis and off? Any PQ artifacts (sparkles or sheen)? If you watch 3D, how does it perform with that? Which material do you prefer overall?


----------



## Hawkmarket

CoryW said:


> Wow, you could be right! I'll need to do a redo tonight.


I originally made that mistake and it completely changes the picture. The arrows are a really big deal.


----------



## tigerfan33

I too would like the F3 if I could keep brightness and still leave my projector 8-10 inches above my head.
Are people calling the company for samples or can AVS get them?


----------



## henrich3

tigerfan33 said:


> Are people calling the company for samples or can AVS get them?


You can request a sample by emailing [email protected] 

I didn't receive an email response to my request, but when I called this morning asking for status they said that it had shipped.


----------



## tigerfan33

henrich3 said:


> You can request a sample by emailing [email protected]
> 
> I didn't receive an email response to my request, but when I called this morning asking for status they said that it had shipped.



Great.
Thanks!


----------



## blee0120

Watched my first movie on the F3. I used my Mit HC7900. I watched the Edge of Tomorrow and it was very enjoyable. Its a 97in scope and the movie was extremely sharp and bright. The Mit is ceiling mounted on low lamp. Gonna watch more, give more details later


----------



## blee0120

henrich3 said:


> How else does it compare to your HP, on-axis and off? Any PQ artifacts (sparkles or sheen)? If you watch 3D, how does it perform with that? Which material do you prefer overall?


When I watch a few more things, I'll inform everyone.


----------



## mbw23air

henrich3 said:


> You can request a sample by emailing [email protected]
> 
> I didn't receive an email response to my request, but when I called this morning asking for status they said that it had shipped.


Michael at Microlite told me earlier this week that they are out of samples.

Mike


----------



## blee0120

I plan on giving my impressions of the screens soon, but my 3D review will have to wait. I been really enjoying the F3. Having it ceiling mounted is so much more convenient for me. No more heads in the image from the projector being shelf mounted close to eye level with the HP screen. The only flaw with a few DLP projectors was that I could not use the HP to get a higher gain, now it's possible. I love the look of DLP projectors and the Mitsubishi projectors are great projectors, now I am enjoying mines more than ever before. The extra brightness just makes it pop even more and its razor sharp too.


----------



## Wondercarrot

blee0120 said:


> I plan on giving my impressions of the screens soon, but my 3D review will have to wait. I been really enjoying the F3. Having it ceiling mounted is so much more convenient for me. No more heads in the image from the projector being shelf mounted close to eye level with the HP screen. The only flaw with a few DLP projectors was that I could not use the HP to get a higher gain, now it's possible. I love the look of DLP projectors and the Mitsubishi projectors are great projectors, now I am enjoying mines more than ever before. The extra brightness just makes it pop even more and its razor sharp too.


How do you find the texture compared to the HP?
I've enjoyed the HP but I do find I 'see' the screen grain/texture a little especially when watching hockey and pans.


----------



## blee0120

Wondercarrot said:


> How do you find the texture compared to the HP?
> I've enjoyed the HP but I do find I 'see' the screen grain/texture a little especially when watching hockey and pans.


I lived with the HP screen for so long and came accustomed to seeing the screen texture on few occasions. Being that this is not a unity screen like the ST100, then I'm sure you will notice it. Its not as annoying as the HP because I didn't notice any on the F2 and F3 while watching the Edge of Tomorrow or Avatar on Friday. Yesterday, I watched hours of TV shows and I did notice the screen once or twice. I even noticed the screen texture on rare occasions with my Carada CW screen. Apparently there is only one screen material that is unnoticeable, the ST100.


----------



## henrich3

^ The old HP 2.8 had a bit of a paisley sheen, but I've never noticed the surface of my HP 2.4 unless I'm within a foot of it. Perhaps I'm just not as critical a viewer however...

I wouldn't judge a screen viewing cable or satellite TV since those sources typically have heavy compression artifacts. It's also difficult to judge if a screen has a grainy surface if you're viewing film-sourced content since that has film grain. Blu-ray _video _sources (not film) are much better for testing, eg. the demo scenes in the Video Essentials Blu-ray.

Looking forward to receiving my F3 sample...


----------



## blee0120

henrich3 said:


> ^ The old HP 2.8 had a bit of a paisley sheen, but I've never noticed the surface of my HP 2.4 unless I'm within a foot of it. Perhaps I'm just not as critical a viewer however...
> 
> I wouldn't judge a screen viewing cable or satellite TV since those sources typically have heavy compression artifacts. It's also difficult to judge if a screen has a grainy surface if you're viewing film-sourced content since that has film grain. Blu-ray _video _sources (not film) are much better for testing, eg. the demo scenes in the Video Essentials Blu-ray.
> 
> Looking forward to receiving my F3 sample...


That's why I said I didn't see the screen while watching blu rays, but many people what cable. I do myself what a lot of cable and streaming but blu rays look exceptional.


----------



## kwk2293

blee0120 said:


> That's why I said I didn't see the screen while watching blu rays, but many people what cable. I do myself what a lot of cable and streaming but blu rays look exceptional.


Blee if u get a chance watch a little bit of a hockey game this is were 2.4 hp screen shows the texture the most wondering what this screen would look like


----------



## Wondercarrot

kwk2293 said:


> blee0120 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why I said I didn't see the screen while watching blu rays, but many people what cable. I do myself what a lot of cable and streaming but blu rays look exceptional.
> 
> 
> 
> Blee if u get a chance watch a little bit of a hockey game this is were 2.4 hp screen shows the texture the most wondering what this screen would look like
Click to expand...

I'm also interested how hockey looks to you on the F3 in comparison to the 2.4 HP!

Thanks


----------



## Hawkmarket

Blee did you notice any "oil slick" effect on the Microlite and how well does the screen maintain its uniformity from the top to the bottom of the picture?


----------



## Sam Ash

blee0120 said:


> I plan on giving my impressions of the screens soon, but my 3D review will have to wait. I been really enjoying the F3. Having it ceiling mounted is so much more convenient for me. No more heads in the image from the projector being shelf mounted close to eye level with the HP screen. The only flaw with a few DLP projectors was that I could not use the HP to get a higher gain, now it's possible. I love the look of DLP projectors and the Mitsubishi projectors are great projectors, now I am enjoying mines more than ever before. The extra brightness just makes it pop even more and its razor sharp too.


Just like you, I love the look of DLP. What is the brightness of the Mitsubishi DLP projector that you are using in terms of lumens ? Are you using the F3 in an ambient lit environment or is it in a darkened room ?

What I am trying to establish is how a projector like the Optoma HD91+ would perform with the F3 in both ambient lit and darkened environments. The HD91+ is generally a good projector but the only thing that lets it down is the low lumens factor after calibration.

Has anyone here tried teaming the F3 with an Optoma HD90 series which is LED based ?


----------



## thrang

kwk2293 said:


> Blee if u get a chance watch a little bit of a hockey game this is were 2.4 hp screen shows the texture the most wondering what this screen would look like





Wondercarrot said:


> I'm also interested how hockey looks to you on the F3 in comparison to the 2.4 HP!
> 
> Thanks


Hockey is the best to catch any screen "presence" issues as the camera pans left and right...

Also, any screen shots, as crude as the process is, might be helpful if you have time.


----------



## DiceGuys

blee0120 said:


> Watched my first movie on the F3. I used my Mit HC7900. I watched the Edge of Tomorrow and it was very enjoyable. Its a 97in scope and the movie was extremely sharp and bright. The Mit is ceiling mounted on low lamp. Gonna watch more, give more details later


I've been a causal observer on AVS Forum since I started my HT buildout recently and find the info quite valuable. I have been considering the SI black diamond since it was recommended by my HT installer friend. I have read up on many pros and cons about screens and have recently become more interested in the Micro F2/F3 option. I own the same Mits 7900 as you blee and will have it ceiling mounted in a dedicated bat cave room with total control of lighting. So needless to say I am very interested in your review of content and 3D. Thanks all for your posts and insights on one of the last pieces to the puzzle on my HT!

Jim


----------



## Hawkmarket

DiceGuys said:


> I've been a causal observer on AVS Forum since I started my HT buildout recently and find the info quite valuable. I have been considering the SI black diamond since it was recommended by my HT installer friend. I have read up on many pros and cons about screens and have recently become more interested in the Micro F2/F3 option. I own the same Mits 7900 as you blee and will have it ceiling mounted in a dedicated bat cave room with total control of lighting. So needless to say I am very interested in your review of content and 3D. Thanks all for your posts and insights on one of the last pieces to the puzzle on my HT!
> 
> Jim


I have it on pretty good authority that we're about to see a professional review of the Microlite F3 screen by hopefully the end of next week. Stay tuned.


----------



## blee0120

kwk2293 said:


> Blee if u get a chance watch a little bit of a hockey game this is were 2.4 hp screen shows the texture the most wondering what this screen would look like


I do not notice any texture of the screen when watching it with no ambient light. Of course if you have any sunlight or ambient light directly on the screen, more of the screen will show. This has nothing to do with the screen itself. If you have light all around the room or white walls with no direct light on to the screen, I do not see it causing any problems.


----------



## blee0120

Hawkmarket said:


> Blee did you notice any "oil slick" effect on the Microlite and how well does the screen maintain its uniformity from the top to the bottom of the picture?


I hear the oil slick effect but I'm not sure what that mean. The picture looks great. Bright and punchy. Exactly how it should look. The screen reminds me of the 4k TVs at the store, they are bright, sharp, and crystal clear. I have been watching so many movies and I get that feeling every time. I'm using a DLP with a Darbee, so the F3 is working wonders. Just watched Mad Max and that was a masterpiece on how beautiful the PQ is throughout the entire movie. Then having it bright and sharp makes all the difference.


----------



## blee0120

DiceGuys said:


> I've been a causal observer on AVS Forum since I started my HT buildout recently and find the info quite valuable. I have been considering the SI black diamond since it was recommended by my HT installer friend. I have read up on many pros and cons about screens and have recently become more interested in the Micro F2/F3 option. I own the same Mits 7900 as you blee and will have it ceiling mounted in a dedicated bat cave room with total control of lighting. So needless to say I am very interested in your review of content and 3D. Thanks all for your posts and insights on one of the last pieces to the puzzle on my HT!
> 
> Jim



I been watching the F3 more lately because of the extra brightness. I'm going to switch out the F3 for the F2 soon so I can see which one is the best. The Mit 7900 is so sharp that the extra brightness is much welcomed. In low lamp, it's about 500 lumens, so it's like 1500 lumens hitting a unity screen. Its ridiculous how much better the Mit looks. I used it with the HP 2.4 before but I was getting maybe 1.4 gain and with an unity screen. So, not to many people have witness this beautiful. You will have to get a much more expensive DLP to get this performance. I say the F3, is a perfect match


----------



## blee0120

I should have my review posted of my shootout Saturday between the F3, F2, and HP 2.4. I been enjoying these screens too much


----------



## ch1sox

blee0120 said:


> I should have my review posted of my shootout Saturday between the F3, F2, and HP 2.4. I been enjoying these screens too much


Sounds like you're enjoying them. Just curious, but do you do any gaming? Might be neat to play some games with all the bright colors.


----------



## mbw23air

blee0120 said:


> I should have my review posted of my shootout Saturday between the F3, F2, and HP 2.4. I been enjoying these screens too much





blee0120 said:


> I do not notice any texture of the screen when watching it with no ambient light. Of course if you have any sunlight or ambient light directly on the screen, more of the screen will show. This has nothing to do with the screen itself. If you have light all around the room or white walls with no direct light on to the screen, I do not see it causing any problems.


I'm really glad you are liking these screens so much and aren't noticing the screen texture. Do you have any plans to get a new JVC or Sony projector this fall or since sometimes getting a new screen makes you feel like you got a new projector, is that gonna be your only upgrade?

Mike


----------



## blee0120

mbw23air said:


> I'm really glad you are liking these screens so much and aren't noticing the screen texture. Do you have any plans to get a new JVC or Sony projector this fall or since sometimes getting a new screen makes you feel like you got a new projector, is that gonna be your only upgrade?
> 
> Mike


I'm not sure. I want to get a new JVC, because the Sony projectors look to be similar to last year. The JVCs look to be a nice upgrade, but we will know soon. When I had the Mit HC8000 last time, I wished it was brighter, but now that I have it, I can wait a little. But I'll see, because my RS35 is looking great still. Have you decided on the new JVC or Sony yet?


----------



## thezaks

blee0120 said:


> I hear the oil slick effect but I'm not sure what that mean. The picture looks great. *Bright *and punchy. Exactly how it should look. The screen reminds me of the 4k TVs at the store, they are *bright*, sharp, and crystal clear. I have been watching so many movies and I get that feeling every time. I'm using a DLP with a Darbee, so the F3 is working wonders. Just watched Mad Max and that was a masterpiece on how beautiful the PQ is throughout the entire movie. Then having it *bright* and sharp makes all the difference.





blee0120 said:


> I been watching the F3 more lately because of the extra *brightness*. I'm going to switch out the F3 for the F2 soon so I can see which one is the best. The Mit 7900 is so sharp that the extra *brightness* is much welcomed. In low lamp, it's about 500 lumens, so it's like 1500 lumens hitting a unity screen. Its ridiculous how much better the Mit looks. I used it with the HP 2.4 before but I was getting maybe 1.4 gain and with an unity screen. So, not to many people have witness this beautiful. You will have to get a much more expensive DLP to get this performance. I say the F3, is a perfect match


I see you mentioning a bit about the brightness, but I'm wondering how the blacks look? Seems like the blacks would take a hit with all of that brightness. A few pictures of some low apl scenes would be cool - in fact, any pics would be great!

Thanks,
Dave


----------



## blee0120

thezaks said:


> I see you mentioning a bit about the brightness, but I'm wondering how the blacks look? Seems like the blacks would take a hit with all of that brightness. A few pictures of some low apl scenes would be cool - in fact, any pics would be great!
> 
> Thanks,
> Dave


I'm trying to wait until Saturday to post everything. But black level will always be higher with added brightness. If you have a jvc, then black levels can be improved because of the iris being clamped down or its DI. Without a jvc, I would not consider black levels being a top priority


----------



## Rathiem

My F2.0 just arrived. Hoping to have it setup this evening with some observations.


----------



## mbw23air

blee0120 said:


> I'm not sure. I want to get a new JVC, because the Sony projectors look to be similar to last year. The JVCs look to be a nice upgrade, but we will know soon. When I had the Mit HC8000 last time, I wished it was brighter, but now that I have it, I can wait a little. But I'll see, because my RS35 is looking great still. Have you decided on the new JVC or Sony yet?


I'll be getting one of them but haven't decided which one yet. I'm leaning towards the JVC X7000 only because it's 1/2 as cheap as the Sony. I'm going to try and wait and read reviews especially with how they handle HDR signals from UHD blurays. With JVC having HDMI problems with 1080p signals I don't have a lot of faith in them to handle a 4K signal. I also worry about the brighter lamp in the JVC and them cooling it effectively as I had a RS40 that the lamp dimmed then blew after 500 hours. So my bad experiences will cause me to wait a while to make sure there are no problems.

Mike


----------



## thezaks

mbw23air said:


> I'll be getting one of them but haven't decided which one yet. I'm leaning towards the JVC X7000 only because it's 1/2 as cheap as the Sony. I'm going to try and wait and read reviews especially with how they handle HDR signals from UHD blurays. With JVC having HDMI problems with 1080p signals I don't have a lot of faith in them to handle a 4K signal. I also worry about the brighter lamp in the JVC and them cooling it effectively as I had a RS40 that the lamp dimmed then blew after 500 hours. So my bad experiences will cause me to wait a while to make sure there are no problems.
> 
> Mike


Agreed! I hope they fix the HDMI issues, especially for the WAF!

Dave


----------



## Rathiem

Rathiem said:


> My F2.0 just arrived. Hoping to have it setup this evening with some observations.


Setup was a PITA. I had to use hair bands and go back with the normal tension bands on this one to get it all tensioned out. Bat caving it in THX on my Epson 5030 created a pretty even brightness picture. Little brighter at the top but not overly noticeable. Much smoother picture than my painted screen goo grey painted wall. Don't notice any texturing like I did with the wall which gave a small orange peel effect. They might need to check their QC. There are 2 small washer like impressions on the left 3rd of the screen about the size of a penny vertical to each other and equidistant. Flaming white screen they show up. Also there are vertical manufacturing lines at both left and right 3rds of the screen when viewed from an offset from either side. This is not noticeable when viewed head on. When flaming the screen with the lights on it does an admirable job of combatting ambient light. Definitely need to run in dynamic when the lights are on and it's better than the paint. I did quick calibration with spears and munsil, helped clean things up. Overall, this is better than my other setup, but $1000 better, not sure.


----------



## Sam Ash

Rathiem said:


> Setup was a PITA. I had to use hair bands and go back with the normal tension bands on this one to get it all tensioned out. Bat caving it in THX on my Epson 5030 created a pretty even brightness picture. Little brighter at the top but not overly noticeable. Much smoother picture than my painted screen goo grey painted wall. Don't notice any texturing like I did with the wall which gave a small orange peel effect. They might need to check their QC. There are 2 small washer like impressions on the left 3rd of the screen about the size of a penny vertical to each other and equidistant. Flaming white screen they show up. Also there are vertical manufacturing lines at both left and right 3rds of the screen when viewed from an offset from either side. This is not noticeable when viewed head on. When flaming the screen with the lights on it does an admirable job of combatting ambient light. Definitely need to run in dynamic when the lights are on and it's better than the paint. I did quick calibration with spears and munsil, helped clean things up. Overall, this is better than my other setup, but $1000 better, not sure.


Thank you for your input Rathlem, I guess we re waiting for Blee to give us his views and comparison.


----------



## ch1sox

Sam Ash said:


> Thank you for your input Rathlem, I guess we re waiting for Blee to give us his views and comparison.


There's also a professional review being done sometime next week on the F3 apparently. So between Blee, the review and other members getting their screens we'll finally start seeing some good feedback.



Hawkmarket said:


> I have it on pretty good authority that we're about to see a professional review of the Microlite F3 screen by hopefully the end of next week. Stay tuned.


----------



## ch1sox

Rathiem said:


> Setup was a PITA. I had to use hair bands and go back with the normal tension bands on this one to get it all tensioned out. Bat caving it in THX on my Epson 5030 created a pretty even brightness picture. Little brighter at the top but not overly noticeable. Much smoother picture than my painted screen goo grey painted wall. Don't notice any texturing like I did with the wall which gave a small orange peel effect. They might need to check their QC. There are 2 small washer like impressions on the left 3rd of the screen about the size of a penny vertical to each other and equidistant. Flaming white screen they show up. Also there are vertical manufacturing lines at both left and right 3rds of the screen when viewed from an offset from either side. This is not noticeable when viewed head on. When flaming the screen with the lights on it does an admirable job of combatting ambient light. Definitely need to run in dynamic when the lights are on and it's better than the paint. I did quick calibration with spears and munsil, helped clean things up. Overall, this is better than my other setup, but $1000 better, not sure.


Have a chance to watch a movie yet?


----------



## Rathiem

ch1sox said:


> Rathiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Setup was a PITA. I had to use hair bands and go back with the normal tension bands on this one to get it all tensioned out. Bat caving it in THX on my Epson 5030 created a pretty even brightness picture. Little brighter at the top but not overly noticeable. Much smoother picture than my painted screen goo grey painted wall. Don't notice any texturing like I did with the wall which gave a small orange peel effect. They might need to check their QC. There are 2 small washer like impressions on the left 3rd of the screen about the size of a penny vertical to each other and equidistant. Flaming white screen they show up. Also there are vertical manufacturing lines at both left and right 3rds of the screen when viewed from an offset from either side. This is not noticeable when viewed head on. When flaming the screen with the lights on it does an admirable job of combatting ambient light. Definitely need to run in dynamic when the lights are on and it's better than the paint. I did quick calibration with spears and munsil, helped clean things up. Overall, this is better than my other setup, but $1000 better, not sure.
> 
> 
> 
> Have a chance to watch a movie yet?
Click to expand...

I have not yet. Was getting late. After quick calibration, THX, no lights, I did watch 'The Strain' dvr, Directv (1080p) setting on box. This show is very dark and I didn't notice any artifacting or halo effect in the black/dark scenes. I know some of that can be due to compression however the screen did a nice job of negating this, not showing screen texture and keeping the picture very sharp. I will commend the reflective properties of this screen. It is a very even picture even working with the overhead very short throw that I have. In calibrating white/black balance you could definitely tell the top of the screen was brighter than the bottom with the whites showing greater brightness. This disparity is not evident during low lamp bat cave but is evident when flaming the screen with the lights on. However it is only lightly noticeable and expected given the environment. I'll try and get some pics around.


----------



## Hawkmarket

Rathiem said:


> I have not yet. Was getting late. After quick calibration, THX, no lights, I did watch 'The Strain' dvr, Directv (1080p) setting on box. This show is very dark and I didn't notice any artifacting or halo effect in the black/dark scenes. I know some of that can be due to compression however the screen did a nice job of negating this, not showing screen texture and keeping the picture very sharp. I will commend the reflective properties of this screen. It is a very even picture even working with the overhead very short throw that I have. In calibrating white/black balance *you could definitely tell the top of the screen was brighter than the bottom* with the whites showing greater brightness. This disparity is not evident during low lamp bat cave but is evident when flaming the screen with the lights on. However it is only lightly noticeable and expected given the environment. I'll try and get some pics around.


I'm looking at the F3 screen and the huge thing that's on my mind is the potential vertical lack of uniformity. I'm hoping the reviews address that.


----------



## Sam Ash

Rathiem said:


> I have not yet. Was getting late. After quick calibration, THX, no lights, I did watch 'The Strain' dvr, Directv (1080p) setting on box. This show is very dark and I didn't notice any artifacting or halo effect in the black/dark scenes. I know some of that can be due to compression however the screen did a nice job of negating this, not showing screen texture and keeping the picture very sharp. I will commend the reflective properties of this screen. It is a very even picture even working with the overhead very short throw that I have. In calibrating white/black balance you could definitely tell the top of the screen was brighter than the bottom with the whites showing greater brightness. This disparity is not evident during low lamp bat cave but is evident when flaming the screen with the lights on. However it is only lightly noticeable and expected given the environment. I'll try and get some pics around.


Looking forward to some pics, if possible. Also, you mention the vertical brightness inconsistency is only evident when ambient light is present. What kind of lights are you talking about ? Do you think small recessed ceiling LED down lights would effect the screen ?

What do you mean when you say "during low lamp bat cave" ? - Do you mean a low light output projector or dim lights in the bat cave ? Would the F3 not be too bright in a bat cave environment ?


----------



## Sam Ash

ch1sox said:


> There's also a professional review being done sometime next week on the F3 apparently. So between Blee, the review and other members getting their screens we'll finally start seeing some good feedback.


Looking forward to that. However, those who have become owners of the F2/F3, please keep us posted.


----------



## Rathiem

Sam Ash said:


> Looking forward to some pics, if possible. Also, you mention the vertical brightness inconsistency is only evident when ambient light is present. What kind of lights are you talking about ? Do you think small recessed ceiling LED down lights would effect the screen ?
> 
> What do you mean when you say "during low lamp bat cave" ? - Do you mean a low light output projector or dim lights in the bat cave ? Would the F3 not be too bright in a bat cave environment ?


Meaning my projector was in eco mode with all the lights off. The vertical brightness inconsistency is always there, although it is greatly diminished when I don't have ambient light. I think this is also due to the fact I'm not running high lumens (flaming) the screen in dynamic with the lights on. I'll be posting some pics once I can get them all sized properly (need a few mins). Its shows my lighting on and then some screen shots of the pic in dynamic lights on and THX lights off.


----------



## Rathiem

Here is a series of pics that I took. They aren't the greatest, but can hopefully give you some representation of the brightness and the setup of my space. All on I have about eleven 65W cans on dimmers in my basement. You'll see that I unscrewed the front 2 that are right over the screen for obvious reasons. This helped tremendously with the washout. The screen was much better than the paint with them on, but very very acceptable with the screen with them unscrewed. Don't read to much into the ESPN topics on the left. The normal list is greyed versus the topic at the top, but you will notice that its not as bright at the bottom. One of the most obvious is the THX SC pic. It is not nearly that bad in person, but you can clearly tell there is a difference in the brightness. The Star Trek THX is much more uniform and closer to what is seen in person. However, the widescreen format helps with this because it condenses the screen down to a much shorter size with the film format not using all of the screen. In the dark the tiling disappears. All you see is the picture you're watching. I will note that the reflective properties of this screen are much higher than the reflective paint. Nothing measured, just a lot more reflected light in the actual room when the lights are out over the paint.


I can't yet reply to PMs, I'm working on getting my post count over the threshold.


I put my throw and all that in an earlier post - I'm 130" throw, 145" sitting on the couch, projector is 5-7" above the screen. On couch I'm a little lower than I should be, but at table behind couch viewing is straight on. Brightness comments are about the same from either viewing position.


----------



## ch1sox

@Rathiem if you're sitting on your couch does the brightness even out between the top and bottom? I'm wondering if the top is brighter because if you're standing the angle of reflectivity would be lower than your view point. I also wonder if dropping your projector a bit with a pole would even it out a bit.


----------



## thezaks

ch1sox said:


> @Rathiem if you're sitting on your couch does the brightness even out between the top and bottom? I'm wondering if the top is brighter because if you're standing the angle of reflectivity would be lower than your view point. I also wonder if dropping your projector a bit with a pole would even it out a bit.



Agreed. I'm wondering if dropping the projector a foot or so would help?

Dave


----------



## kwk2293

thezaks said:


> Agreed. I'm wondering if dropping the projector a foot or so would help?
> 
> Dave


 i wondering if the projector is to close to the screen i think 12'was the minimum distance for projector


----------



## millerwill

Wow, the brightness variation from top to bottom is dramatic, presumably because the pj is located so close and high. I imagine this would be much reduced if the pj were located no higher than the top of the screen, or perhaps better even below the top of the screen.


----------



## darinp2

thezaks said:


> Agreed. I'm wondering if dropping the projector a foot or so would help?


Or pulling the bottom of the screen out from the wall just enough to make the center of the screen the brightest spot from the center viewing position. I didn't follow whether the projector has any lens shift to allow it to be adjusted to fill the screen properly even though the bottom of the screen would be out further than the top.

--Darin


----------



## Rathiem

millerwill said:


> Wow, the brightness variation from top to bottom is dramatic, presumably because the pj is located so close and high. I imagine this would be much reduced if the pj were located no higher than the top of the screen, or perhaps better even below the top of the screen.


I agree with the assessment. The throw is so short, the angle extreme and within tolerance and the screen is so reflective that I need to get the projector lower. There is a steel beam in the ceiling behind the projector so the throw is pretty set and I mounted it high to keep it out if the way. Dropping it a foot isn't a big deal if I don't like it I can always put it back and deal with it. Being under the projecto for most viewing I probably won't even notice it. Worth a shot.


----------



## Mike Garrett

Rathiem said:


> Setup was a PITA. I had to use hair bands and go back with the normal tension bands on this one to get it all tensioned out. Bat caving it in THX on my Epson 5030 created a pretty even brightness picture. Little brighter at the top but not overly noticeable. Much smoother picture than my painted screen goo grey painted wall. Don't notice any texturing like I did with the wall which gave a small orange peel effect. They might need to check their QC. There are 2 small washer like impressions on the left 3rd of the screen about the size of a penny vertical to each other and equidistant. Flaming white screen they show up. Also there are vertical manufacturing lines at both left and right 3rds of the screen when viewed from an offset from either side. This is not noticeable when viewed head on. When flaming the screen with the lights on it does an admirable job of combatting ambient light. Definitely need to run in dynamic when the lights are on and it's better than the paint. I did quick calibration with spears and munsil, helped clean things up. Overall, this is better than my other setup, but $1000 better, not sure.


Did you install one band on one side and then go to the other side and install a band? If you alternate back and forth, then it is no problem. If you install all or many of the bands, only on one side, then yes you can have a problem. I had no problem putting together the MicroLite screen with F2 material, by alternating installation of the bands.


----------



## thrang

Rathiem said:


> I agree with the assessment. The throw is so short, the angle extreme and within tolerance and the screen is so reflective that I need to get the projector lower. There is a steel beam in the ceiling behind the projector so the throw is pretty set and I mounted it high to keep it out if the way. Dropping it a foot isn't a big deal if I don't like it I can always put it back and deal with it. Being under the projecto for most viewing I probably won't even notice it. Worth a shot.


If you have a tall a frame ladder and a friend, perhaps you can have them hold it on the ladder top if it's the right height, and assess if the lower height fixes the uniformity.

And as asked, were you seated or standing? Is there a difference?


----------



## Sam Ash

Mike Garrett said:


> Did you install one band on one side and then go to the other side and install a band? If you alternate back and forth, then it is no problem. If you install all or many of the bands, only on one side, then yes you can have a problem. I had no problem putting together the MicroLite screen with F2 material, by alternating installation of the bands.


You mean diagonally opposite or directly opposite ?


----------



## Dominic Chan

thrang said:


> If you have a tall a frame ladder and a friend, perhaps you can have them hold it on the ladder top if it's the right height, and assess if the lower height fixes the uniformity.


Since it's the _relative_ position that matters, it would be easier to have the viewer move his viewing position up and down, instead of physically moving the projector. Of course, you will also have to (mentally) assume a different part of the screen to be the centre.


----------



## ch1sox

Dominic Chan said:


> Since it's the _relative_ position that matters, it would be easier to have the viewer move his viewing position up and down, instead of physically moving the projector. Of course, you will also have to (mentally) assume a different part of the screen to be the centre.


He could do that, but if he wants to be certain that moving the projector down would illuminate the entire screen, I'd move the projector manually and then sit down and see what it looks like.


----------



## Mike Garrett

Sam Ash said:


> You mean diagonally opposite or directly opposite ?


Directly opposite.


----------



## Sam Ash

Rathiem said:


> Here is a series of pics that I took. They aren't the greatest, but can hopefully give you some representation of the brightness and the setup of my space. All on I have about eleven 65W cans on dimmers in my basement. You'll see that I unscrewed the front 2 that are right over the screen for obvious reasons. This helped tremendously with the washout. The screen was much better than the paint with them on, but very very acceptable with the screen with them unscrewed. Don't read to much into the ESPN topics on the left. The normal list is greyed versus the topic at the top, but you will notice that its not as bright at the bottom. One of the most obvious is the THX SC pic. It is not nearly that bad in person, but you can clearly tell there is a difference in the brightness. The Star Trek THX is much more uniform and closer to what is seen in person. However, the widescreen format helps with this because it condenses the screen down to a much shorter size with the film format not using all of the screen. In the dark the tiling disappears. All you see is the picture you're watching. I will note that the reflective properties of this screen are much higher than the reflective paint. Nothing measured, just a lot more reflected light in the actual room when the lights are out over the paint.
> 
> 
> I can't yet reply to PMs, I'm working on getting my post count over the threshold.
> 
> 
> I put my throw and all that in an earlier post - I'm 130" throw, 145" sitting on the couch, projector is 5-7" above the screen. On couch I'm a little lower than I should be, but at table behind couch viewing is straight on. Brightness comments are about the same from either viewing position.


Thank you for the pics Rathiem, that was very helpful and you're right about the brightness variance on the vertical plane. It will be interesting to see if it can be resolved based on projection distance from screen and projector position as mentioned by respective fellow members. I like the fact that in the dark, the tiling disappears. However, in total darkness does the image seem too bright ?


----------



## Sam Ash

Mike Garrett said:


> Directly opposite.


Thank you very much Mike, very useful information.


----------



## Rathiem

Sam Ash said:


> Mike Garrett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Directly opposite.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you very much Mike, very useful information.
Click to expand...

The instruction booklet calls for doing both corner bands then opposite 2 corner bands, complete the other opposite corners and then working from the middle and out. The bands are very tight as they should be. I was terribly concerned that I'd pull the eyelet out so I went safe with the hair bands so I'd have some uniformity and tension and then just replaced those following the sequence from the instructions. This worked well for me and got me to the end result.


----------



## Rathiem

Sam Ash said:


> Rathiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a series of pics that I took. They aren't the greatest, but can hopefully give you some representation of the brightness and the setup of my space. All on I have about eleven 65W cans on dimmers in my basement. You'll see that I unscrewed the front 2 that are right over the screen for obvious reasons. This helped tremendously with the washout. The screen was much better than the paint with them on, but very very acceptable with the screen with them unscrewed. Don't read to much into the ESPN topics on the left. The normal list is greyed versus the topic at the top, but you will notice that its not as bright at the bottom. One of the most obvious is the THX SC pic. It is not nearly that bad in person, but you can clearly tell there is a difference in the brightness. The Star Trek THX is much more uniform and closer to what is seen in person. However, the widescreen format helps with this because it condenses the screen down to a much shorter size with the film format not using all of the screen. In the dark the tiling disappears. All you see is the picture you're watching. I will note that the reflective properties of this screen are much higher than the reflective paint. Nothing measured, just a lot more reflected light in the actual room when the lights are out over the paint.
> 
> 
> I can't yet reply to PMs, I'm working on getting my post count over the threshold.
> 
> 
> I put my throw and all that in an earlier post - I'm 130" throw, 145" sitting on the couch, projector is 5-7" above the screen. On couch I'm a little lower than I should be, but at table behind couch viewing is straight on. Brightness comments are about the same from either viewing position.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the pics Rathiem, that was very helpful and you're right about the brightness variance on the vertical plane. It will be interesting to see if it can be resolved based on projection distance from screen and projector position as mentioned by respective fellow members. I like the fact that in the dark, the tiling disappears. However, in total darkness does the image seem too bright ?
Click to expand...

Ok, I work quick so I bought a 12" pole and lowered the projector. I didn't change the throw. This has drastically improved the brightness disparity that I was seeing before. For those asking about changing my viewing angle by standing and sitting. Those pics I took were sitting. Lowering my viewing position improved the uniformity (laying down/sitting on the floor). In total darkness the image is not to bright with the F2. I watch in THX w/ Eco power on the lamp and I have 2 - 15w lamps on in the room for ambient light. Same setting with no lights on. When I turn the overhead lights on I change my saved adjusted setting to dynamic with normal power lamp (higher setting).


----------



## Rathiem

Rathiem said:


> Sam Ash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rathiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a series of pics that I took. They aren't the greatest, but can hopefully give you some representation of the brightness and the setup of my space. All on I have about eleven 65W cans on dimmers in my basement. You'll see that I unscrewed the front 2 that are right over the screen for obvious reasons. This helped tremendously with the washout. The screen was much better than the paint with them on, but very very acceptable with the screen with them unscrewed. Don't read to much into the ESPN topics on the left. The normal list is greyed versus the topic at the top, but you will notice that its not as bright at the bottom. One of the most obvious is the THX SC pic. It is not nearly that bad in person, but you can clearly tell there is a difference in the brightness. The Star Trek THX is much more uniform and closer to what is seen in person. However, the widescreen format helps with this because it condenses the screen down to a much shorter size with the film format not using all of the screen. In the dark the tiling disappears. All you see is the picture you're watching. I will note that the reflective properties of this screen are much higher than the reflective paint. Nothing measured, just a lot more reflected light in the actual room when the lights are out over the paint.
> 
> 
> I can't yet reply to PMs, I'm working on getting my post count over the threshold.
> 
> 
> I put my throw and all that in an earlier post - I'm 130" throw, 145" sitting on the couch, projector is 5-7" above the screen. On couch I'm a little lower than I should be, but at table behind couch viewing is straight on. Brightness comments are about the same from either viewing position.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the pics Rathiem, that was very helpful and you're right about the brightness variance on the vertical plane. It will be interesting to see if it can be resolved based on projection distance from screen and projector position as mentioned by respective fellow members. I like the fact that in the dark, the tiling disappears. However, in total darkness does the image seem too bright ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, I work quick so I bought a 12" pole and lowered the projector. I didn't change the throw. This has drastically improved the brightness disparity that I was seeing before. For those asking about changing my viewing angle by standing and sitting. Those pics I took were sitting. Lowering my viewing position improved the uniformity (laying down/sitting on the floor). In total darkness the image is not to bright with the F2. I watch in THX w/ Eco power on the lamp and I have 2 - 15w lamps on in the room for ambient light. Same setting with no lights on. When I turn the overhead lights on I change my saved adjusted setting to dynamic with normal power lamp (higher setting).
Click to expand...

New pic, this is with my 2 lamps on a THX Eco.


----------



## ch1sox

Glad to hear lowering it helped out! Now enjoy some movies!


----------



## millerwill

Rathiem said:


> Ok, I work quick so I bought a 12" pole and lowered the projector. I didn't change the throw. This has drastically improved the brightness disparity that I was seeing before. For those asking about changing my viewing angle by standing and sitting. Those pics I took were sitting. Lowering my viewing position improved the uniformity (laying down/sitting on the floor). In total darkness the image is not to bright with the F2. I watch in THX w/ Eco power on the lamp and I have 2 - 15w lamps on in the room for ambient light. Same setting with no lights on. When I turn the overhead lights on I change my saved adjusted setting to dynamic with normal power lamp (higher setting).


Yes, this is very nice to hear. The next question (at least for my interest) is if the projector is positioned 'really low', i.e, projecting just over one's head, even at a very close throw distance, is the gain (or other attributes) diminished.


----------



## Rathiem

millerwill said:


> Rathiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I work quick so I bought a 12" pole and lowered the projector. I didn't change the throw. This has drastically improved the brightness disparity that I was seeing before. For those asking about changing my viewing angle by standing and sitting. Those pics I took were sitting. Lowering my viewing position improved the uniformity (laying down/sitting on the floor). In total darkness the image is not to bright with the F2. I watch in THX w/ Eco power on the lamp and I have 2 - 15w lamps on in the room for ambient light. Same setting with no lights on. When I turn the overhead lights on I change my saved adjusted setting to dynamic with normal power lamp (higher setting).
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is very nice to hear. The next question (at least for my interest) is if the projector is positioned 'really low', i.e, projecting just over one's head, even at a very close throw distance, is the gain (or other attributes) diminished.
Click to expand...

Here is another pic to address your question about the positioning of the projector. I was messing with the settings and to get some pop I changed over to dynamic with low lamp power and cranked the brightness down. This seemed to work really well for low ambient light sports viewing. Ohio State game really popped and then transferred over well to the current Clemson game. Watching Ultron in a little bit.


----------



## Sam Ash

Rathiem said:


> Here is another pic to address your question about the positioning of the projector. I was messing with the settings and to get some pop I changed over to dynamic with low lamp power and cranked the brightness down. This seemed to work really well for low ambient light sports viewing. Ohio State game really popped and then transferred over well to the current Clemson game. Watching Ultron in a little bit.


Hi Rathiem, glad to hear that the brightness disparity has been resolved by lowering the projector. The living room photo that you've posted still gives the impression that the projector lens is positioned above the top frame of the screen, is this the case or is the lens aligned with the top frame ?


----------



## Rathiem

Sam Ash said:


> Rathiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is another pic to address your question about the positioning of the projector. I was messing with the settings and to get some pop I changed over to dynamic with low lamp power and cranked the brightness down. This seemed to work really well for low ambient light sports viewing. Ohio State game really popped and then transferred over well to the current Clemson game. Watching Ultron in a little bit.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Rathiem, glad to hear that the brightness disparity has been resolved by lowering the projector. The living room photo that you've posted still gives the impression that the projector lens is positioned above the top frame of the screen, is this the case or is the lens aligned with the top frame ?
Click to expand...

It is aligned with the top of the screen. The border, not the screen.


----------



## thezaks

blee0120 said:


> I should have my review posted of my shootout Saturday between the F3, F2, and HP 2.4. I been enjoying these screens too much


I may have missed your review - are you posting the review here or in another thread?

Thanks,

Dave


----------



## Mike Garrett

Since I have been asked this question several times, I thought I would post here. I will be meeting with Michael at CEDIA and plan to discuss questions on availability of the various screens, that are currently not offered.


----------



## Desmond7

Mike Garrett said:


> Since I have been asked this question several times, I thought I would post here. I will be meeting with Michael at CEDIA and plan to discuss questions on availability of the various screens, that are currently not offered.


I was going to buy a 159 inch 16:9 HP screen, so I wanted to know if the F2 or F3 will be made at larger sizes?


----------



## mobius

Any idea of what a 92" F3 will cost? I don't need an exact amount, just an approximate figure would be nice.


----------



## biliam1982

mobius said:


> Any idea of what a 92" F3 will cost? I don't need an exact amount, just an approximate figure would be nice.


I think I remember being quoted in the mid $2k's plus a few hundred for shipping on a 144" 16:9. 

And, I believe when I was playing around on their site before pricing was taken down, the smaller screens were ~$1,500-1,800. 

Last I heard, the smaller screen sizes below 120" were still in stock/available.

Give @Mike Garrett a call, 585-671-2968. He can give you more accurate pricing and availability.


----------



## Tooschaye

biliam1982 said:


> I think I remember being quoted in the mid $2k's plus a few hundred for shipping on a 144" 16:9.
> 
> And, I believe when I was playing around on their site before pricing was taken down, the smaller screens were ~$1,500-1,800.
> 
> Last I heard, the smaller screen sizes below 120" were still in stock/available.
> 
> Give @Mike Garrett a call, 585-671-2968. He can give you more accurate pricing and availability.


I was just quoted $2,100 for a 110" and $2,350 for a 120" if that's a useful benchmark...
(didn't ask about shipping)


----------



## Mike Garrett

Desmond7 said:


> I was going to buy a 159 inch 16:9 HP screen, so I wanted to know if the F2 or F3 will be made at larger sizes?


It will be offered in 144" 16:9 in F2 and F3, but do not have a shipping date yet.


----------



## mobius

biliam1982 said:


> I think I remember being quoted in the mid $2k's plus a few hundred for shipping on a 144" 16:9.
> 
> And, I believe when I was playing around on their site before pricing was taken down, the smaller screens were ~$1,500-1,800.
> 
> Last I heard, the smaller screen sizes below 120" were still in stock/available.
> 
> Give @Mike Garrett a call, 585-671-2968. He can give you more accurate pricing and availability.





Tooschaye said:


> I was just quoted $2,100 for a 110" and $2,350 for a 120" if that's a useful benchmark...
> (didn't ask about shipping)





Mike Garrett said:


> It will be offered in 144" 16:9 in F2 and F3, but do not have a shipping date yet.




I appreciate the input guys. That's a very nice price compared to the SI BD 1.4. Of course, I've been looking at the Series 7 (motorized) version though. Ouch! 


Hopefully, Microlite will release their motorized version relatively soon.


----------



## tigerfan33

Why can't they produce a manual pull down if they can make a motorized and a smaller pull up screen?


----------



## mobius

tigerfan33 said:


> Why can't they produce a manual pull down if they can make a motorized and a smaller pull up screen?



I can't imagine there are any technical reasons why they can't. If it's a matter of tensioning requirements, IIRC, Draper and Stewart offer manual tab-tensioned models. I guess if Microlite thinks there exists a market for that sort of screen, then they build them to sell. I wouldn't rule out a manual pull-down screen for my own purposes.


----------



## thezaks

blee0120 said:


> I should have my review posted of my shootout Saturday between the F3, F2, and HP 2.4. I been enjoying these screens too much





thezaks said:


> I may have missed your review - are you posting the review here or in another thread?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Dave


Mmmm.....strange that blee has just disappeared???!! 

Dave


----------



## Wondercarrot

where are you bleeeeeeeeeeeeeee? lol


----------



## Ranger

millerwill said:


> Yes, this is very nice to hear. The next question (at least for my interest) is if the projector is positioned 'really low', i.e, projecting just over one's head, even at a very close throw distance, is the gain (or other attributes) diminished.


With my test samples, I found the screens to behave like the retro-reflective HP 2.4. I get the brightest image with the projector just over one's head. If the projector is mounted high to the top of the screen then you will see a dimmer image. The vertical viewing cone seems to be pretty narrow. If you rotate the samples then the vertical viewing cone would become wide and the horizontal viewing cone would become narrow.


----------



## HT-Eman

*Motorized Scrrens*

The motorized one should be out real soon .
http://www.cepro.com/article/cedia_qa_microlite_previews_motorized_optical_projection_screens/


----------



## HT-Eman

They updated their website also. I'm thinking after cedia this week they will have all models available ( at first it was just the fixed screens showing on the website ) . There is no longer a F2 also. Its called F 1.8 dark .


----------



## thrang

Ranger said:


> With my test samples, I found the screens to behave like the retro-reflective HP 2.4. I get the brightest image with the projector just over one's head. If the projector is mounted high to the top of the screen then you will see a dimmer image. The vertical viewing cone seems to be pretty narrow. If you rotate the samples then the vertical viewing cone would become wide and the horizontal viewing cone would become narrow.


This doesn't make sense as it is designed as angular reflective. Unless you had the sample oriented wrong? ( I did, not catching the up arrow on the back)


----------



## tigerfan33

thrang said:


> This doesn't make sense as it is designed as angular reflective. Unless you had the sample oriented wrong? ( I did, not catching the up arrow on the back)



I agree.
Brightest image should be with projector placed near the top of the screen.


----------



## Ranger

thrang said:


> This doesn't make sense as it is designed as angular reflective. Unless you had the sample oriented wrong? ( I did, not catching the up arrow on the back)



I have the sample oriented correctly with arrow pointed up. I understand it is designed as angular reflective, however it is behaving like a retro-reflective screen. I have two sets of samples to compare. First set mounted in the middle of the screen, same height as the projector. Second set mounted two feet lower. The First set is much brighter, behaving exactly like the retro-reflective HP 2.4. The HP 2.4 has a much wider vertical viewing cone. You can stand up or sit down and the image brightness wouldn't change much; however the horizontal viewing cone is very narrow. I can see shimming with the Microlites but none with HP 2.4. HP 2.4 appears brighter too. I will post some screenshots.


----------



## dryeye

curiouser and curiouser. 
blee where are ye?


----------



## thrang

Maybe his eyes are BLEEding from the intense brightness of the F3 and cannot log on...


----------



## Ximori

Ranger said:


> I have the sample oriented correctly with arrow pointed up. I understand it is designed as angular reflective, however it is behaving like a retro-reflective screen. I have two sets of samples to compare. First set mounted in the middle of the screen, same height as the projector. Second set mounted two feet lower. The First set is much brighter, behaving exactly like the retro-reflective HP 2.4. The HP 2.4 has a much wider vertical viewing cone. You can stand up or sit down and the image brightness wouldn't change much; however the horizontal viewing cone is very narrow. I can see shimming with the Microlites but none with HP 2.4. HP 2.4 appears brighter too. I will post some screenshots.


 
What sample is this, F2 or F3? Glad you compared texture with the HP - I've been curious as it's been a while since I've seen a HP screen. How fare were you seated to notice the texture?


----------



## thrang

This thread needs firming up, maybe from Microlite or AVS sales...there are bits and pieces of feedback, a lot if it fleeting or conflicting, and I'm losing sense this is a viable product...

Maybe CEDIA will help solidify with proper comparisons, evaluations, and state of affairs with the company...


----------



## thezaks

Ranger said:


> I have the sample oriented correctly with arrow pointed up. I understand it is designed as angular reflective, however it is behaving like a retro-reflective screen. I have two sets of samples to compare. First set mounted in the middle of the screen, same height as the projector. Second set mounted two feet lower. The First set is much brighter, behaving exactly like the retro-reflective HP 2.4. The HP 2.4 has a much wider vertical viewing cone. You can stand up or sit down and the image brightness wouldn't change much; however the horizontal viewing cone is very narrow. I can see shimming with the Microlites but none with HP 2.4. HP 2.4 appears brighter too. I will post some screenshots.


How large is the screen, and what is your distance to the screen? This might be another variable that could affect the consistency of the image brightness, given a projector position.

Dave


----------



## Ximori

thezaks said:


> How large is the screen, and what is your distance to the screen? This might be another variable that could affect the consistency of the image brightness, given a projector position.


I'm guessing what Ranger might be seeing on the brighter sample is a horizontal band of light effect, as earlier described by Bill from PJ Central, which I sometimes noticed and becomes more apparent in a retro-mode position. In order to avoid this, the projector has to be setup like the way you would in an angular position in order to keep brightness in uniform.


Anyway, we should be able to find out more all about this after Cedia. But I hope Darin or Kris would visit his booth as they're one of the few I know who can analyze screen material very well.


----------



## tbhugh

thrang said:


> This thread needs firming up, maybe from Microlite or AVS sales...there are bits and pieces of feedback, a lot if it fleeting or conflicting, and I'm losing sense this is a viable product...
> 
> Maybe CEDIA will help solidify with proper comparisons, evaluations, and state of affairs with the company...


Agreed, just waiting myself until some some further information comes out before pulling the trigger.


----------



## noah katz

thrang said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Ranger View Post
> With my test samples, I found the screens to behave like the retro-reflective HP 2.4. I get the brightest image with the projector just over one's head. If the projector is mounted high to the top of the screen then you will see a dimmer image. The vertical viewing cone seems to be pretty narrow. If you rotate the samples then the vertical viewing cone would become wide and the horizontal viewing cone would become narrow.
> 
> This doesn't make sense as it is designed as angular reflective. Unless you had the sample oriented wrong? ( I did, not catching the up arrow on the back)


Makes sense to me, because as the vertical angles approach zero the gain of AR and retroreflective screens converge.


----------



## thrang

noah katz said:


> Makes sense to me, because as the vertical angles approach zero the gain of AR and retroreflective screens converge.


Well I don't hear this issue raised with other AR screens, nor do I see this with my JKP 1.3 AR screen...so either this material is not acting as a traditional AR screen or there is something unusual with Ranger's setup or feedback...


----------



## blee0120

thezaks said:


> Mmmm.....strange that blee has just disappeared???!!
> 
> Dave


Been really busy with my day job😀😀. Will have my review up in a few hours.


----------



## blee0120

Wondercarrot said:


> where are you bleeeeeeeeeeeeeee? lol


Will post in a few


----------



## HT-Eman

*Surface Materials*

They have new screen material called Black Crystal Dark posted on the website.


----------



## thezaks

HT-Eman said:


> They have new screen material called Black Crystal Dark posted on the website.


You are right! There's a Black Crystal Dark 1.8 and a F 1.8 - I wonder what the difference is between the two?

Dave


----------



## thrang

They should check to make sure the site works well on an iPad...


----------



## noah katz

thrang said:


> Well I don't hear this issue raised with other AR screens, nor do I see this with my JKP 1.3 AR screen...so either this material is not acting as a traditional AR screen or there is something unusual with Ranger's setup or feedback...


I don't see an issue; it's to be expected that both types of screens have high gain at small angles.


----------



## popalock

Sub'd.


----------



## Hawkmarket

blee0120 said:


> Will post in a few


When you say "a few" you mean.................


----------



## Swolephile

Vaporware?


----------



## blee0120

Comparison

I have done 4 weeks of comparing my Da Lite HP 2.4 screen against Microlite's F2 and F3 screens. Though, it was not as drastic as I hoped, I came away having a good understanding of how all three screens compared to each other. First off, the HP 2.4 screen is a retro-reflective screen, so it must be placed close to eye level and in the center of the screen. Basically, the screen will reflect back to you in a straight line to achieve it's max brightness when place close to eye level. The F2 and F3 are angular and works best when ceiling mounted or placed above the screen for max brightness.

Assembly

The Microlite screens are assembled with bands from the back of the screen, while the screen frame has a few screws to assemble. I have assembled many screens, more than 5 different brands, and I always needed an extra hand. Since a small tool is included to help stretch the bands, it is a single person job that took me around 15minutes. Very easy if you have assembled screens in the past, but it may take 30-40 minutes for someone who is unfamiliar and needs to read through the instructions carefully. It must be noted that the screen material is a hard, not flexible surface, so extra care is needed. You do not want to bend the screen. However, the bands will get the screen very tight and smooth. 

Viewing Angles

The HP 2.4 major drawback in a home theater setting is the viewing angle. As soon as you sit away from the center of the screen, the picture dims quickly. However, if you are the main viewer of your theater, this is not a major problem. If you are like me, that like to relax on my sectional, finding the right spot can sometimes be difficult. I always wanted to stretch out on the couch without losing brightness. This is where the Microlite's amazing viewing angle comes into play. From the end of my sectional to the center, I did not notice any shift in brightness with the F2 or F3. This is a major advantage the Microlite screens have over the HP 2.4 screen. 

Brightness

This is of course the main feature people are interested in. Is the Microlite really as bright as they say? Well, yes and no. I think I speak for many when I say, I like to move my head without seeing shadows during viewing. I love my HP 2.4 screen, but I love to not have it mounted so low to get the brightness I need. I am using a JVC RS35 and Mitsubishi HC7900DW, and I noticed the extra brightness with the Mit HC7900 right away. I used a similar Mitsubishi projector before, the HC8000, and it was nowhere near as bright as I'm seeing now. I did use it on a 1.0 gain screen and the HP 2.4 ceiling mounted and it just didn't appear overly bright. Having it ceiling mounted with the HP 2.4 screen, I'm sure I was getting close to 1.4 gain, but don't quote me exactly on that. Now, I'm using the Mit HC7900 on low lamp, and getting a significant increase in brightness. From just comparing the three screens, if the F2 is measured at 1.8 gain, the F3 has to be 3.0 gain, for it looks twice as bright as the HP 2.4 ceiling mounted. The F2 also looks significantly brighter than the HP 2.4 ceiling mounted, which is to be expected. Having the F2 and F3 shelf mounted, the brightness takes a major hit and the HP 2.4 comes out on top. So, there are advantages. I prefer the Microlite, for in a home theater setting, you can build a theater with multiple rows and not have a drastic light loss with the seating arrangements. 


Screen Texture

Though you will probably not notice the screen materials when watching movies in a darker setting, there are times when it might be evident. With the HP 2.4 screen, there are rare times that I notice the screen and it is always on very bright scenes that I notice the screen. With the Microlite screens, it has a sparkle like material that gives it that extra boost of brightness. If you go up to the screen, you will notice it, just as you will notice the texture of the HP screen when viewed closely. However, all three screens do an excellent job of not showing too many artifacts when viewing while content is displaying on the screen at normal seating distances. Both F2 and F3 did not show any of the screen material when content was present. This is another advantage over the HP 2.4 screen that I noticed. Even though it is rare for me to notice the screen material on the HP screen, I can not say over the past 4 weeks that I noticed the screen material of the F2 and F3 while watching content.


Contrast/ Black levels

The F2 and F3 are darker materials and when a darker image is present, it appears darker than the HP 2.4 screen or any 1.0 screen that I previous owed. The F2 being darker than the F3, makes it better suited for a darker room if contrast is the main objective for you. For instance, if you are a fan of the JVC projectors, like myself, having that extra gain with the appearance of a darker, more contrasty image, makes the F2 a great buy. The F3 also works great with a projector like the JVC, for you can close the iris to get more contrast. Being able to close the iris is a major benefit of the HP 2.4 and why I have come accustomed to using it has my preferred screen with a JVC projector. It also allows to run the projector in low lamp to save the brightness. I closed the iris using all three screens with my JVC RS35 to see how it compared and I found that only the F3 gave me an image that was bright enough. The F2 with the gain of close to 1.8, didn't have enough the make 250 lumens watchable, as well as the HP2.4 shelf mounted. This however is not a great test, for 250 lumens are not ideal in any setting. The F3, which is a higher gain made it respectable. This test showed me that the F3 was in fact the brighter of the 3 screens. In all the test, the F2, showed better black levels, with the F3 close behind. As noted, the Microlites are darker materials, so this is to be expected.


Ambient Light Rejection 

Do not expect any screen or TV to show a great image with light shined directly onto the screen. All three materials did not fare well with ambient light shined directly on the screen. It was washed out and, you can expect this from any TV as well. However, when light is toward the audience/seating, the Microlite screens were great. The HP screen is good as well, but the advantage goes to the Microlite screens. I would have thought the F3 would be the best, being that its the brightest, but the F2 actually did the best with ambient light. It was not drastic, but the F2 did a great job maintaining its image between the three screens. 


Picture Quality

Picture quality is the reason for the comparison. I have to admit that I always thought the HP 2.4 screen was the best screen that I had. Its bright and gives any projector the sense of extra power. I know many videophiles swear by unity screens to have that window effect. The HP screen have more disadvantages than unity screens. The color shift is kind of huge with the HP screen. Shelf mounting the projector can be a plus or a negative. There are projectors that can be shelf mounted and having them stacked can help with having both projectors being brighter. The extra brightness is just one part of improving the picture. As I stated earlier, color shift, contrast, screen texture, and viewing angle all go into making the best of the picture quality with these screens. With the F3 being bright and excelling in all of those areas over the HP screen, I would choose the F3 over the HP 2.4 screen. With the F2 being slightly less bright, I would choose the F2 over the HP 2.4 as well. However, the F2 vs the F3 is a different story. The F2 advantages over the F3 are: better suited for a dark/velvet HT for the extra brightness might not be needed, being a darker screen, the darker content appear to be darker than the F3 screen material, and it rejects ambient light better. The F3 advantages are: its brighter, allows to run in low lamp for almost everything, 3D should be excellent, and less noticeable screen material. 

Unity Screen Or Microlite F2/F3

I have always noticed that the image became less sharp with the HP 2.4 screen. I think that is due to the fact the screen is not a smooth surface. With the F2 and F3, the screen is smooth and sharpness is not a problem. It is right there with a unity screen. I used a Carada CW 1.0 gain screen in my theater for over a year and I loved the sharpness. At that time, I used a Digital Projection M-Vision Cine LED projector. The picture was great with the unity screen. The calibrated lumens were only 550 and my screen was 120in. If I would had replaced that screen with the F3 or even the F2, I'm positive my experience would had been better. That is why I would not choose a unity screen over the F2 or F3. I would get an image with more contrast, darker background, and brighter/punchier image. The brighter and punchier image is the reason that many love their HP screens. I lived with a unity and HP 2.4 screen for over a year each and I would choose the HP 2.4 screen over a unity screen. Now, having the opportunity to incorporate the benefits of a unity screen and a HP screen all in one screen, is the reason why the Microlite screens excel. 

My personal choice

I have always preferred the HP 2.4 over any and all screens. The option to take the calibrated lumens out of the equation and double up the lumens are a major plus. I know, its not a perfect screen, where its like looking out of a window, but if it does not bother me, I'm great. Now, living in an apartment, I can see how having a heavy projector like a JVC or Sony can be a bad decision to ceiling mount the projector, but that is not every case. I have grown to love the F3. I think its the best screen that I have seen. It basically answers all the problems that I have with the HP 2.4 screen and more. It also allows for a less dark room. My Mit HC7900 fades to black and I do not need a velvet room to take advantage of that feature. If you are anything like myself, having a screen that is 3 gain, great viewing angle like a unity screen, looks great with the light on, improves black levels (like it does my JVC), best 3D screen, no streaks or texture in the image, and you can mount it on the ceiling without losing brightness, then the F3 is for you. If you think 3 gain is way too much, then the F2 is right for you. I watched Mad Max and it was the best movie experience that I ever had and it was not even with my JVC. The extra brightness and sharpness of a DLP just put me in the movie. My recommendation of the F3 is very positive and I doubt that I would consider a different screen in my theater. I went with a unity then to a HP 2.4 screen, back to a unity screen, and back to a HP 2.4 screen. I think it time for me to retire my HP 2.4 screen and move to a F3 screen.


----------



## noah katz

Thanks for the comprehensive review.



blee0120 said:


> ...First off, the HP 2.4 screen is a retro-reflective screen, so it must be placed close to eye level and in the center of the screen. Basically, the screen will reflect back to you in a straight line to achieve it's max brightness when place close to eye level.


Because it's retroreflective, if there is a small vertical angle between the pj and the viewer, it doesn't matter what the screen height is.

Said another way, the light is reflected back in the direction where it came from, so if the direction is the same for the viewer and the pj, the gain will be high.


----------



## thrang

@BLee

Did you/ can you watch any hockey and comment on and visible screen texture? I know you talked about this category in your comprehensive review, but HD hockey is the best torture test for visible screen textures as the camera pans across the ice.

Thanks for your help to all..


----------



## HT-Eman

Not even going to quote all of that ...... but excellent review Blee. I'm waiting to see what comes out after Cedia before I make my decision on projectors , but right now i'm shooting for a F3 screen with the epson LS10000 Laser projector. Don't have a dedicated " bat cave " and should be a good combo.


----------



## thezaks

blee0120 said:


> I would have thought the F3 would be the best, being that its the brightest, but the F2 actually did the best with ambient light. It was not drastic, but the F2 did a great job maintaining its image between the three screens.


I believe the F3 has 65% ambient light rejection, and the F2 has 85% ambient light rejection. This could be why the F2 did a better job in this category.


Dave


----------



## Ximori

Blee, no pics?


----------



## Dominic Chan

blee0120 said:


> First off, the HP 2.4 screen is a retro-reflective screen, so it must be placed close to eye level and in the center of the screen. Basically, the screen will reflect back to you in a straight line to achieve it's max brightness when place close to eye level. The F2 and F3 are angular and works best when ceiling mounted or placed above the screen for max brightness.


Thanks for the in-depth review. I assume that, even for angular reflective screens, you will still get the maximum brightness with the projector and the viewer at the same height, if the screen is also at the same height.


----------



## Sam Ash

*Some questions Blee...*



blee0120 said:


> If you are anything like myself, having a screen that is 3 gain, great viewing angle like a unity screen, looks great with the light on, improves black levels (like it does my JVC), best 3D screen, no streaks or texture in the image, and you can mount it on the ceiling without losing brightness, then the F3 is for you. If you think 3 gain is way too much, then the F2 is right for you. I watched Mad Max and it was the best movie experience that I ever had and it was not even with my JVC. The extra brightness and sharpness of a DLP just put me in the movie. My recommendation of the F3 is very positive and I doubt that I would consider a different screen in my theater.


Thank you very much for the excellent review Blee, much appreciated. Something that you said that I found interesting is the fact that the F3 can be used with DLP projectors when they are running in eco mode. This is very interesting as I have always preferred DLP over LCOS and similar technologies which brings me to these questions:-

1. How would the F3 look in a bat cave with a non-bright projector like the Optome HD91+ (400 to 500 lumens) or for that matter an entry level but decent LED based projectors ?

2. Using a slightly brighter projector such as the Epson LS10000 (1,000 to 1,500 lumens) with the F2 in a bat cave would also probably work and have the advantage of enhancing the black levels slightly.

3. In terms of the overall image fidelity, which of the above 2 would provide a better image ? - A brighter screen with less brighter projector OR a less brighter screen with a brighter projector ?

4. on the other hand, using a reasonably brighter LED based DLP (500 - 900 lumens) with the F2 in a bat cave could be very interesting. The idea would be to ensure that the image is not too bright and when watching cinema scope movies on a 16:9 screen, I suppose it would be awesome as the black strips above and below the projected movie would probably be totally black or very dark. Did you notice this ?

5. I notice that on this forum, most people who have seen the F2 and F3 prefer the F3, is this because of the brightness factor ? At the end of the day it is all about image fidelity and how much ambient light is present in a given room. After all, Optical screens are designed to work in environments that have the presence of ambient light.

6. In terms of image fidelity, how does it compare to a projected image on a high quality normal white screen with a gain of 1.0 in a bat cave ?


----------



## Sam Ash

Pics would be nice Blee if possible. If you do decide to take pics; ensure that the exposure settings are locked or consistent for every ambient light situation. That will then allow us to conduct visual comparisons with some degree of accuracy.


----------



## tbhugh

Thank you blee! You definitely helped my with my decision.


----------



## Wondercarrot

thrang said:


> @BLee
> 
> Did you/ can you watch any hockey and comment on and visible screen texture? I know you talked about this category in your comprehensive review, but HD hockey is the best torture test for visible screen textures as the camera pans across the ice.
> 
> Thanks for your help to all..


I'd love to know as well, and thank you very much for the review Blee.


----------



## Craig Peer

thrang said:


> @BLee
> 
> Did you/ can you watch any hockey and comment on and visible screen texture? I know you talked about this category in your comprehensive review, but HD hockey is the best torture test for visible screen textures as the camera pans across the ice.
> 
> Thanks for your help to all..



Same with the Winter Olympics ! I'm going to go look at these screens again tomorrow for a third time. I'll report more on Sunday or Monday.


----------



## blee0120

thrang said:


> @BLee
> 
> Did you/ can you watch any hockey and comment on and visible screen texture? I know you talked about this category in your comprehensive review, but HD hockey is the best torture test for visible screen textures as the camera pans across the ice.
> 
> Thanks for your help to all..


I really didn't notice any texture. Some may be sensitive to certain sheen or sparkles, I know I had a SI screen that the sheen bothered me, but not with the F2 and F3. I watched a few nfl games and it looked great.


----------



## blee0120

HT-Eman said:


> Not even going to quote all of that ...... but excellent review Blee. I'm waiting to see what comes out after Cedia before I make my decision on projectors , but right now i'm shooting for a F3 screen with the epson LS10000 Laser projector. Don't have a dedicated " bat cave " and should be a good combo.


It should be. It takes out the need for a bat cave. Now people can actually have color in a theater room without feeling like they are giving up picture quality.


----------



## blee0120

Ximori said:


> Blee, no pics?


I tried to upload but my phone wasn't letting me, I'll try again today


----------



## blee0120

Sam Ash said:


> Thank you very much for the excellent review Blee, much appreciated. Something that you said that I found interesting is the fact that the F3 can be used with DLP projectors when they are running in eco mode. This is very interesting as I have always preferred DLP over LCOS and similar technologies which brings me to these questions:-
> 
> 1. How would the F3 look in a bat cave with a non-bright projector like the Optome HD91+ (400 to 500 lumens) or for that matter an entry level but decent LED based projectors ?
> 
> *I would go with the LG PF1500 which is 700 lumens calbrated. I think if you are using a light controlled room, 20-25ftL is all you need. On a 144in screen, the F3 with the LG will give you 30ftL and on the F2 on a 120in screen, that should also give you 30ftL. Plus, the LG PF1500 is less than $1000.*
> 
> 2. Using a slightly brighter projector such as the Epson LS10000 (1,000 to 1,500 lumens) with the F2 in a bat cave would also probably work and have the advantage of enhancing the black levels slightly.
> 
> *If you are going to choose that expensive projector, I would use dual projectors. A JVC and the LG. You get the best PQ and a LED projector for much less than the Epson. Actuall, the F2, JVC, and LG would cost less than the Espon combined. The Epson is $8000, with the new JVC RS400 and a LG PF1500, you should come out with less than $4000 for both. The screen should put you with less than $6000.*
> 
> 3. In terms of the overall image fidelity, which of the above 2 would provide a better image ? - A brighter screen with less brighter projector OR a less brighter screen with a brighter projector ?
> 
> *With the F2 and F3, brightness should not even be a problem. Get the best projector because you are going to be able to reach your brightness with both screens. *
> 
> 4. on the other hand, using a reasonably brighter LED based DLP (500 - 900 lumens) with the F2 in a bat cave could be very interesting. The idea would be to ensure that the image is not too bright and when watching cinema scope movies on a 16:9 screen, I suppose it would be awesome as the black strips above and below the projected movie would probably be totally black or very dark. Did you notice this ?
> 
> *You would notice the black bars, but its not too distracting, IMO. A scope movie on a 16:9 screen will have the same brightness as any content on a 16:9 screen. The brightness does not change because you are watching a scope movie. For instance, Avatar which is 16:9 will have the same brightness as Guardians of the Galaxy, which is a scope movie. *
> 
> 5. I notice that on this forum, most people who have seen the F2 and F3 prefer the F3, is this because of the brightness factor ? At the end of the day it is all about image fidelity and how much ambient light is present in a given room. After all, Optical screens are designed to work in environments that have the presence of ambient light.
> 
> *I preferred the F3 only because of my JVC and 3D. I am able to run in eco mode, lower the iris for better contrast, and still get my targeted brightness. For instance, if I have a 120in screen and a JVC that can give me 100,000 contrast ratio but only if I close the iris, I would choose the F3. Because closing the iris will give me 300 lumens and on a F3, I would get 20ftL, but on a F2, that would give me 12ftL. Also, with 3D, I would get 17ftL through the glasses on a 120in with the F3 and just 10ftL with the F2 on that same screen. Basically, you can lower brightness more if needed. Many do not need to lower brightness that much. With the improved blacks on the F2, the F2 might be preferred.*
> 
> 6. In terms of image fidelity, how does it compare to a projected image on a high quality normal white screen with a gain of 1.0 in a bat cave ?


*I would prefer the F2/F3 over a 1.0 gain screen in a bat cave. So much more can be improved with a brighter image and deeper black background IMO. I lived with a 1.0 gain screen in a bat cave for over a year and I would choose the HP 2.4 every time. I just listened to many people on the forum about how much better a unity screen was over a HP screen. So, I made the switch. When I went back, it was drastic and would never do that again. With both the F2 and F3 being a better screen than the HP 2.4 screen, I would definitively choose the F2 and F3 over any unity gain screen.*


----------



## tigerfan33

This is in the fixed screen section.

"Custom formats and sizes avaialble upon request. Custom order takes 14 days."

Didn't know you can customize. Good to know.
Wonder how much to customize 115" diagonal 16:9.


----------



## mbw23air

blee0120 said:


> *I would prefer the F2/F3 over a 1.0 gain screen in a bat cave. So much more can be improved with a brighter image and deeper black background IMO. I lived with a 1.0 gain screen in a bat cave for over a year and I would choose the HP 2.4 every time. I just listened to many people on the forum about how much better a unity screen was over a HP screen. So, I made the switch. When I went back, it was drastic and would never do that again. With both the F2 and F3 being a better screen than the HP 2.4 screen, I would definitively choose the F2 and F3 over any unity gain screen.*



I hope Michael at Microlite has more samples available to ship soon as I need to see the F2 and F3 to know that I won't see texture like I do with my 2.4 HP. I will be buying a much brighter projector than what I have now so I will probably try it out on a 1.0 gain screen first that I already have to know if I need a Microlite screen or not.

Mike


----------



## thrang

And what about the new materials they introduced, mentioned earlier in this thread. Just rebranding, or new products?


----------



## ch1sox

thrang said:


> And what about the new materials they introduced, mentioned earlier in this thread. Just rebranding, or new products?


This ^. What are these new products I'm seeing now? There's now a Black Crystal 1.8 and Black Crystal 1.2?


----------



## Sam Ash

Thank you very much for the excellent review Blee, much appreciated. Something that you said that I found interesting is the fact that the F3 can be used with DLP projectors when they are running in eco mode. This is very interesting as I have always preferred DLP over LCOS and similar technologies which brings me to these questions:-

1. How would the F3 look in a bat cave with a non-bright projector like the Optome HD91+ (400 to 500 lumens) or for that matter an entry level but decent LED based projectors ?

*I would go with the LG PF1500 which is 700 lumens calbrated. I think if you are using a light controlled room, 20-25ftL is all you need. On a 144in screen, the F3 with the LG will give you 30ftL and on the F2 on a 120in screen, that should also give you 30ftL. Plus, the LG PF1500 is less than $1000.*

That makes sense, I suppose one would need a brighter LED projector to work with the F3 at about 140 inches diagonal. I will look into the LG projector you've mentioned. The idea of using a low lumen LED based projector in a bat cave or very low light environment is attractive. I know the F2 and F3 screens are designed for environments with ambient light but I'm just curious. I suppose a projector with a manual iris such as the JVC would be ideal as it allows light output control.

2. Using a slightly brighter projector such as the Epson LS10000 (1,000 to 1,500 lumens) with the F2 in a bat cave would also probably work and have the advantage of enhancing the black levels slightly.

*If you are going to choose that expensive projector, I would use dual projectors. A JVC and the LG. You get the best PQ and a LED projector for much less than the Epson. Actuall, the F2, JVC, and LG would cost less than the Espon combined. The Epson is $8000, with the new JVC RS400 and a LG PF1500, you should come out with less than $4000 for both. The screen should put you with less than $6000*

Interesting and something to think about.

3. In terms of the overall image fidelity, which of the above 2 would provide a better image ? - A brighter screen with less brighter projector OR a less brighter screen with a brighter projector ?

*With the F2 and F3, brightness should not even be a problem. Get the best projector because you are going to be able to reach your brightness with both screens. *

That is good to know and I guess a projector with an adjustable iris would be an advantage because light output can be adjusted to prevent the screen from being too bright in a dark or bat cave environment.

4. on the other hand, using a reasonably brighter LED based DLP (500 - 900 lumens) with the F2 in a bat cave could be very interesting. The idea would be to ensure that the image is not too bright and when watching cinema scope movies on a 16:9 screen, I suppose it would be awesome as the black strips above and below the projected movie would probably be totally black or very dark. Did you notice this ?

*You would notice the black bars, but its not too distracting, IMO. A scope movie on a 16:9 screen will have the same brightness as any content on a 16:9 screen. The brightness does not change because you are watching a scope movie. For instance, Avatar which is 16:9 will have the same brightness as Guardians of the Galaxy, which is a scope movie. *

You're right there and I understand your point. What I meant is that in a bat cave environment, the black bars on a 16:9 screen when watching a scope movie on an F2 would be less pronounced compared to a normal white screen.

5. I notice that on this forum, most people who have seen the F2 and F3 prefer the F3, is this because of the brightness factor ? At the end of the day it is all about image fidelity and how much ambient light is present in a given room. After all, Optical screens are designed to work in environments that have the presence of ambient light.

*I preferred the F3 only because of my JVC and 3D. I am able to run in eco mode, lower the iris for better contrast, and still get my targeted brightness. For instance, if I have a 120in screen and a JVC that can give me 100,000 contrast ratio but only if I close the iris, I would choose the F3. Because closing the iris will give me 300 lumens and on a F3, I would get 20ftL, but on a F2, that would give me 12ftL. *

Thank you very much for explaining that clearly Blee. Is this for when one is using the F3 or F2 in a bat cave ?

*Also, with 3D, I would get 17ftL through the glasses on a 120in with the F3 and just 10ftL with the F2 on that same screen. Basically, you can lower brightness more if needed. Many do not need to lower brightness that much. With the improved blacks on the F2, the F2 might be preferred.*

3D is always a problem due to the fact that the image does need to be brighter for decent 3D. This is where the F3 would be handy at the expense of slightly lower black levels. Personally, I appreciate a sharp and colour correct image and that is why my preference lies with DLP engines. Black levels are important but I personally would not invest in a projector based on black levels alone. The first time I saw a JVC, I loved the black levels but felt the image was a bit soft although I'm told JVC has corrected that in current models and digital sharpening algorithms are becoming very good.

6. In terms of image fidelity, how does it compare to a projected image on a high quality normal white screen with a gain of 1.0 in a bat cave ?

*I would prefer the F2/F3 over a 1.0 gain screen in a bat cave. So much more can be improved with a brighter image and deeper black background IMO. I lived with a 1.0 gain screen in a bat cave for over a year and I would choose the HP 2.4 every time. I just listened to many people on the forum about how much better a unity screen was over a HP screen. So, I made the switch. When I went back, it was drastic and would never do that again. With both the F2 and F3 being a better screen than the HP 2.4 screen, I would definitively choose the F2 and F3 over any unity gain screen*

The fact that you prefer F2/F3 over a 1.0 gain screen in a bat cave is interesting. I suppose it would be a question of achieving the right level of screen brightness so that the screen does not end up being too bright in a bat cave environment which can be uncomfortable. The use of lower light output and longer lasting LED light source based project in conjunction with the F3 or F2 is what I've been pondering over. In a bat cave environment, do you think the dynamic range of the image produced by the F3 or F2 could be as good as an image produced by a quality 1.0 gain screen ?


----------



## Sam Ash

Just noticed that Mircolite does a UST Screen called Blazer. This is what the spec sheet says:-

_Microlite UST Blazer surface material has hard coating to protect optical element. Do not touch or bend surface material. It will not come back to proper shape. Screen frame is 0.6" Width._

Does this mean that the screen is rigid or is it rollable ?

Has anyone seen this screen in action with a UST projector or are there any reviews out there ?

How close can the projector be placed ?

Does it use the same materials (F2 / F3) but in a UST version ?

Two other materials have been listed in addition to F2 and F3, Black Crystal 1.2 and 1.8. Any idea what materials these are ?


----------



## thrang

I have lost interest without a seamless option for greater than 120 diagonal.

If Microlite offered a 100% money back guarantee, I might look at it, but way too much money to risk for a seamed product without buyer protection.

Nonetheless, thanks for your help Mike...


----------



## dryeye

Bummer. Count me out too. I was considering something up near 150". I'd think most of the appeal of these Microlite screen materials is for them to be used on larger screens that would otherwise be too dim. Who needs this sort of gain on a puny 100" screen?


----------



## thezaks

dryeye said:


> Bummer. Count me out too. I was considering something up near 150". I'd think most of the appeal of these Microlite screen materials is for them to be used on larger screens that would otherwise be too dim. Who needs this sort of gain on a puny 100" screen?


I do 

The largest I can do for my room is 110".


Dave


----------



## Wondercarrot

thrang said:


> I have lost interest without a seamless option for greater than 120 diagonal.
> 
> If Microlite offered a 100% money back guarantee, I might look at it, but way too much money to risk for a seamed product without buyer protection.
> 
> Nonetheless, thanks for your help Mike...


So what's this?
I think I missed something. I've ordered a 144" F3, is this going to have a seam?
I was not aware....well looks like I will be your test pilot.


----------



## Craig Peer

thezaks said:


> I do
> 
> The largest I can do for my room is 110".
> 
> 
> Dave



I thought they looked good in person full size at Cedia. Forum member Ericglo held up a sample, and the Microlite 1.8 looked good in comparison, with minimal screen artifacts.


----------



## Hawkmarket

Wondercarrot said:


> So what's this?
> I think I missed something. I've ordered a 144" F3, is this going to have a seam?
> I was not aware....well looks like I will be your test pilot.


It looks like you can now order the screen to whatever size you want because of the seam so the 144" restriction is off. I'm likely to be test pilot number 2 with a 150" F3. You go first so I don't make a mistake with this.


----------



## biliam1982

thrang said:


> I have lost interest without a seamless option for greater than 120 diagonal.
> 
> If Microlite offered a 100% money back guarantee, I might look at it, but way too much money to risk for a seamed product without buyer protection.
> 
> Nonetheless, thanks for your help Mike...





dryeye said:


> Bummer. Count me out too. I was considering something up near 150". I'd think most of the appeal of these Microlite screen materials is for them to be used on larger screens that would otherwise be too dim. Who needs this sort of gain on a puny 100" screen?





Hawkmarket said:


> It looks like you can now order the screen to whatever size you want because of the seam so the 144" restriction is off. I'm likely to be test pilot number 2 with a 150" F3. You go first so I don't make a mistake with this.


Where did this seamed info come from? I'm not seeing a post about it before @thrang.

Did someone call/PM and get some info from @Mike Garrett about this?

Is this due to their larger machine breaking and could only do screen sizes of up to 120"?


----------



## Hawkmarket

biliam1982 said:


> Where did this seamed info come from? I'm not seeing a post about it before @thrang.
> 
> Did someone call/PM and get some info from @Mike Garrett about this?
> 
> Is this due to their larger machine breaking and could only do screen sizes of up to 120"?


Here is a link from the Microlite fixed XL page.
http://microlite-screen.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/microlitefixedxlspec-09-30-1501-Sheet1.pdf


----------



## dryeye

I sure ain't no master of speakin words or ritinin but there are just too many grammatical errors in that pdf for me to take this USA based company seriously at this time. I really want to believe in what these guys are selling but think I'll wait this out a spell.


----------



## thrang

dryeye said:


> I sure ain't no master of speakin words or ritinin but there are just too many grammatical errors in that pdf for me to take this USA based company seriously at this time. I really want to believe in what these guys are selling but think I'll wait this out a spell.


Just don't squeal like a pig when you're here, thanks...


----------



## Ximori

Craig Peer said:


> I thought they looked good in person full size at Cedia. Forum member Ericglo held up a sample, and the Microlite 1.8 looked good in comparison, with minimal screen artifacts.


Which sample is this? Weren't there two displays on the show - F2 and F3?


----------



## Ximori

PJC Bill said:


> Our expanded shootout will go into more detail about color reproduction. I did see some slight differences in color reproduction between the screens, but I didn't feel that it was significant enough to merit a comment. However, since we're expanding the field, I will make sure to do proper color testing on each screen.
> 
> 
> 
> We haven't seen the Da-Lite HP since 2009, and Evan Powell caught that review, not me. So unfortunately I don't feel qualified to comment.
> 
> 
> 
> When we contacted the manufacturers in preparation for this shootout, we told them which screens we would be receiving from the other vendors and they chose a product to send that they felt would be competitive. SI chose to send the Slate 1.2. I will get in touch with them and see if they want to send a Black Diamond for the expanded shootout, since I haven't seen one since 2009.
> 
> 
> 
> Oil slick and pearlescent describe the same effect -- a slight shimmer. Have you ever seen the shimmer on, for example, the feathers of a crow? It looks a bit like that. Hence the name.
> 
> 
> 
> I know this wasn't directed at me, but I should be able to answer one or both of these questions in a few weeks.


Hi Bill - any new updates on this? Still looking forward to your review. Did you ever get a chance to visit Cedia and see them? thanks


----------



## millerwill

If the microlite screen material is rigid, I wonder how it is shipped.


----------



## Ximori

millerwill said:


> If the microlite screen material is rigid, I wonder how it is shipped.


In a roll. What did you think of the material - is it better than your HP screen?


----------



## millerwill

Ximori said:


> In a roll. What did you think of the material - is it better than your HP screen?


I saw it but under the conditions couldn't make any useful comparisons.


----------



## Craig Peer

Ximori said:


> Which sample is this? Weren't there two displays on the show - F2 and F3?


Yes. The 1.8 gain and the 3 gain. I spent more time looking at the 1.8 gain. Maybe Mike will chime in with his impressions.


----------



## ch1sox

Craig Peer said:


> Yes. The 1.8 gain and the 3 gain. I spent more time looking at the 1.8 gain. Maybe Mike will chime in with his impressions.


Did they say anything about their Black Crystal material? They show a 1.2 gain and 1.8 gain on their site.


----------



## Ximori

millerwill said:


> I saw it but under the conditions couldn't make any useful comparisons.





Craig Peer said:


> Yes. The 1.8 gain and the 3 gain. I spent more time looking at the 1.8 gain. Maybe Mike will chime in with his impressions.


 
Before the show I strongly suggested to Michael to cover the booth up so everyone can see what his screens do exceptionally well in the dark. But that's too bad - and I don't believe he brought his Sony 4K either to demonstrate 4K material.


----------



## Hawkmarket

ch1sox said:


> Did they say anything about their Black Crystal material? They show a 1.2 gain and 1.8 gain on their site.


Does anyone have any more information about the Black Crystal material and what makes it different? Anyone...anyone...Black Crystal material...anyone?


----------



## mobius

blee0120 said:


> *I would prefer the F2/F3 over a 1.0 gain screen in a bat cave. So much more can be improved with a brighter image and deeper black background IMO. I lived with a 1.0 gain screen in a bat cave for over a year and I would choose the HP 2.4 every time. I just listened to many people on the forum about how much better a unity screen was over a HP screen. So, I made the switch. When I went back, it was drastic and would never do that again. With both the F2 and F3 being a better screen than the HP 2.4 screen, I would definitively choose the F2 and F3 over any unity gain screen.*




Yeah, I know 1.0 gain screens have their benefits, but looking at samples of a HP2.4 and Silverstar convinced me that there exists better options for my viewing preferences. My theater room was blacked out, yet I loved the greater brightness afforded with the gain screen materials. I preferred the Silverstar material over the HP, but my Mitsu DLP was ceiling-mounted, so no mystery there.


----------



## Sam Ash

I hope Bill will review the F2 some time soon and add it to his initial review where he had covered the F3 along with other popular ALR screens.


----------



## Swolephile

I want the F2 in 120", 16:9 size with their borderless screen. But they won't have this combo in stock till mid December.


----------



## thezaks

Swolephile said:


> I want the F2 in 120", 16:9 size with their borderless screen. But they won't have this combo in stock till mid December.


The perfect Christmas present 

Dave


----------



## ch1sox

So apparently this black crystal material is coming December. If it's actually a dark material with a high gain (1.8) I'm very interested in this.


----------



## thezaks

ch1sox said:


> So apparently this black crystal material is coming December. If it's actually a dark material with a high gain (1.8) I'm very interested in this.


They will also have the black crystal 1.2 gain material - it will be interesting to compare both the 1.2 and 1.8 to the BD 1.4 and the Darkstar 1.4 samples that I have. Once they get samples available, I will do just that.

Dave


----------



## chickenhogg

mobius said:


> Yeah, I know 1.0 gain screens have their benefits, but looking at samples of a HP2.4 and Silverstar convinced me that there exists better options for my viewing preferences. My theater room was blacked out, yet I loved the greater brightness afforded with the gain screen materials. I preferred the Silverstar material over the HP, but my Mitsu DLP was ceiling-mounted, so no mystery there.


This is very helpful, as we are going to ceiling mount but in a room with some ambient light. Thanks for the perspective.


----------



## chickenhogg

Wondercarrot said:


> So what's this?
> I think I missed something. I've ordered a 144" F3, is this going to have a seam?
> I was not aware....well looks like I will be your test pilot.


Haha, that's a tough way to find out there's a seam. Although in the spec sheet that @Hawkmarket mentioned, the seam will disappear when you are far enough away from it. I wonder what the min distance is. 

Regardless, I'll be looking for your review. I'm in the market for a ~135". When do you expect yours to arrive?


----------



## Hawkmarket

chickenhogg said:


> Haha, that's a tough way to find out there's a seam. Although in the spec sheet that @Hawkmarket mentioned, the seam will disappear when you are far enough away from it. I wonder what the min distance is.
> 
> Regardless, I'll be looking for your review. I'm in the market for a ~135". When do you expect yours to arrive?


Anything under 144" will be seamless. From what I've been told if you are over 9' away the seam should disappear unless you have a constant bright image like a power point but even then I think you have to know about it ahead of time to find it.


----------



## thrang

Since people use different screen ratios, it's probably easiest to the maximum material screen height before a seam? 

Can anyone confirm what this number is, and is it the same for all materials including the new ones?

Thanks


----------



## mobius

chickenhogg said:


> This is very helpful, as we are going to ceiling mount but in a room with some ambient light. Thanks for the perspective.


My primary screen was blackout cloth, so about 1.0 gain IIRC. The HP was definitely brighter than the BO cloth screen. However, neither the HP or Silverstar satisfied my needs when ambient light was introduced. I definitely think a screen like the Microlite or similar screens would suit your needs better.


----------



## Wondercarrot

chickenhogg said:


> Wondercarrot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what's this?
> I think I missed something. I've ordered a 144" F3, is this going to have a seam?
> I was not aware....well looks like I will be your test pilot.
> 
> 
> 
> Haha, that's a tough way to find out there's a seam. Although in the spec sheet that @Hawkmarket mentioned, the seam will disappear when you are far enough away from it. I wonder what the min distance is.
> 
> Regardless, I'll be looking for your review. I'm in the market for a ~135". When do you expect yours to arrive?
Click to expand...

So good news/bad news, apparently if I delay my order until December I will be able to get the 144" without a seam.
So while I ordered in August initially expecting a sept delivery at least I'll get it without the seam. 
I think it's important as I watch a lot of hockey, and I think you only would need to see the seam once and would never be able to UNsee it.


----------



## ch1sox

Wondercarrot said:


> So good news/bad news, apparently if I delay my order until December I will be able to get the 144" without a seam.
> So while I ordered in August initially expecting a sept delivery at least I'll get it without the seam.
> I think it's important as I watch a lot of hockey, and I think you only would need to see the seam once and would never be able to UNsee it.


Keep in mind there is some new material coming out in December called Black Crystal. In my opinion this might be the _best_ for daytime viewing. A dark surface with high gain = awesome for daytime. This is what I'm waiting on before purchasing something. Though the F2 or F3 might be better if they have more ambient light rejecting capabilities. I just like the idea of a dark screen with high gain.


----------



## Wondercarrot

ch1sox said:


> Wondercarrot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So good news/bad news, apparently if I delay my order until December I will be able to get the 144" without a seam.
> So while I ordered in August initially expecting a sept delivery at least I'll get it without the seam.
> I think it's important as I watch a lot of hockey, and I think you only would need to see the seam once and would never be able to UNsee it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind there is some new material coming out in December called Black Crystal. In my opinion this might be the _best_ for daytime viewing. A dark surface with high gain = awesome for daytime. This is what I'm waiting on before purchasing something. Though the F2 or F3 might be better if they have more ambient light rejecting capabilities. I just like the idea of a dark screen with high gain.
Click to expand...

I've got the full bat cave going on so I'm good. Really looking forward to seeing this one in action compared to the HP 2.4


----------



## thezaks

ch1sox said:


> Keep in mind there is some new material coming out in December called Black Crystal. In my opinion this might be the _best_ for daytime viewing. A dark surface with high gain = awesome for daytime. This is what I'm waiting on before purchasing something. Though the F2 or F3 might be better if they have more ambient light rejecting capabilities. I just like the idea of a dark screen with high gain.


F2 is going away - replaced with black crystal 1.8. F3 will most likely go away as well.

Dave


----------



## Hawkmarket

Wondercarrot said:


> So good news/bad news, apparently if I delay my order until December I will be able to get the 144" without a seam.
> So while I ordered in August initially expecting a sept delivery at least I'll get it without the seam.
> I think it's important as I watch a lot of hockey, and I think you only would need to see the seam once and would never be able to UNsee it.


This is the final decision I'm making now. I'm sitting about 18' away and as I've projected a 144" and a 150" screen on my wall it doesn't sound like a lot but it seems to make a difference. My wall fits a 150" screen perfectly so I'm debating how much a seam I may or may not see will bother me. I've been told the seam will be 7" up from the bottom and on a 150" that's pretty low for a seam I'm not supposed to be able to notice. I watch movies and sports (not hockey) so I won't be blazing a bright white image with any regularity. The only thing that seems to be consistently brighter is animated images (I have young kids) but I'm thinking 7" up on a 74" tall screen just isn't going to be a very big deal from that far back. Will I be more bothered that I didn't get a bigger screen or by a seam I'm not supposed to be able to see that far back? Hmmmmm.


----------



## maglito

Hawkmarket said:


> This is the final decision I'm making now. I'm sitting about 18' away and as I've projected a 144" and a 150" screen on my wall it doesn't sound like a lot but it seems to make a difference. My wall fits a 150" screen perfectly so I'm debating how much a seam I may or may not see will bother me. I've been told the seam will be 7" up from the bottom and on a 150" that's pretty low for a seam I'm not supposed to be able to notice. I watch movies and sports (not hockey) so I won't be blazing a bright white image with any regularity. The only thing that seems to be consistently brighter is animated images (I have young kids) but I'm thinking 7" up on a 74" tall screen just isn't going to be a very big deal from that far back. Will I be more bothered that I didn't get a bigger screen or by a seam I'm not supposed to be able to see that far back? Hmmmmm.


Is it correct to assume then that 74"-7"=67" as the max screen height without a seam?

16:9 = 67" x 119" (136.5 diagonal)

Unfortunately, the products page on the website seems to indicate 59" as the practical limit for product they are willing to sell.

The largest (144" diagonal) 2.35:1 seamless screen they offer is 56.38" x 132.49".

However, if the max height was really 67" then:

2.35:1 = 67" x 157.5" (171" diagonal) would be the largest screen they offer.

If they could offer an F3 material screen 2.35:1 (171" diagonal) in a pulldown or motorized form factor for a competitive price I'd put money down today (even if delivery was months out), and be very excited. Hell, I'd even drive from California to Illinois to pick it up if, if necessary. However, if the height max is only the 59" as seen in their current products, and the only option to go larger is a seam...forget it.

I'll just go back to looking at the 1.3 gain Da Lite HD progressive motorized tensioned 90" x 160" (184" diagonal) and hope to make up the difference with lumens some day.

We really need more motorized/pulldown, large screen, high gain options and I was hoping the Microlite F3 was it.


----------



## Hawkmarket

maglito said:


> Is it correct to assume then that 74"-7"=67" as the max screen height without a seam?
> 
> 16:9 = 67" x 119" (136.5 diagonal)
> 
> Unfortunately, the products page on the website seems to indicate 59" as the practical limit for product they are willing to sell.
> 
> The largest (144" diagonal) 2.35:1 seamless screen they offer is 56.38" x 132.49".
> 
> However, if the max height was really 67" then:
> 
> 2.35:1 = 67" x 157.5" (171" diagonal) would be the largest screen they offer.
> 
> If they could offer an F3 material screen 2.35:1 (171" diagonal) in a pulldown or motorized form factor for a competitive price I'd put money down today (even if delivery was months out), and be very excited. Hell, I'd even drive from California to Illinois to pick it up if, if necessary. However, if the height max is only the 59" as seen in their current products, and the only option to go larger is a seam...forget it.
> 
> I'll just go back to looking at the 1.3 gain Da Lite HD progressive motorized tensioned 90" x 160" (184" diagonal) and hope to make up the difference with lumens some day.
> 
> We really need more motorized/pulldown, large screen, high gain options and I was hoping the Microlite F3 was it.


The huge issue is how noticeable is the seam. As I understand it the 144" is the largest screen you can purchase WITHOUT a seam. When comparing samples I've compared the HD 1.3 pro and they are completely different animals The F3 seems to be in it's own universe if you like a screen that really pops. With moderate light in the room there's no comparison. The HD 1.3 is certainly a nice screen but I'm not sure in a blind test I could pick it out vs. other whites. The F3 compared to about 7 other screen samples I've tested has jumped off the wall each and every time. I've done the blind test with them about 3x with the wife who has no idea about any of this stuff and each time she has IMMEDIATELY picked the F3. I've compared HD 1.3, SI Slate, SI Pure White, Carada brilliant white, Elitevision Polar Star, F2 and F3.


----------



## thrang

Again, 144" what? Screen width? So you cannot tell max height because of different ratios...

Anyone know what the maximum screen height is without a seam? Our screen height = their roller width, presumably...

Also, what is going on with this company? Some are posting the F3 is going away? Didn't they just start production? And then had some production issue? And now there are new products coming? What is what here?
@avs Mike...I know you've been trying to get some answers, is there anything you can post to clarify the product line and intended application for each model, seam issue, etc? Or does this company scare the heck out of you? I'm losing focus here...


----------



## Hawkmarket

thrang said:


> Again, 144" what? Screen width? So you cannot tell max height because of different ratios...
> 
> Anyone know what the maximum screen height is without a seam? Our screen height = their roller width, presumably...
> 
> Also, what is going on with this company? Some are posting the F3 is going away? Didn't they just start production? And then had some production issue? And now there are new products coming? What is what here?
> 
> @avs Mike...I know you've been trying to get some answers, is there anything you can post to clarify the product line and intended application for each model, seam issue, etc? Or does this company scare the heck out of you? I'm losing focus here...


I've only ever asked about 16:9 fixed so my understanding is 144" diagonal 16:9 fixed screen is the max size WITHOUT a seam.


----------



## maglito

Hawkmarket said:


> The huge issue is how noticeable is the seam. As I understand it the 144" is the largest screen you can purchase WITHOUT a seam. When comparing samples I've compared the HD 1.3 pro and they are completely different animals The F3 seems to be in it's own universe if you like a screen that really pops. With moderate light in the room there's no comparison. The HD 1.3 is certainly a nice screen but I'm not sure in a blind test I could pick it out vs. other whites. The F3 compared to about 7 other screen samples I've tested has jumped off the wall each and every time. I've done the blind test with them about 3x with the wife who has no idea about any of this stuff and each time she has IMMEDIATELY picked the F3. I've compared HD 1.3, SI Slate, SI Pure White, Carada brilliant white, Elitevision Polar Star, F2 and F3.


I can quite confidently promise you, the seam will be a problem with the only possible exceptions being:

You are pretty far from the screen
and
there is never any moderately sized bright or white area projected at the seam
and
you never plan to view 3D material

-or-
Your eyes are terrible

For me I am will be sitting near Sony's recommended viewing distance for 4k projection (~1.5 screen heights ), which is closer than is usual with 1080p content.

I often see bright material in movies, and will pull up web pages, on the HTPC, etc

I have lots of 3D movies I have been waiting to watch, and I'm sure a seam will completely ruin the effect.

If the dirty screen artifact ever bothered you on bright/sky shots with the DaLite High Power material, a seam will be much, much worse.

thrang is right, once AVS Mike or Craig Peer get some answers on max screen height, material and form factor availability maybe some people can move forward.

The 67" max screen height without a seam your prior post implied gave me hope, but it looks like I was probably reaching. I too, want this very bright, appealing sounding screen. But man, personally, I wouldn't get a screen with a seam. Like I said, I'd go HD progressive or used high power material before I convinced myself into staring at a seam for hours.

That's the really frustrating thing about this product, it's perfect for larger 4k ultra HD screen sizes...but it doesn't seem like you can get it that way.


----------



## maglito

Hawkmarket said:


> I've only ever asked about 16:9 fixed so my understanding is 144" diagonal 16:9 fixed screen is the max size WITHOUT a seam.


I really hope you're right but that contradicts what's on their website.


----------



## Hawkmarket

maglito said:


> I can quite confidently promise you, the seam will be a problem with the only possible exceptions being:
> 
> You are pretty far from the screen
> and
> there is never any moderately sized bright or white area projected at the seam
> and
> you never plan to view 3D material
> 
> -or-
> Your eyes are terrible
> 
> For me I am will be sitting near Sony's recommended viewing distance for 4k projection (~1.5 screen heights ), which is closer than is usual with 1080p content.
> 
> I often see bright material in movies, and will pull up web pages, on the HTPC, etc
> 
> I have lots of 3D movies I have been waiting to watch, and I'm sure a seam will completely ruin the effect.
> 
> If the dirty screen artifact ever bothered you on bright/sky shots with the DaLite High Power material, a seam will be much, much worse.
> 
> thrang is right, once AVS Mike or Craig Peer get some answers on max screen height, material and form factor availability maybe some people can move forward.
> 
> The 67" max screen height without a seam your prior post implied gave me hope, but it looks like I was probably reaching. I too, want this very bright, appealing sounding screen. But man, personally, I wouldn't get a screen with a seam. Like I said, I'd go HD progressive or used high power material before I convinced myself into staring at a seam for hours.
> 
> That's the really frustrating thing about this product, it's perfect for larger 4k ultra HD screen sizes...but it doesn't seem like you can get it that way.


 
I appreciate the feedback. I've never watched a screen with a seam so I have absolutely nothing to compare it against. For whatever it's worth Mike Garrett actually saw the seamed screen at Cedia and didn't seem to think it was very noticeable at all and didn't think it would even be seen past around 10 feet or so.


----------



## millerwill

Best thing to do is simply give them a call; Michael is very forthcoming.


----------



## thrang

millerwill said:


> Best thing to do is simply give them a call; Michael is very forthcoming.


Well, the best thing is if they would clarify exactly what is going on on their web site, and to post clear details here as well...

I assume they are aware of this thread...


----------



## thezaks

millerwill said:


> Best thing to do is simply give them a call; Michael is very forthcoming.



Exactly what I was thinking - just give them a call! I'm always curious why folks spend more time posting than the time it would take for a simple phone call. The website may or may not be accurate, so find out with a quick call. 


Dave


----------



## thrang

Given the confusion generated by this company, I'd personally prefer if they clarified things publicly and thoroughly...It's not hard to do a competent website these days...

http://www.wix.xom


----------



## Wondercarrot

FWIW I have paid for and am expecting delivery in December of a 144" seamless 16x9 F3

I was offered the option of 144 with a seam that would have delivered sooner but declined.


----------



## maglito

Wondercarrot said:


> FWIW I have paid for and am expecting delivery in December of a 144" seamless 16x9 F3
> 
> I was offered the option of 144 with a seam that would have delivered sooner but declined.


Wow, great news!

Now, I just have to find out if they will offer that in a pull down/motorized form factor, or if I'm going to have to find a way to make a fixed screen flip up with gas shocks or something.

Thanks!


----------



## Sam Ash

Those who attended CEDIA and saw the ML screens in action along with various other similar technologies, please share your experience.


----------



## chickenhogg

maglito said:


> Wow, great news!
> 
> Now, I just have to find out if they will offer that in a pull down/motorized form factor, or if I'm going to have to find a way to make a fixed screen flip up with gas shocks or something.
> 
> Thanks!


I'm in the same boat too --- need a pull down/motorized screen. But according to their spec sheet, the biggest 16:9 motorized is 100". Doh!


----------



## biliam1982

maglito said:


> Wow, great news!
> 
> Now, I just have to find out if they will offer that in a pull down/motorized form factor, or if I'm going to have to find a way to make a fixed screen flip up with gas shocks or something.
> 
> Thanks!





chickenhogg said:


> I'm in the same boat too --- need a pull down/motorized screen. But according to their spec sheet, the biggest 16:9 motorized is 100". Doh!


I was told the largest motorized screen that will be available is 142" 16:9.


----------



## thrang

Spoke with Mike Garret yesterday, he will try and get some clarification regarding maximum non-seam screen height, the current product matrix (given some confusion from an earlier post that the F3 is going away), and the characteristics/application of the different materials.

Looking forward to some clarity, either from Mike. Manufacturer participation wouldn't hurt either...


----------



## madshi

Is the image height or the image width the deciding factor for the seam? And when you guys talk about 144", is that screen width or diagonal? Thanks.


----------



## Wondercarrot

madshi said:


> Is the image height or the image width the deciding factor for the seam? And when you guys talk about 144", is that screen width or diagonal? Thanks.


I was referring to diagonal.


----------



## dryeye

^^^ EXACTLY! 
Who's on first? What's on second? I don't know. Nobody does.


----------



## thrang

dryeye said:


> ^^^ EXACTLY!
> Who's on first? What's on second? I don't know. Nobody does.


----------



## ch1sox

thrang said:


> Spoke with Mike Garret yesterday, he will try and get some clarification regarding maximum non-seam screen height, the current product matrix (given some confusion from an earlier post that the F3 is going away), and the characteristics/application of the different materials.
> 
> Looking forward to some clarity, either from Mike. Manufacturer participation wouldn't hurt either...


I think you mean the F2, not F3. I guess that adds to our confusion, lol.


----------



## thrang

ch1sox said:


> I think you mean the F2, not F3. I guess that adds to our confusion, lol.


F2, F3 - this thread is just F'd up...


----------



## thezaks

thrang said:


> F2, F3 - this thread is just F'd up...


Somebody needs to look into the Black Crystal ball to find all the answers 


Dave


----------



## Mike Garrett

thrang said:


> Again, 144" what? Screen width? So you cannot tell max height because of different ratios...
> 
> Anyone know what the maximum screen height is without a seam? Our screen height = their roller width, presumably...
> 
> Also, what is going on with this company? Some are posting the F3 is going away? Didn't they just start production? And then had some production issue? And now there are new products coming? What is what here?
> 
> @avs Mike...I know you've been trying to get some answers, is there anything you can post to clarify the product line and intended application for each model, seam issue, etc? Or does this company scare the heck out of you? I'm losing focus here...


Sorry, been pretty busy lately. 
From my understanding 144" 16:9 is the largest no seam size. Will not be available until some time in December. 

Materials that they will be offering:
F1.8
F3.0
Black Crystal 1.8
Black Crystal 1.2

Application depends on room and screen size, so hard to answer. The F1.8 and F3.0 does not have much sparkle, but the Black Crystal (saw the 1.8) did improve on this. 

As for the seam, I had a hard time seeing it after getting around 6' back from the screen. I would feel pretty comfortable once beyond 10', even with bright content. Keep in mind, I viewed up close, so I knew exactly where to look in spotting the seam from a distance.

Added
Current largest size available is 120" 16:9.


----------



## thrang

Mike Garrett said:


> Sorry, been pretty busy lately.
> From my understanding 144" 16:9 is the largest no seam size. Will not be available until some time in December.
> 
> Materials that they will be offering:
> F1.8
> F3.0
> Black Crystal 1.8
> Black Crystal 1.2
> 
> Application depends on room and screen size, so hard to answer. The F1.8 and F3.0 does not have much sparkle, but the Black Crystal (saw the 1.8) did improve on this.
> 
> As for the seam, I had a hard time seeing it after getting around 6' back from the screen. I would feel pretty comfortable once beyond 10', even with bright content. Keep in mind, I viewed up close, so I knew exactly where to look in spotting the seam from a distance.


Thanks Mike - 

144" diagonal, 16:9?

So that would translate to 70" screen height at 16:9. Presuming _screen height_ is their _production roller width_, does that mean they can do a 12' foot wide 2.35 screen (*61.25" high*) with _no seam_?

And this is the same for all materials?


----------



## madshi

And if they improved the sparkle in the Black Crystal 1.8, why is the F1.8 still available? Does the Black Crystal 1.8 have any disadvantages compared to the F1.8?


----------



## cmryan821

madshi said:


> And if they improved the sparkle in the Black Crystal 1.8, why is the F1.8 still available? Does the Black Crystal 1.8 have any disadvantages compared to the F1.8?


Price maybe? Just guessing though.


----------



## HT-Eman

madshi said:


> And if they improved the sparkle in the Black Crystal 1.8, why is the F1.8 still available? Does the Black Crystal 1.8 have any disadvantages compared to the F1.8?


I'm thinking the F 1.8 is still the old F2. They just changed it to F 1.8 because they did more testing on the gain and realized that it wasn't actually a 2.0 gain screen but a 1.8 . Just speculating . 

The Black Crystal 1.8 is a totally different screen though .


----------



## thrang

Until Mike returns here, I still am not clear how HIGH each of these screens can be without a seam...


----------



## Sam Ash

It will be rather nice if Bill can cover all these different models in his review and explain the differences between them. I think clarification is important at this point. Does Microlite do ALR screens for use in UST configurations too ?


----------



## yuweimichael

*Updates on the screen material.*



thrang said:


> Until Mike returns here, I still am not clear how HIGH each of these screens can be without a seam...


Hello everyone, 

I like to give all of you some most recent updates so everyone knows what's coming next. I thank you for all your supports and Microlite will continue to make all these better and easier. 

Unlike others, MicroliteScreen is the truly high gain multi-layers optical films materials available on the market that can provide sharper image and enhanced overall image quality performance films. 

What it simple means that by using MicroliteScreen, it will just instantly upgrade your overall image brightness, details, contrast, ambient light rejection without upgrading a new projectors. Of course, by having new projector, you will make to next level. 

How MicroliteScreen can do that ? Imaging you have a "Multi-optical layers films same as inside of your LED TVs. MicroliteScreen is transforming passive to active screen. 

What are you buying ? You are buying the truly optical films with highest technology standard you can get. If you own one of this truly futuristic screen, you can laugh off these vinyls for sure. Don't take vinyls compare MicroliteScreen because it's incomparable. It's like you take a Kia compares Bentley. When people comparing vinyl with MicroliteScreen, i told them our backgrounds of making vinyls for US market has been over 15 years and vinyl is vinyl. Many of you bought our vinyls before for 15 years and continue. 

Why it takes so long ? By creating MicroliteScreen material, we already spend over million dollars and countless re-manufacturing. It takes time to make such precision products. We are making something no one else can do. We want to bring the truly unique products.


For surface material: 

We decide to have all fixed and panorama fabrics upgrade to Black Crystal series. Black Crystal is invented because all of you here at the AVS Forum. 

When the Microlite F2 and F3 came out, we thought its already the best high gain truly optical surface material with very minimum speckles on the market available but we still get concerns about speckles. Therefore, we invented the black crystal surface material. 

What gains will Black Crystal comes with ? Currently, it will come with 1.8 and 1.2. We may have the something close to 3 but we are not sure yet. 

Product without seam: 

We can do 144" without the seam but theres delays on the supplier for wider materials. So we will only focus 120" 16:9 and below for now. 

When will motorized becomes available ? Its very new product and we will update to you guys as soon as it becomes available. 

Product with seam: 

We can make seam screen and the seam is very minimum visibility. You will not see seam if you are 9 feet away. 

Availability: End of Dec for Fixed Series. 

If you have any questions about screens, please contact us directly. 

Thank you all and god bless. 

Michael


----------



## thrang

yuweimichael said:


> Hello everyone,
> 
> I like to give all of you some most recent updates so everyone knows what's coming next. I thank you for all your supports and Microlite will continue to make all these better and easier.
> 
> Unlike others, MicroliteScreen is the truly high gain multi-layers optical films materials available on the market that can provide sharper image and enhanced overall image quality performance films.
> 
> What it simple means that by using MicroliteScreen, it will just instantly upgrade your overall image brightness, details, contrast, ambient light rejection without upgrading a new projectors. Of course, by having new projector, you will make to next level.
> 
> How MicroliteScreen can do that ? Imaging you have a "Multi-optical layers films same as inside of your LED TVs. MicroliteScreen is transforming passive to active screen.
> 
> What are you buying ? You are buying the truly optical films with highest technology standard you can get. If you own one of this truly futuristic screen, you can laugh off these vinyls for sure. Don't take vinyls compare MicroliteScreen because it's incomparable. It's like you take a Kia compares Bentley. When people comparing vinyl with MicroliteScreen, i told them our backgrounds of making vinyls for US market has been over 15 years and vinyl is vinyl. Many of you bought our vinyls before for 15 years and continue.
> 
> Why it takes so long ? By creating MicroliteScreen material, we already spend over million dollars and countless re-manufacturing. It takes time to make such precision products. We are making something no one else can do. We want to bring the truly unique products.
> 
> 
> For surface material:
> 
> We decide to have all fixed and panorama fabrics upgrade to Black Crystal series. Black Crystal is invented because all of you here at the AVS Forum.
> 
> When the Microlite F2 and F3 came out, we thought its already the best high gain truly optical surface material with very minimum speckles on the market available but we still get concerns about speckles. Therefore, we invented the black crystal surface material.
> 
> What gains will Black Crystal comes with ? Currently, it will come with 1.8 and 1.2. We may have the something close to 3 but we are not sure yet.
> 
> Product without seam:
> 
> We can do 144" without the seam but theres delays on the supplier for wider materials. So we will only focus 120" 16:9 and below for now.
> 
> When will motorized becomes available ? Its very new product and we will update to you guys as soon as it becomes available.
> 
> Product with seam:
> 
> We can make seam screen and the seam is very minimum visibility. You will not see seam if you are 9 feet away.
> 
> Availability: End of Dec for Fixed Series.
> 
> If you have any questions about screens, please contact us directly.
> 
> Thank you all and god bless.
> 
> Michael



*WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM SCREEN HEIGHT WITHOUT A SEAM?

For 16x9?

For 2:35?*

58" now?
70" after supplier delays?

If I want a 61" high 2:35 screen, this is not available seamless now, but would be after the delay issue?

Or what?


Thanks!


----------



## madshi

Thanks Michael, your input here is highly appreciated! I have a few follow-up questions:

1) Can you give us a few more details about how the Black Crystal 1.8 compares to the F2 and F3? In which image quality aspects (like sheen, speckles, visible texture, viewing angles, hotspotting, ALR etc) is it better, equal or worse than the F2 and F3?

2) Those few speckle problems that the F2 and F3 may still sometimes have, do they only occur if there's ambient light (or reflections from white walls)? Or can they eventually also occur in a perfect "bat cave" (perfect light control and black walls/ceiling/floor)?

3) What is the max Cinemascope size you can do without a seam?

4) In a perfect bat cave, do your screens improve contrast over a "simple" 1.0 gain white screen? I'm not sure about the physics here, but I always thought ALR screens would only help contrast if there's ambient light (or reflections from white walls/ceiling). But some users here seem to say that your screens may also improve contrast in a perfect bat cave. If that's the case, then what is the scientific reason for that? And are we talking about on/off contrast or ANSI contrast?

Thank you!


----------



## viba

Sam Ash said:


> It will be rather nice if Bill can cover all these different models in his review and explain the differences between them. I think clarification is important at this point. Does Microlite do ALR screens for use in UST configurations too ?


According to this link, the UST compliant model from Microlite (Microlite Cubic) does Front Projection, does UST, and preserves the ambient light rejection properties.


----------



## Mike Garrett

thrang said:


> *WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM SCREEN HEIGHT WITHOUT A SEAM?
> 
> For 16x9?
> 
> For 2:35?*
> 
> 58" now?
> 70" after supplier delays?
> 
> If I want a 61" high 2:35 screen, this is not available seamless now, but would be after the delay issue?
> 
> Or what?
> 
> 
> Thanks!


144" diagonal 16:9
156" diagonal 2.35

Not available until December.


----------



## madshi

Mike Garrett said:


> 144" diagonal 16:9
> 156" diagonal 2.35


Using my amazing math skills  it seems that 156" diagonal means 144"x60". I think that's just large enough for my needs.


----------



## R Harkness

yuweimichael said:


> What it simple means that by using MicroliteScreen, it will just instantly upgrade your overall image brightness, details, contrast, ambient light rejection without upgrading a new projectors. Of course, by having new projector, you will make to next level.


That sounds nice, but it also sounds like the standard marketing hype made for many screens. I hope your screens live up to the hype. 



yuweimichael said:


> How MicroliteScreen can do that ? Imaging you have a "Multi-optical layers films same as inside of your LED TVs. MicroliteScreen is transforming passive to active screen.


Ok, though it strikes me that a screen trying to be "active" increases the chances of screen artifacts. And hasn't this been the case somewhat already? (And in other screens employing the same idea, I've seen screen artifacts).




yuweimichael said:


> Unlike others, MicroliteScreen is the truly high gain multi-layers optical films materials available on the market that can provide sharper image and enhanced overall image quality performance films.


"Sharper" image than what?

Than a white wall? Other ambient light rejecting screens? Sharper than a white reference screen like the Stewart ST100, for instance? (Which seems to resolve pixels perfectly from my testing). 

Can you give some context to your claims? Might you have any close up photos of your screen resolving pixels better than whatever other screens you are referring to?

I'm always interested in new screen technology so I am glad to see new offerings like Microlite. And I truly hope they can break some new ground. But at the same time, this being AVS, we are going to be a bit more demanding in regards to marketing hype and claims.

Cheers,


----------



## isisyodin

I am about to pre-order a 120" panorama 1.8 for my multi-purpose family room, but I am a bit worried about the many unknowns.
I would like at least a sample to test it out, but Michael from Microlite doesn't seem to have any available.
I hope whomever get their screens first will post a comprehensive write up. The one on projector central is pretty good, but it is based on the old F2.0.
The waiting sucks, but the latest news I heard from Microlite is mid to late December.


----------



## mbw23air

I'm waiting for a sample of the Black Crystal 1.8 to compare vs my 2.4 high power screen. Hopefully Michael will have samples to send out soon. I love the gain of my 2.4 high power(which has been measured at around 1.88 gain) but I see artifacts on bright scenes when camera pans that I don't like.

Mike


----------



## CoryW

Looking here:
http://microlite-screen.com/technology/

Microlite F 1.8 (F2) and Black Crystal 1.8 look the same (but I question the accuracy of the sample pics).

So curious what the differences will be in the Black Crystal material. Since Michael addressed the sparkle issue (oil slick?!), it must have a new top layer of some sort.

So nice to hear from you Michael btw! Please keep us updated more often if possible.


----------



## Swolephile

I had ordered a 110" Black Diamond Zero Edge screen last week however I just cancelled it. I did this because I am hearing Microlite vaporware will be shipping soon. I really want a 110" or 120" Microlite F2 1.8 Panaroma screen. I'm sure it will be superior to the Black Diamond.


----------



## ch1sox

Swolephile said:


> I had ordered a 110" Black Diamond Zero Edge screen last week however I just cancelled it. I did this because I am hearing Microlite vaporware will be shipping soon. I really want a 110" or 120" Microlite F2 1.8 Panaroma screen. I'm sure it will be superior to the Black Diamond.


 You might be interested in one of the Black Crystal materials from Microlite in December. The Black Crystal is probably going to be a darker surface like the Black Diamond. If it performs similarly to their F2 material it could be a really awesome screen. It's what I plan on getting as soon as they have samples available.


----------



## Swolephile

No one answers the phone at Microlite. Ever. Zero products released to the masses. Delayed shipping forever. Bad customer service plus vaporware.


----------



## ch1sox

Why do you keep saying vaporware? Do you understand what vaporware is?


----------



## Swolephile

ch1sox said:


> Why do you keep saying vaporware? Do you understand what vaporware is?


"hardware or software, that is announced to the general public but is never actually manufactured nor officially cancelled"

I'd say this is a perfect description for Microlite. Phantom customer service. Always shipping soon, but no products in the hands of consumers.


----------



## ch1sox

Swolephile said:


> "hardware or software, that is announced to the general public but is never actually manufactured nor officially cancelled"
> 
> I'd say this is a perfect description for Microlite. Phantom customer service. Always shipping soon, but no products in the hands of consumers.


They shipped a lot of screens this fall. There are members on this forum who also own the F2. Sure their customer service could be better, but they have shipped products...


----------



## Swolephile

ch1sox said:


> They shipped a lot of screens this fall. There are members on this forum who also own the F2. Sure their customer service could be better, but they have shipped products...


Heaven forbid anyone should have to contact them for warranty service if even a sales agent is this hard to get a hold of. Who owns F2 screens here? Any threads containing pics? Also I guess you sold your Black Diamond screen? What are you using now?


----------



## ch1sox

Swolephile said:


> Heaven forbid anyone should have to contact them for warranty service if even a sales agent is this hard to get a hold of. Who owns F2 screens here? Any threads containing pics? Also I guess you sold your Black Diamond screen? What are you using now?


There's a user in this thread that posted some pics somewhere. I had a Black Diamond 1.4, still do actually. It's just in a box in the garage. I'm currently using a Draper xs850e. I absolutely love it. If there's one thing I wish it could do better, I'd like it to be brighter. I like that it's a dark screen, no sparkles, no shimmering, no artifacts, huge viewing cone, nice blacks, no color shift and no hotspotting that I can see. I just wish I could get it brighter. My hope is the Black Crystal 1.8 ends up being the perfect screen for me as it will have many of the characteristics of the Draper screen I have, but with a higher gain.


----------



## thezaks

Just my experience - I have not had any trouble calling Microlite - Michael is usually the one who answers the phone when I call. 

Dave


----------



## Swolephile

ch1sox said:


> There's a user in this thread that posted some pics somewhere. I had a Black Diamond 1.4, still do actually. It's just in a box in the garage. I'm currently using a Draper xs850e. I absolutely love it. If there's one thing I wish it could do better, I'd like it to be brighter. I like that it's a dark screen, no sparkles, no shimmering, no artifacts, huge viewing cone, nice blacks, no color shift and no hotspotting that I can see. I just wish I could get it brighter. My hope is the Black Crystal 1.8 ends up being the perfect screen for me as it will have many of the characteristics of the Draper screen I have, but with a higher gain.


How does the Draper xs850e compare to the Black Diamond 1.4? Does it preserve black levels as well as the Black Diamond 1.4 with moderate amount of ambient light present?


----------



## Swolephile

No pictures from Blee after his review. No comments from any phantom owners of these screens. No answer from a makeshift, imaginary customer service/sales dept. Limited videos of these screens online. 

Little to no info from anyone who saw Microlite Screens at Cedia 2015 in Dallas. Posts from guys every month whose items are delayed but due did to ship soon. How frustrating.


----------



## thezaks

Swolephile said:


> How does the Draper xs850e compare to the Black Diamond 1.4? Does it preserve black levels as well as the Black Diamond 1.4 with moderate amount of ambient light present?


I have a sample of the XS850E - I don't like it at all compared to samples of other screens - just my preference.

Dave


----------



## Swolephile

thezaks said:


> I have a sample of the XS850E - I don't like it at all compared to samples of other screens - just my preference.
> 
> Dave


Thank you for the info.


----------



## tigerfan33

Swolephile said:


> No one answers the phone at Microlite. Ever. Zero products released to the masses. Delayed shipping forever. Bad customer service plus vaporware.



Agree. Seems like a one man staff doing every job.


----------



## Swolephile

tigerfan33 said:


> Agree. Seems like a one man staff doing every job.


Yes sir. That is exactly what I was thinking. I've only seen Michael doing a product demo for Microlite. I've only heard Michael answer the phone one out of the 47 times(I'm not exaggerating) I've called this company. Something just does not seem right with this company.


----------



## tigerfan33

Swolephile said:


> Yes sir. That is exactly what I was thinking. I've only seen Michael doing a product demo for Microlite. I've only heard Michael answer the phone one out of the 47 times(I'm not exaggerating) I've called this company. Something just does not seem right with this company.



Can we order from Craig or Mike from AVS?


----------



## Swolephile

tigerfan33 said:


> Can we order from Craig or Mike from AVS?


Tried that as well. They were unable to get ahold of anyone at Microlite when I asked for quotes.


----------



## R Harkness

Danger Will Robinson, danger!

The descriptions here of the "one man operation" type scenarios and difficulties in getting in touch...well...having been through it myself and seen many similar scenarios in the forum over the years...I've never seen it end well.
(Often it starts with a few lucky customers getting product, giving enthusiastic responses that garner interest, raising more orders and then the company starts getting hard to reach).

I'm not saying this will be the case for Microlite. But if that company wants to show it's viable and there for the customers, it seems they should start doing a better job, from these thread comments.


----------



## Swolephile

R Harkness said:


> Danger Will Robinson, danger!
> 
> The descriptions here of the "one man operation" type scenarios and difficulties in getting in touch...well...having been through it myself and seen many similar scenarios in the forum over the years...I've never seen it end well.
> (Often it starts with a few lucky customers getting product, giving enthusiastic responses that garner interest, raising more orders and then the company starts getting hard to reach).
> 
> I'm not saying this will be the case for Microlite. But if that company wants to show it's viable and there for the customers, it seems they should start doing a better job, from these thread comments.


Agreed. The present scenario definitely reminds me of Elemental Design, AV123, and Epik before they went belly up.


----------



## R Harkness

Swolephile said:


> Agreed. The present scenario definitely reminds me of Elemental Design, AV123, and Epik before they went belly up.


And the HTIQ/Somis masking systems, and the SMX screens debacle....and every problematic contractor I've ever dealt with. It always starts with the proprietor being very hard to get a hold of. 

After I had frustrating dealings with some small companies like that (when trying to buy screen/masking) it was another world when I decided to talk to Carada, who were extraordinarily responsive and helpful at all times. I no longer have much patience with companies that are uncommunicative.

Once again, this is not to prejudge what may be going on with Microlite. Any new company ought to have a chance and be cut _some_ amount of slack, so long as they can end up with happy customers.


----------



## Swolephile

From what I'm seeing this thread is five years old. In those five years, I see very limited demos. I don't see any members with actual Microlite screens in their homes who have come back to talk about their screens. I also continue to see "coming soon" and "shipping soon" posts over the last five years. 

But nothing being released and ready to go. I've also only seen one Microlite representative in this thread, doing a company demo, and answering the phone once out of 55 times today as of today. 

I've never seen anything like this thread or this company. Even AV123, EPIK, and Elemental Design got a decent amount of products out their first few years in business and would at least answer the phone to lie to customers and keep them feeling good about their pseudo purchase.

This company just gives a cold shoulder through and through. And the fact that they will not post any prices on their website so you have to call their non existent sales dept is utter bullfeces.


----------



## Ftoast

Swolephile said:


> From what I'm seeing this thread is five years old. In those five years, I see very limited demos. I don't see any members with actual Microlite screens in their homes who have come back to talk about their screens. I also continue to see "coming soon" and "shipping soon" posts over the last five years.
> 
> But nothing being released and ready to go. I've also only seen one Microlite representative in this thread, doing a company demo, and answering the phone once out of 55 times today as of today.
> 
> I've never seen anything like this thread or this company. Even AV123, EPIK, and Elemental Design got a decent amount of products out their first few years in business and would at least answer the phone to lie to customers and keep them feeling good about their pseudo purchase.
> 
> This company just gives a cold shoulder through and through. And the fact that they will not post any prices on their website so you have to call their non existent sales dept is utter bullfeces.


I was wondering if I was doing something wrong with the website that there weren't any prices. Glad to know it's just a goofy site.


----------



## ch1sox

Ftoast said:


> I was wondering if I was doing something wrong with the website that there weren't any prices. Glad to know it's just a goofy site.


A lot of screen manufacturers don't show prices on their site, I'm not sure why this is odd? If anyone wants prices AVS provides them.


----------



## cmryan821

Swolephile said:


> From what I'm seeing this thread is five years old. In those five years, I see very limited demos. I don't see any members with actual Microlite screens in their homes who have come back to talk about their screens. I also continue to see "coming soon" and "shipping soon" posts over the last five years.
> 
> But nothing being released and ready to go. I've also only seen one Microlite representative in this thread, doing a company demo, and answering the phone once out of 55 times today as of today.
> 
> I've never seen anything like this thread or this company. Even AV123, EPIK, and Elemental Design got a decent amount of products out their first few years in business and would at least answer the phone to lie to customers and keep them feeling good about their pseudo purchase.
> 
> This company just gives a cold shoulder through and through. And the fact that they will not post any prices on their website so you have to call their non existent sales dept is utter bullfeces.


I'm not trying to refute your vaporware accusation but I don't believe these guys (or guy) have done anything to lower themselves to the level of av321. The ceo of that company stole money from people under the guise of giving to charity. Just trying to be fair.


----------



## thezaks

cmryan821 said:


> I'm not trying to refute your vaporware accusation but I don't believe these guys (or guy) have done anything to lower themselves to the level of av321. The ceo of that company stole money from people under the guise of giving to charity. Just trying to be fair.



Agreed.


Dave


----------



## Swolephile

cmryan821 said:


> I'm not trying to refute your vaporware accusation but I don't believe these guys (or guy) have done anything to lower themselves to the level of av321. The ceo of that company stole money from people under the guise of giving to charity. Just trying to be fair.


Fair enough. I will refrain from any further negative comments for now. However If I see the same delays and horrible customer service come January, I'm going to be vocal about it.


----------



## Swolephile

Back to business, does anyone know if the Panaroma Screens are one piece Screens that come assembled? Or do they have to be assembled in person?

The ONE time I got through to Microlite a few months back, Michael quoted me $2000 for 100" F2 Panaroma screen and $3000 for 120" F2 Panaroma screen.


----------



## cmryan821

Swolephile said:


> Fair enough. I will refrain from any further negative comments for now. However If I see the same delays and horrible customer service come January, I'm going to be vocal about it.


pm sent.


----------



## isisyodin

Swolephile said:


> Back to business, does anyone know if the Panaroma Screens are one piece Screens that come assembled? Or do they have to be assembled in person?
> 
> The ONE time I got through to Microlite a few months back, Michael quoted me $2000 for 100" F2 Panaroma screen and $3000 for 120" F2 Panaroma screen.


Most zero edge screens including the panorama are following a similar wrap around frame and flexible material like the elite screen aeon series.
BTW., I think Michael told me it has a .6" frame, so it's not a true zero edge; the only true zero edge that I have seen are the DnP blades.

On a similar remark, I have spoken to Michael at Microlite several times, and he has tempted me to pre-order many times, but I haven't done so. Given that it is a small shop (appears to be) it just didn't feel right to me. 

I am also getting a bit tired of waiting, so I may end up going for another screen. DnPs are close in price and are good screens. I also got a sample from EPV Polarstar and Dark Energy Abyss. All good contenders.


----------



## Swolephile

isisyodin said:


> Most zero edge screens including the panorama are following a similar wrap around frame and flexible material like the elite screen aeon series.
> BTW., I think Michael told me it has a .6" frame, so it's not a true zero edge; the only true zero edge that I have seen are the DnP blades.
> 
> On a similar remark, I have spoken to Michael at Microlite several times, and he has tempted me to pre-order many times, but I haven't done so. Given that it is a small shop (appears to be) it just didn't feel right to me.
> 
> I am also getting a bit tired of waiting, so I may end up going for another screen. DnPs are close in price and are good screens. I also got a sample from EPV Polarstar and Dark Energy Abyss. All good contenders.


I was very impressed with the EPV Polarstar. If only Elite Screens had better build quality with their screen frames, it would be the easy pick. I am afraid the Panorama screen is like the Aeon screen with wrapping the material around the frame for the borderless look. This type of assembly resulted in the material tearing on the sharp corners of my Aeon screen. Definitely don't want to go through that again.


----------



## thezaks

Swolephile said:


> I was very impressed with the EPV Polarstar. If only Elite Screens had better build quality with their screen frames, it would be the easy pick.


I would love to see the PolarStar 1.3 vs the Black Crystal 1.2. Hopefully, samples will be available soon!

Dave


----------



## Ftoast

ch1sox said:


> A lot of screen manufacturers don't show prices on their site, I'm not sure why this is odd? If anyone wants prices AVS provides them.


I want to say Elite and SI list theirs (though I could be wrong)..I just figured listing was normal. Does AVS provide the current MicroLite prices? Is there a specific section to look?


----------



## Swolephile

Ftoast said:


> I want to say Elite and SI list theirs (though I could be wrong)..I just figured listing was normal. Does AVS provide the current MicroLite prices? Is there a specific section to look?


You have to contact an AVS sales rep for quotes. They then get into contact with Microlite, then get back to you with pricing. At least that is the way it is supposed to work if you hit the lottery for that day and Michael picks up the phone.


----------



## isisyodin

Abida Amile said:


> sound looks awesome


If you call Microlite directly, Michael will price them directly. The panorama and DnP blade are about the same price.


----------



## Swolephile

Michael and Microlite reminds me of the old Bugs Bunny vs. Gas House Gorillas cartoon. One guy having to play every position.


----------



## p0opstlnksal0t

Swole, if you dont mind me asking. why did you dump your Silver Ticket ALR?


----------



## Swolephile

p0opstlnksal0t said:


> Swole, if you dont mind me asking. why did you dump your Silver Ticket ALR?


It did not preserve black levels to my satisfaction. More than one can light on would wash out the picture. It had exhibited some color shift with reds being more pronounced and whites looking similar to a faded gray. It also added some graininess to picture which did tend to wear on my nerves over time.

I've learned that going cheap is never, ever the route to go with alr screens. You can do so with plain ol' white screens. But not when going the alr route.


----------



## thezaks

Ftoast said:


> I want to say Elite and SI list theirs (though I could be wrong)..I just figured listing was normal. Does AVS provide the current MicroLite prices? Is there a specific section to look?


I've never seen prices listed for Elite and SI on their websites. 

Dave


----------



## thezaks

Abida Amile said:


> sound looks awesome


Huh?


----------



## Mike Garrett

Ftoast said:


> I want to say Elite and SI list theirs (though I could be wrong)..I just figured listing was normal. Does AVS provide the current MicroLite prices? Is there a specific section to look?


You have to call for pricing.


----------



## Mike Garrett

Swolephile said:


> You have to contact an AVS sales rep for quotes. They then get into contact with Microlite, then get back to you with pricing. At least that is the way it is supposed to work if you hit the lottery for that day and Michael picks up the phone.


No, we have price lists for the F2 and F3 and Michael told me what the price increase was to go to Black Crystal. What I don't have is dates, when anything is available. 

Added
Michael did promptly answer my email that I sent him this morning. Said he was currently traveling and that everything is moving forward on the new products.


----------



## Swolephile

I want to try a 120" Black Chrystal 1.8 panaroma screen. Not sure if this will ever happen though. It's either this or go back to another Black Diamond with all of it's visual flaws and screen artifacts.


----------



## thrang

Mike Garrett said:


> No, we have price lists for the F2 and F3 and Michael told me what the price increase was to go to Black Crystal. What I don't have is dates, when anything is available.
> 
> Added
> Michael did promptly answer my email that I sent him this morning. Said he was currently traveling and that everything is moving forward on the new products.


Mike

Can you get samples of Black Crystal 1.8?

Thanks


----------



## thezaks

Mike Garrett said:


> No, we have price lists for the F2 and F3 and Michael told me what the price increase was to go to Black Crystal. What I don't have is dates, when anything is available.
> 
> Added
> Michael did promptly answer my email that I sent him this morning. Said he was currently traveling and that everything is moving forward on the new products.


Hi Mike,

That's good news, regarding Michael from Microlite. Please let me know when you can get samples of the Black Crystal 1.8 and 1.2 materials. 

I believe you mentioned that the Microlite motorized is not tab-tensioned - similar to DNP I guess. With it being a more rigid material, do you think that the Microlite will be OK with it not being tab-tensioned? 

Thanks,
Dave


----------



## isisyodin

I would love to get my hands on a sample of their high gain material. Need the gain for my JVC pj. I have requested one via Microlite's website and a direct email to Michael; unfortunately, I have yet to see one arrive to at my doorstep.
I hope Microlite materializes some products. Michael has told me that his screens blow away the DnPs. I have a DnP sample, so I would like to see it with my own eyes.


----------



## mercuryyy

Just spotted them on Alibaba - http://www.alibaba.com/product-deta...0015173184.html?spm=a2700.7724838.38.1.mRry3L


Seems like this company was in all the large shows, any member here tested it out? im considering getting the panorama Black Crystal 1.8 it seems to be as good as the black diamond in terms of picture and build quality but this is looking at their specs and their sample videos with nothing else so im a bit sceptic


----------



## Hawkmarket

mercuryyy said:


> Just spotted them on Alibaba - http://www.alibaba.com/product-deta...0015173184.html?spm=a2700.7724838.38.1.mRry3L
> 
> 
> Seems like this company was in all the large shows, any member here tested it out? im considering getting the panorama Black Crystal 1.8 it seems to be as good as the black diamond in terms of picture and build quality but this is looking at their specs and their sample videos with nothing else so im a bit sceptic




A crown to the head of the first person that actually ends up with a Microlite screen in their home. Looks great, I just don't know how a person actually ends up owning one.


----------



## Swolephile

Hawkmarket said:


> A crown to the head of the first person that actually ends up with a Microlite screen in their home. Looks great, I just don't know how a person actually ends up owning one.


I think a person has better odds at winning the Powerball lottery rather than entering the Microlite screen sweepstakes. At least Powerball pays out eventually. No one has won the Microlite screen sweepstakes in five years.


----------



## Mike Garrett

Here is what has been reported to me by MicroLite. Only 1.2 gain and 1.8 gain Black Crystal are going to be available. Only sizes up to 120" 16:9 will be available. Requested clarification on max 2.35 size. Said screens would be in stock here in the US next month. I have an email in for clarification on that, as in did he mean December or January, since his email response to me was a little after midnight last night.

Added
The screens (up to 120" 16:9) will be available in US shipping location in January.


----------



## thrang

Mike Garrett said:


> Here is what has been reported to me by MicroLite. Only 1.2 gain and 1.8 gain Black Crystal are going to be available. Only sizes up to 120" 16:9 will be available. Requested clarification on max 2.35 size. Said screens would be in stock here in the US next month. I have an email in for clarification on that, as in did he mean December or January, since his email response to me was a little after midnight last night.


So now the F series is gone? Didn't they just launch the F3?

And no large format at all anymore? Is this a temporary or permanent situation?

I don't even know why I even ask...


----------



## Swolephile

Mike Garrett said:


> Here is what has been reported to me by MicroLite. Only 1.2 gain and 1.8 gain Black Crystal are going to be available. Only sizes up to 120" 16:9 will be available. Requested clarification on max 2.35 size. Said screens would be in stock here in the US next month. I have an email in for clarification on that, as in did he mean December or January, since his email response to me was a little after midnight last night.


...


----------



## thezaks

Mike Garrett said:


> Here is what has been reported to me by MicroLite. Only 1.2 gain and 1.8 gain Black Crystal are going to be available. Only sizes up to 120" 16:9 will be available. Requested clarification on max 2.35 size. Said screens would be in stock here in the US next month. I have an email in for clarification on that, as in did he mean December or January, since his email response to me was a little after midnight last night.


Hi Mike,

Thanks for the information! Was there any indication given as to when samples will be available?

Thanks,
Dave


----------



## thezaks

thrang said:


> So now the F series is gone? Didn't they just launch the F3?...


I guess it depends upon what Mike meant by what he said. I figure that either:

1) All former screens are gone and only the BC 1.2 and 1.8 will be sold going forward.

2) Black Crystal will only come in the 1.2 and 1.8 gains, but the F series still remains.


Dave


----------



## thrang

thezaks said:


> I guess it depends upon what Mike meant by what he said. I figure that either:
> 
> 1) All former screens are gone and only the BC 1.2 and 1.8 will be sold going forward.
> 
> 2) Black Crystal will only come in the 1.2 and 1.8 gains, but the F series still remains.
> 
> 
> Dave


This thread consistently is the most half-assed, confusing mess on AVS..I guess I like watching a train wreck...


----------



## thezaks

thrang said:


> This thread consistently is the most half-assed, confusing mess on AVS..I guess I like watching a train wreck...


I have to agree - it's a bit frustrating 

I'm sure Mike is doing what he can to get info. I would think that for the owner of Microlite, it would be in their best interest to keep folks up-to-date and informed. If they are not satisfying customers on the "sales" side of things, what should we expect on the "post-sale" side of things? It's kind of scary to think about that - and it definitely produces a huge hesitation for me. Even if their screen turns out to be the best thing since ALR screens were introduced, I might still hesitate to make a purchase. 

Hopefully, Michael is reading these responses and will understand that, even if his news is that the materials are not ready yet, there is much value in ongoing communications with potential future customers! Worst case, convey the info/answers to Mike Garrett and let him participate in the forum, if Michael is not comfortable with that.

However, seeing that this thread is very old, I think Michael has become accustomed to just disappearing for a while, without consideration for the potential customers. That is unfortunate.

Dave


----------



## Swolephile

thezaks said:


> I guess it depends upon what Mike meant by what he said. I figure that either:
> 
> 1) All former screens are gone and only the BC 1.2 and 1.8 will be sold going forward.
> 
> 2) Black Crystal will only come in the 1.2 and 1.8 gains, but the F series still remains.
> 
> 
> Dave


I don't think the F series is gone because it never existed in my opinion. You know it is sad when people get happy because the sole representative of a shadow company actually answered the phone.

An outfit with a five year track record consisting of bullfeces customer service, zero product releases, one representative, imaginary release and imaginary discontinuation of models, and consistently leading the donkey with a vaporware carrot.


----------



## ch1sox

Mike Garrett said:


> Here is what has been reported to me by MicroLite. Only 1.2 gain and 1.8 gain Black Crystal are going to be available. Only sizes up to 120" 16:9 will be available. Requested clarification on max 2.35 size. Said screens would be in stock here in the US next month. I have an email in for clarification on that, as in did he mean December or January, since his email response to me was a little after midnight last night.


2.35 will go up to 150".


----------



## loggeo

How about curved screen availability? Should we hope for a frame-less model?


----------



## Maconi

From what I've read BC will replace F. Microlite feels like it's an improvement in every way (meaning it makes F obsolete/pointless). Whether that's true or not, I guess we'll find out if/when someone gets one.


----------



## Mike Garrett

thezaks said:


> I guess it depends upon what Mike meant by what he said. I figure that either:
> 
> 1) All former screens are gone and only the BC 1.2 and 1.8 will be sold going forward.
> 
> 2) Black Crystal will only come in the 1.2 and 1.8 gains, but the F series still remains.
> 
> 
> Dave


Black Crystal will be the only fabrics offered. Available in 1.2 and 1.8 gain.


----------



## cmryan821

Mike Garrett said:


> Black Crystal will be the only fabrics offered. Available in 1.2 and 1.8 gain.


So the high gain materials (3.0 gain) are completely off the table? Are they any closer to electric models? Originally, Dec was the target for the electric models but if they're changing materials I'm thinking that will be pushed back.


----------



## biliam1982

Mike Garrett said:


> Black Crystal will be the only fabrics offered. Available in 1.2 and 1.8 gain.





cmryan821 said:


> So the high gain materials (3.0 gain) are completely off the table? Are they any closer to electric models? Originally, Dec was the target for the electric models but if they're changing materials I'm thinking that will be pushed back.


And no more 144" in 16:9? Just 120"?


----------



## madshi

Mike Garrett said:


> Black Crystal will be the only fabrics offered. Available in 1.2 and 1.8 gain.


Ouch. I had thought about maybe getting the F3.0 some time next year...


----------



## Swolephile

madshi said:


> Ouch. I had thought about maybe getting the F3.0 some time next year...


The Mirage 4.0 gain will be available in three months.


----------



## biliam1982

Swolephile said:


> The Mirage 4.0 gain will be available in three months.


Was that derision towards Microlite? I can't find any info about a Mirage screen.

Also disappointing that Microlite still shows the F2 and F3 as available materials on their site. Though I no longer see an option for the 144" 16:9 seamless screen anymore.


----------



## Elix

biliam1982 said:


> Was that derision towards Microlite?


You got that right, I think. Following the Mist screen 5.0 gain.


----------



## biliam1982

Elix said:


> You got that right, I think. Following the Mist screen 5.0 gain.


Figured that. Almost gave us hope. Nice one.


----------



## ch1sox

Just ordered a 132" 2.35 Black Crystal 1.8, thanks Mike, looking forward to seeing it!


----------



## thrang

ch1sox said:


> Just ordered a 132" 2.35 Black Crystal 1.8, thanks Mike, looking forward to seeing it!


I am waiting for 150/160" 2.35 seamless...and then a sample...


----------



## Swolephile

ch1sox said:


> Just ordered a 132" 2.35 Black Crystal 1.8, thanks Mike, looking forward to seeing it!


Good luck. I have the money for a 120", 16:9, Black Crystal 1.8 Panaroma screen sitting in my playfund account collecting dust as I type this. When Microlite decides they actually want to ship a product I am all in.


----------



## thezaks

For some reason, this is reminding me of the Seinfeld episode where Jerry is trying to get a rental car, and he has the classic line:

Jerry: _I don't think you do. You see, you know how to *take* the reservation, you just don't know how to *hold* the reservation. And that's really the most important part of the reservation: the holding. Anybody can just take them. 
_
Not the same thing, but, in this case, they know how to *take* the order, just not being able to ship the order - the most important part. 

I would really like to see it happen though, and I hope it does. 

Dave


----------



## PJC Bill

Got some bad news, folks.

As of December 15, I am no longer employed by Projector Central.

It's been fun talking to all of you over the years. I do plan to register another account, because I'm still interested in projectors as an enthusiast even if it's no longer my job.

Thanks for all of the feedback and support over the years.


----------



## thezaks

PJC Bill said:


> Got some bad news, folks.
> 
> As of December 15, I am no longer employed by Projector Central.
> 
> It's been fun talking to all of you over the years. I do plan to register another account, because I'm still interested in projectors as an enthusiast even if it's no longer my job.
> 
> Thanks for all of the feedback and support over the years.



Bummer! I enjoyed your reviews/articles. Glad you will stick around, and I hope you land another position soon!


Dave


----------



## maglito

PJC Bill said:


> Got some bad news, folks.
> 
> As of December 15, I am no longer employed by Projector Central.
> 
> It's been fun talking to all of you over the years. I do plan to register another account, because I'm still interested in projectors as an enthusiast even if it's no longer my job.
> 
> Thanks for all of the feedback and support over the years.


Sorry to hear that Bill, I have been reading and enjoying your and Mr. Powell's articles for many years. Thanks for all the hard work.

I'm assuming this news means we'll never see the long awaited followup to the ALR screen article http://www.projectorcentral.com/ambient-light-rejection-screens.htm ? If that's the case I'd love to hear whatever you are able to share.

Either way, thanks again for all the years of hard work!


----------



## Elix

What is the reason for dropping 3.0 gain material?


----------



## yuweimichael

Elix said:


> What is the reason for dropping 3.0 gain material?


I think the 3.0 is great but i like 1.8 better b/c its better ambient light rejection. Plus, i measured the gain before myself, it actually reach 2.2 gains by my own testing. The surface is a lot cleaner on their new black crystal materials.


----------



## Swolephile

yuweimichael said:


> I think the 3.0 is great but i like 1.8 better b/c its better ambient light rejection. Plus, i measured the gain before myself, it actually reach 2.2 gains by my own testing. The surface is a lot cleaner on their new black crystal materials.


Michael do your Panaroma screens come assembled or do they need to be assembled onsite?


----------



## PJC Bill

maglito said:


> Sorry to hear that Bill, I have been reading and enjoying your and Mr. Powell's articles for many years. Thanks for all the hard work.
> 
> I'm assuming this news means we'll never see the long awaited followup to the ALR screen article http://www.projectorcentral.com/ambient-light-rejection-screens.htm ? If that's the case I'd love to hear whatever you are able to share.
> 
> Either way, thanks again for all the years of hard work!


Thank you for the kind words.

I have no idea what is in store for the ALR shootout. I do know that any work I did while at Projector Central is property of Projector Central, so I unfortunately cannot comment on anything that I did while I was there.


----------



## Swolephile

So who in this five year thread has actually received a screen from Microlite? I've seen rumors of some vaunted fellow who supposedly received a screen a while back. So who is this person? And where are his posts in this thread?


----------



## ch1sox

Swolephile said:


> So who in this five year thread has actually received a screen from Microlite? I've seen rumors of some vaunted fellow who supposedly received a screen a while back. So who is this person? And where are his posts in this thread?


There's a user on page 22, but he hasn't posted in awhile. Hopefully he's enjoying the screen.


----------



## Swolephile

ch1sox said:


> There's a user on page 22, but he hasn't posted in awhile. Hopefully he's enjoying the screen.


Thank you very much. Looking at his first impressions and going by the pics I must say I am underwhelmed. I'm not sure why people post pics of alr screens in complete darkness. It comes across as pointless as posting pics of a white screen under heavy amounts of ambient light.

Looking at the lights on pic, tbe black levels look like a light grey. The screen looks close to a S.I. Slate under ambient light. Also appears to have a narrow vertical viewing cone. People complaining from dark corners of the Black Diamond yet this screen will have uniformity issues between upper center and lower center portions of the screen.

And the build quality looks average. For people looking for better off axis viewing, I can see the attraction. But that's it. Seems like trading one bag of issues for another.


----------



## ch1sox

Swolephile said:


> Thank you very much. Looking at his first impressions and going by the pics I must say I am underwhelmed. I'm not sure why people post pics of alr screens in complete darkness. It comes across as pointless as posting pics of a white screen under heavy amounts of ambient light.
> 
> Looking at the lights on pic, tbe black levels look like a light grey. The screen looks close to a S.I. Slate under ambient light. Also appears to have a narrow vertical viewing cone. People complaining from dark corners of the Black Diamond yet this screen will have uniformity issues between upper center and lower center portions of the screen.
> 
> And the build quality looks average. For people looking for better off axis viewing, I can see the attraction. But that's it. Seems like trading one bag of issues for another.


I'll try to post pics with lights on . It's difficult to judge the vertical viewing angle because his projector was placed way too high for proper placement. I imagine the vertical angle is less though. I suppose it depends where your screen is placed but in my case that means less light on the ceiling which I prefer. That is the previous material though so we'll know more in January (I'm hoping).


----------



## Hawkmarket

Swolephile said:


> Thank you very much. Looking at his first impressions and going by the pics I must say I am underwhelmed. I'm not sure why people post pics of alr screens in complete darkness. It comes across as pointless as posting pics of a white screen under heavy amounts of ambient light.
> 
> Looking at the lights on pic, tbe black levels look like a light grey. The screen looks close to a S.I. Slate under ambient light. Also appears to have a narrow vertical viewing cone. People complaining from dark corners of the Black Diamond yet this screen will have uniformity issues between upper center and lower center portions of the screen.
> 
> And the build quality looks average. For people looking for better off axis viewing, I can see the attraction. But that's it. Seems like trading one bag of issues for another.


The good news is Projector Central did a detailed comparison of the F2 vs. Slate so you can compare their contrast numbers.


----------



## Swolephile

Hawkmarket said:


> The good news is Projector Central did a detailed comparison of the F2 vs. Slate so you can compare their contrast numbers.


Yeah there was not much to compare. I loved the image quality of the slate. But it's alr qualities sucked in my opinion. I would want to see the F2 compared to the Black Diamond under ambient light.


----------



## razevents

Hey guys. So I've been immersed in ALR research and comparison for the better part of a couple of months now. To the point I'm sick with it all. Anyway I came across the projector central review with the slate and the Micro 2.0 ALR. I liked it because of a few reasons but one in particular being my ambient light monster is my white ceiling and can lights at 7' ceiling height. Side window light is close to 100% controlled by powered blackouts. This screen has great rejection from above in the shootout and when viewing the YouTube videos is seemed like a great product, small company, patented design, wide horizontal cone, and great contrast. So the shootout said it was in the "bargain" 1-2k ALR world, so I thought I found the "diamond in the rough", no pun intended. Now to the too good to be true part, price. It's same price as a BD1.4. So, only thing between me and a new BD is price right now, hence my research. Another plus is customer service gentleman on the phone who I believe is a prominent figure in the company was great. Lastly, this is a stiff material they ship rolled. If you crease it or bend it by accident. You broke it and you own it. 3800$ and an oopsie like that is not a good situation. I think the pressure alone would make me nervous enough putting it together to make a 3800$ mistake. 

So I'm back to my ALR research hell. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Swolephile

razevents said:


> Hey guys. So I've been immersed in ALR research and comparison for the better part of a couple of months now. To the point I'm sick with it all. Anyway I came across the projector central review with the slate and the Micro 2.0 ALR. I liked it because of a few reasons but one in particular being my ambient light monster is my white ceiling and can lights at 7' ceiling height. Side window light is close to 100% controlled by powered blackouts. This screen has great rejection from above in the shootout and when viewing the YouTube videos is seemed like a great product, small company, patented design, wide horizontal cone, and great contrast. So the shootout said it was in the "bargain" 1-2k ALR world, so I thought I found the "diamond in the rough", no pun intended. Now to the too good to be true part, price. It's same price as a BD1.4. So, only thing between me and a new BD is price right now, hence my research. Another plus is customer service gentleman on the phone who I believe is a prominent figure in the company was great. Lastly, this is a stiff material they ship rolled. If you crease it or bend it by accident. You broke it and you own it. 3800$ and an oopsie like that is not a good situation. I think the pressure alone would make me nervous enough putting it together to make a 3800$ mistake.
> 
> So I'm back to my ALR research hell.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Microlite is all smoke and mirrors right now. They have not shipped diddley this month and only make promises along with preorders. I would not waste my time with them until they get their act together.


----------



## razevents

Swolephile said:


> Microlite is all smoke and mirrors right now. They have not shipped diddley this month and only make promises along with preorders. I would not waste my time with them until they get their act together.



Good advice. I've moved on. I'm staring at the PjPeople site for BD 1.4 zero edge and knowing this is the answer for me, just that number is so so huge. $3885 for a 110". 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Swolephile

razevents said:


> Good advice. I've moved on. I'm staring at the PjPeople site for BD 1.4 zero edge and knowing this is the answer for me, just that number is so so huge. $3885 for a 110".
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Give AVS a call. They can beat that quote.


----------



## thezaks

I would also consider the Elite Prime Vision Darkstar 1.4 screen. In testing samples of many screens and many brands, I have nearly decided on this one. I am just waiting for a sample of the Polarstar for comparison with the Darkstar. The BD, Stewart, DAE, Microlite, Seymour, Draper, etc ALR screens do not compare in my opinion.

Dave


----------



## Swolephile

thezaks said:


> I would also consider the Elite Prime Vision Darkstar 1.4 screen. In testing samples of many screens and many brands, I have nearly decided on this one. I am just waiting for a sample of the Polarstar for comparison with the Darkstar. The BD, Stewart, DAE, Microlite, Seymour, Draper, etc ALR screens do not compare in my opinion.
> 
> Dave


I agree. Microlite buyers are trading black levels for a wider viewing cone. A big screen with grayish blacks but great off axis viewing. However Elite Screens low end build quality must also be taken into consideration. For instance, the EPV Efinity frame is identical to their Aeon frame and assembles almost the same. Both frames look extremely cheap and are extremely hard to assemble without tearing the screen material.


----------



## DekPM19

thezaks said:


> I would also consider the Elite Prime Vision Darkstar 1.4 screen. In testing samples of many screens and many brands, I have nearly decided on this one. I am just waiting for a sample of the Polarstar for comparison with the Darkstar. The BD, Stewart, DAE, Microlite, Seymour, Draper, etc ALR screens do not compare in my opinion.
> 
> Dave


How is this screen with overhead lights? Also what is the cost of a 120" screen?
Allen


----------



## Swolephile

DekPM19 said:


> How is this screen with overhead lights? Also what is the cost of a 120" screen?
> Allen


You must contact a EPV dealer for pricing.


----------



## DekPM19

I thought someone may have a rough price. Have you tried this screen if so what are your thoughts.
Allen


----------



## Swolephile

DekPM19 said:


> I thought someone may have a rough price. Have you tried this screen if so what are your thoughts.
> Allen


I've seen one in person. Black levels were excellent with one overhead can light and two desktop lamps in the room. Price for 120" will be north of $2,000.


----------



## thezaks

DekPM19 said:


> How is this screen with overhead lights? Also what is the cost of a 120" screen?
> Allen


Seems to do well with overhead lights - better than the other screens I listed. Not sure of the cost yet. It's supposed to be less expensive than the BD. 

Dave


----------



## Swolephile

I'm now considering a 110" Darkstar 1.4 or .9 screen with Efinity frame. The Darkstar material looks like tbe best alr material hands down for strong black levels. Will call for quotes on monday.


----------



## DekPM19

Swolephile said:


> I'm now considering a 110" Darkstar 1.4 or .9 screen with Efinity frame. The Darkstar material looks like tbe best alr material hands down for strong black levels. Will call for quotes on monday.


Are you going to get samples and try it out to see which one you like?
Allen


----------



## razevents

DekPM19 said:


> I thought someone may have a rough price. Have you tried this screen if so what are your thoughts.
> Allen



Just went down this road. About same price as Screen Innovations. Maybe a bit less. Spoke to Elite customer service rep and wasn't impressed at all by his lack of interest, and he had no depth of knowledge on these screens. 

I might call for dark star and polar star samples. I just have an issue paying almost same price as SI BD 7 series edge less or a Seymour Premier quality frame for this far inferior elite product frame. 

For those looking into Microlite and Elite higher end material read the shootout on ProjectorCentral. It has real world numbers. I was excited about the Microlite for their rejection qualities from above (where my ambient will be from) however it doesn't seem the company is quite ready to sell to the masses yet, however their over the phone customer service was excellent in speaking to me about the product. They have their ALR patented. They also have improved surfaces since the shootout including a darker version. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## thezaks

Once you see the Microlite samples, you will see for yourself which one is the best. For me, the F2 and F3 do in fact have great angles, but the Darkstar 1.4 (for me) produces a much better picture. Luckily, I only need about 25-30 degree half-angles for my room.

Dave


----------



## Swolephile

razevents said:


> Just went down this road. About same price as Screen Innovations. Maybe a bit less. Spoke to Elite customer service rep and wasn't impressed at all by his lack of interest, and he had no depth of knowledge on these screens.
> 
> I might call for dark star and polar star samples. I just have an issue paying almost same price as SI BD 7 series edge less or a Seymour Premier quality frame for this far inferior elite product frame.
> 
> For those looking into Microlite and Elite higher end material read the shootout on ProjectorCentral. It has real world numbers. I was excited about the Microlite for their rejection qualities from above (where my ambient will be from) however it doesn't seem the company is quite ready to sell to the masses yet, however their over the phone customer service was excellent in speaking to me about the product. They have their ALR patented. They also have improved surfaces since the shootout including a darker version.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Elite Screens customer service is horrible. However Microlite's customer service is non existant. It consists of a single individual in one office. Sometimes he picks up the phone. Other times he disappears off the grid for weeks at a time. AVS reps can't get a response from him half of the time. Yet this "company" is still allowed to keep vendor status on this website.


----------



## razevents

I must have caught him just right. That seems like it might be a black hole for 3000$+ and a potential nightmare. That's a cash and carry type of deal for someone in California I think. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Swolephile

razevents said:


> I must have caught him just right. That seems like it might be a black hole for 3000$+ and a potential nightmare. That's a cash and carry type of deal for someone in California I think.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Agreed. Seeing members fork over their credit cards for products which have been "coming soon" for five years just blows my mind. If someone can pick up a Microlite product from it's office in California that would be a safe bet.

If they experience any complications with an order that actually ships they are going to be on their own.


----------



## Swolephile

Called and received quotes for Darkstar.9 and 1.4. They were oth in the same park as S.I. Black Diamond. Meh. But not in the same hemisphere when it comes to build quality. Man I wished more companies offered one piece, assembled edgeless screens like SI, Stewart, and Vutec does. Instead of the outdated velvet border, assemble on delivery screen frames.


----------



## Ximori

hey guys, check this out they're at CES:

https://www.facebook.com/microlitescreen/

Looks like they're partnering with Vivitek. I noticed in the photo that they could be using the new black crystal, which is an upgraded version of their F 2.0 screen, supposedly a much smoother look to the material. 

I emailed Michael and see if I can visit his office next week to gain more info on their new product and will report back.


----------



## Ximori

hey guys, check this out they're at CES:

https://www.facebook.com/microlitescreen/

Looks like they're partnering with Vivitek. I noticed in the photo that they could be using the new black crystal, which is an upgraded version of their F 2.0 screen, supposedly a much smoother look to the material. 

I emailed Michael and see if I can visit his office next week to gain more info on their new product and will report back.


----------



## Swolephile

Waste of time. The screen used at CES could have been shipped to an actual customer.


----------



## Ximori

Swolephile said:


> Waste of time. The screen used at CES could have been shipped to an actual customer.


Uh I guess you're right! Michael responded quickly to my email and said that he'll set my screen up next week


----------



## Swolephile

Ximori said:


> Uh I guess you're right! Michael responded quickly to my email and said that he'll set my screen up next week


We've heard promises like this for five years now. I will believe it when I see it.


----------



## thezaks

Swolephile said:


> Called and received quotes for Darkstar.9 and 1.4. They were oth in the same park as S.I. Black Diamond. Meh. But not in the same hemisphere when it comes to build quality. Man I wished more companies offered one piece, assembled edgeless screens like SI, Stewart, and Vutec does. Instead of the outdated velvet border, assemble on delivery screen frames.


I found out that the EPV folks will have a zero-edge Darkstar at CES this week. 

Dave


----------



## Swolephile

thezaks said:


> I found out that the EPV folks will have a zero-edge Darkstar at CES this week.
> 
> Dave


The Sales rep told me something about a zero edge screen for the Darkstar only. But she could not verify if it was a one piece assembled screen.


----------



## Qualunquemente

What's the minimal recommended throw viewing distance for black crystal 1.2 ?


----------



## Swolephile

thezaks said:


> I found out that the EPV folks will have a zero-edge Darkstar at CES this week.
> 
> Dave


 Supervisor at Elite Screens told me there will be no zero edge screen coming for the Darkstar right now. He also said they were sold out of Darkstar 1.4 and "he had no idea" when more Darkstar 1.4 material will be available.

His best guess was ONE YEAR or more. I swear Elite Screens is the only company whose customer service and timeframes are worst than Microlite. Everyone I've talked to at Elite Screens has a "I don't give a sh** if you place an order or not" attitude.


----------



## thezaks

Swolephile said:


> Supervisor at Elite Screens told me there will be no zero edge screen coming for the Darkstar right now. He also said they were sold out of Darkstar 1.4 and "he had no idea" when more Darkstar 1.4 material will be available.
> 
> His best guess was ONE YEAR or more. I swear Elite Screens is the only company whose customer service and timeframes are worst than Microlite. Everyone I've talked to at Elite Screens has a "I don't give a sh** if you place an order or not" attitude.


That's much different than the information I received in my phone call with Jeff Klida a couple of days ago, who was on his way to CES. I'd wait until after CES and try again - just to make sure you get accurate info.

I'll be talking to Jeff soon, so I will see if I can confirm/deny what you were told.

Dave


----------



## thezaks

Swolephile said:


> Supervisor at Elite Screens...


Do you have the person's name?

Thanks,
Dave


----------



## Swolephile

thezaks said:


> Do you have the person's name?
> 
> Thanks,
> Dave


Bert Adrian


----------



## Swolephile

We are now in January and yet not one single member has stated they have received an order from Microlite. Yet Microlite miraculously has models available for show at CES. This is becoming an embarassment for AVS.


----------



## thezaks

Swolephile said:


> We are now in January and yet not one single member has stated they have received an order from Microlite. Yet Microlite miraculously has models available for show at CES. This is becoming an embarassment for AVS.


In general, it's not unusual at all for exhibitors to be showing products at CES that are not yet available to the public - it happens every year. Sometimes, products are shown that never actually get sold to the public. Theta had a product or two like that, and their hdmi solution took years to actually be available to the public. When it finally got there though, it was absolutely fantastic.

I think we all like the idea of an ALR screen that provides the wide angles that the Microlite does, which is why we'd like to see the product. However, it's not going to happen, until they feel more confident in their product. They must have some good funding to go this long without making any money. 

Bottom line for me though is that I had the F2 and F3 samples, and the angles are terrific. The ALR aspect is not too bad, but I much prefer the DNP 23-23 material for a higher gain, and I definitely prefer the Darkstar 1.4 and .9 overall.

Dave


----------



## HT-Eman

*video is up*

They just posted this on youtube....


----------



## thezaks

HT-Eman said:


> They just posted this on youtube....


Honestly, those shots of the screens in ambient light are not very impressive. Similar performance to what I see with the samples. This confirms for me that the Black Crystal material is probably very close in performance to the F2 and F3, just with less "supposedly" less sparkling. It also confirms my choice (DS 1.4).

Dave


----------



## Swolephile

thezaks said:


> Honestly, those shots of the screens in ambient light are not very impressive. Similar performance to what I see with the samples. This confirms for me that the Black Crystal material is probably very close in performance to the F2 and F3, just with less "supposedly" less sparkling. It also confirms my choice (DS 1.4).
> 
> Dave


Yep. Like I stated before guys are trading black levels for better off axis viewing. So the viewers in the sweetspot will suffer with less performance in exchange for a more uniform picture for people sitting near the sides of the screen.

Add to that a narrow vertical viewing cone, average horizontal ambient light rejection ability, and potential uniformity issues when viewing the upper central and lower central portions of the screen.


----------



## thezaks

Swolephile said:


> Yep. Like I stated before guys are trading black levels for better off axis viewing. So the viewers in the sweetspot will suffer with less performance in exchange for a more uniform picture for people sitting near the sides of the screen.


I definitely agree. And, that trade-off is definitely not for me.

Dave


----------



## Swolephile

thezaks said:


> I definitely agree. And, that trade-off is definitely not for me.
> 
> Dave


How was the ambient light rejection ability of the DNP 23-23 material under moderate ambient light?


----------



## thezaks

Swolephile said:


> How was the ambient light rejection ability of the DNP 23-23 material under moderate ambient light?


To me, while it does take a hit on the blacks, it looks so much better than the Microlite. And, while it's not the 180 degree viewing angle of the Microlites or the DNP 08-85, it is better at angles than most. If I were looking for a higher gain ALR screen, the DNP 23-23 would be the one for sure. The problem for me is that I love the brightness and color of the DNP 23-23, but I also love the blacks of the DNP 08-85. I always wished for something between those two, but DNP has never come out with one. However, the Darkstar 1.4, to me, is the DNP screen that goes between those two. It's a good compromise, with blacks nearly as good as the DNP 08-85. 

Dave


----------



## Swolephile

thezaks said:


> To me, while it does take a hit on the blacks, it looks so much better than the Microlite. And, while it's not the 180 degree viewing angle of the Microlites or the DNP 08-85, it is better at angles than most. If I were looking for a higher gain ALR screen, the DNP 23-23 would be the one for sure. The problem for me is that I love the brightness and color of the DNP 23-23, but I also love the blacks of the DNP 08-85. I always wished for something between those two, but DNP has never come out with one. However, the Darkstar 1.4, to me, is the DNP screen that goes between those two. It's a good compromise, with blacks nearly as good as the DNP 08-85.
> 
> Dave


Yeah after all of my travels, it appears the EPV Darkstar is the best combo of black levels and brightness of all alr screens. And coincidentally it is the hardest to acquire. Go figure.


----------



## thezaks

Swolephile said:


> ...And coincidentally it is the hardest to acquire. Go figure.


My guess is that all bets are off this week and next - with CES, plus a recovery week. 

Dave


----------



## Ximori

thezaks said:


> In general, it's not unusual at all for exhibitors to be showing products at CES that are not yet available to the public - it happens every year. Sometimes, products are shown that never actually get sold to the public. Theta had a product or two like that, and their hdmi solution took years to actually be available to the public. When it finally got there though, it was absolutely fantastic.
> 
> I think we all like the idea of an ALR screen that provides the wide angles that the Microlite does, which is why we'd like to see the product. However, it's not going to happen, until they feel more confident in their product. *They must have some good funding to go this long without making any money. *
> 
> Bottom line for me though is that I had the F2 and F3 samples, and the angles are terrific. The ALR aspect is not too bad, but I much prefer the DNP 23-23 material for a higher gain, and I definitely prefer the Darkstar 1.4 and .9 overall.
> 
> Dave


I recall, from my conversation with Michael a while back, he said that there are only 3 machinery all over the world that can do a true optical screen - and that anyone else claiming to describe their screen to have some optical elements is totally fake. Two of them are located in Asia (they own one, of course) and the other is somewhere in Germany. 
Go figure their success as they're only one of two companies operating in the Pacific. I'll find out more info once I see him (hopefully).


----------



## Swolephile

Ximori said:


> I recall, from my conversation with Michael a while back, he said that there are only 3 machinery all over the world that can do a true optical screen - and that anyone else claiming to describe their screen to have some optical elements is totally fake. Two of them are located in Asia (they own one, of course) and the other is somewhere in Germany.
> Go figure their success as they're only one of two companies operating in the Pacific. I'll find out more info once I see him (hopefully).


Sorry, but his "word" does not hold much weight around here.


----------



## thezaks

Ximori said:


> Go figure their success as they're only one of two companies operating in the Pacific. I'll find out more info once I see him (hopefully).


I'm not sure what you mean - whose success?

Thanks,
Dave


----------



## Swolephile

thezaks said:


> I'm not sure what you mean - whose success?
> 
> Thanks,
> Dave


Maybe he meant success in bizarro world.


----------



## Craig Peer

Ximori said:


> hey guys, check this out they're at CES:
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/microlitescreen/
> 
> Looks like they're partnering with Vivitek. I noticed in the photo that they could be using the new black crystal, which is an upgraded version of their F 2.0 screen, supposedly a much smoother look to the material.
> 
> I emailed Michael and see if I can visit his office next week to gain more info on their new product and will report back.



I was there yesterday. The Microlite Black Crystal 1.8 looked really good in person despite tons of ambient light from the convention center. Don't judge them by my crappy iPhone shot. The full convention center lighting was pouring in. No sheen or sparkles at all on these!


----------



## Ximori

thezaks said:


> I'm not sure what you mean - whose success?
> 
> Thanks,
> Dave


 
Dave, you seem to be wondering earlier how Microlite is able to sustain their business over a long period. So I implied above their success might've more to do with their business in Asia as they seem to operate very well there. Apparently, there's quite a demand of these type of ALR screens, and as I said earlier, they're only one of two companies who can manufacture them. I don't think they have any problems with the funding wherever they decide to branch out (like here in the US).


----------



## Ximori

Craig Peer said:


> I was there yesterday. The Microlite Black Crystal 1.8 looked really good in person despite tons of ambient light from the convention center. Don't judge them by my crappy iPhone shot. The full convention center lighting was pouring in. No sheen or sparkles at all on these!



Thanks Craig for the screenshots - if you really get a chance to see them in an ideal dark room you'll be all the more impressed. Glad to know that it looks smoother than before...wow!


----------



## Ximori

Btw, one of the things I want to check with Michael is how it will be possible to achieve HDR level performance from this screen once they are available. I really wanted him to keep the higher gain F3 which is the 3.3 gain one because that's probably the only screen that can really help show those specular highlights in the upper range of an HDR material but he said manufacturing process is very difficult.


----------



## Swolephile

Ximori said:


> Thanks Craig for the screenshots - if you really get a chance to see them in an ideal dark room you'll be all the more impressed. Glad to know that it looks smoother than before...wow!


Ideal dark room would call for a white screen.


----------



## Swolephile

Craig Peer said:


> I was there yesterday. The Microlite Black Crystal 1.8 looked really good in person despite tons of ambient light from the convention center. Don't judge them by my crappy iPhone shot. The full convention center lighting was pouring in. No sheen or sparkles at all on these!




Difference in brightness between upper and lower portions of screen are noticeable in that pic. Also black levels look greyish just like the Microlite F2 screen I saw in person.


----------



## shovven

@Swolephile, buy something else then!


----------



## Craig Peer

Don't judge the picture from my iPhone 4. I thought it looked much better than the DNP HG23 next door, in person. And personally, if you plan on watching video with that amount of ambient light, you are out of your mind. Buy a TV instead. The full convention center lighting was pouring in there. Not to mention, those are business projectors.


----------



## Craig Peer

Swolephile said:


> Difference in brightness between upper and lower portions of screen are noticeable in that pic. Also black levels look greyish just like the Microlite F2 screen I saw in person.


 
Consider the photo " for information purposes only ". I flew to Vegas specifically to see this screen in person, and 3 other things. It looked very good in person considering the challenging environment .


----------



## thezaks

Ximori said:


> Dave, you seem to be wondering earlier how Microlite is able to sustain their business over a long period. So I implied above their success might've more to do with their business in Asia as they seem to operate very well there. Apparently, there's quite a demand of these type of ALR screens, and as I said earlier, they're only one of two companies who can manufacture them. I don't think they have any problems with the funding wherever they decide to branch out (like here in the US).


I actually was just wondering in general - I didn't know it was Microlite. I guess I didn't understand the previous post, but thanks for explaining it (now I understand what you meant).

Dave


----------



## thezaks

Craig Peer said:


> Consider the photo " for information purposes only ". I flew to Vegas specifically to see this screen in person, and 3 other things. It looked very good in person considering the challenging environment .


Thanks so much Craig! I appreciate the info and hearing/seeing your experience.

Dave


----------



## thezaks

Swolephile said:


> Ideal dark room would call for a white screen.


Lots of folks tend to say that, but a good ALR screen does provide a nice contrast boost in an ideal dark room.

Dave


----------



## Craig Peer

thezaks said:


> Thanks so much Craig! I appreciate the info and hearing/seeing your experience.
> 
> Dave


I have the same challenge as the rest of you - it's very hard to judge screens from samples. Luckily, I live close enough to Las Vegas to take a quick 70 minute South West flight to see things in person. And lets thank my boss for buying me a plane ticket !


----------



## Ximori

thezaks said:


> Lots of folks tend to say that, but a good ALR screen does provide a nice contrast boost in an ideal dark room.
> 
> Dave


 
I can only speak of the F2 and F3 that I've seen where I think this type of screen can bring something more to the table than what a regular white screen can do typically in an ideal room. Granted there are no artifacts and the ALR screens are as smooth as a white one - one advantage is the higher gain which can help with the added brightness of the image. Another could be the way it handles black images next to white as it might measure better than what a regular white screen does. So end result of it should provide an overall better image as you noted above.


----------



## thezaks

Craig Peer said:


> I have the same challenge as the rest of you - it's very hard to judge screens from samples. Luckily, I live close enough to Las Vegas to take a quick 70 minute South West flight to see things in person. And lets thank my boss for buying me a plane ticket !


If I'd known you were going, I would have asked if you could look at the Elite Prime Vision Darkstar 1.4 screen while you were there.  From the samples, it seems to be very nice and my preference thus far.

Dave


----------



## Swolephile

shovven said:


> @Swolephile, buy something else then!


Calm down.


----------



## ch1sox

Craig Peer said:


> Don't judge the picture from my iPhone 4 .*I thought it looked much better than the DNP HG23 *next door, in person. And personally, if you plan on watching video with that amount of ambient light, you are out of your mind. Buy a TV instead. The full convention center lighting was pouring in there. Not to mention, those are business projectors.


Awesome, this is quite interesting. Can't wait to get my black crystal setup now. Thanks (and your boss) for going out and visiting the booth!


----------



## Craig Peer

thezaks said:


> If I'd known you were going, I would have asked if you could look at the Elite Prime Vision Darkstar 1.4 screen while you were there.  From the samples, it seems to be very nice and my preference thus far.
> 
> Dave



I would have tried, but the crowds were unbelievable. I also went looking for 4K Blu Ray players - only Samsung so far.


----------



## Nite_Hawk

ch1sox said:


> Awesome, this is quite interesting. Can't wait to get my black crystal setup now. Thanks (and your boss) for going out and visiting the booth!



Is the price point of the black crystal closer to the low/mid grade ALR screens (Silver Ticket, Elite, SeymourAV), or higher end ones?


----------



## isisyodin

Any new shipping dates? I was about to order mine on November for a December delivery; I am glad I didn't pull the trigger. I see the screens are still MIA.


----------



## Swolephile

Nite_Hawk said:


> Is the price point of the black crystal closer to the low/mid grade ALR screens (Silver Ticket, Elite, SeymourAV), or higher end ones?


Depends on the frame and size. For a 120" screen it will be close to $2,000 range.


----------



## Swolephile

isisyodin said:


> Any new shipping dates? I was about to order mine on November for a December delivery; I am glad I didn't pull the trigger. I see the screens are still MIA.


 No new shipping dates. Though I'm sure Michael will chime in within a few weeks with a new promise to ship. Then disappear for another 60 days.


----------



## noah katz

Ximori said:


> Btw, one of the things I want to check with Michael is how it will be possible to achieve HDR level performance from this screen once they are available.


HDR performance is determined only by the pj's dynamic range.

All a passive screen of any kind, including ALR, can do is a better or worse job of preventing ambient and/or re-reflected light from making the on-screen CR less than that of the pj.


----------



## Ximori

noah katz said:


> HDR performance is determined only by the pj's dynamic range.
> 
> All a passive screen of any kind, including ALR, can do is a better or worse job of preventing ambient and/or re-reflected light from making the on-screen CR less than that of the pj.


I was looking in terms of how the pj's own dynamic range can properly be shown or displayed best on a higher gain screen...in my case, with a JVC RS500. If I slide the iris lower to substantially increase its CR and use a 3.3 gain, such as the F3, then I'm practically using the pj's full CR range and still keep a decently bright image, as opposed to using the pj's increased lumens at the expense of some CR loss.


----------



## Ximori

Craig Peer said:


> I would have tried, but the crowds were unbelievable. I also went looking for 4K Blu Ray players - only Samsung so far.


What stood out for you at the show? I re-sized my pj image down to 77" to match the new LG OLED screen, sat closer to 6-7 ft. viewing distance and see if I can live with that size...um no - way too small! I can't view any closer than that but would like my field of view much wider. So I think 90-100" would be more ideal


----------



## Craig Peer

Ximori said:


> *What stood out for you at the show?* I re-sized my pj image down to 77" to match the new LG OLED screen, sat closer to 6-7 ft. viewing distance and see if I can live with that size...um no - way too small! I can't view any closer than that but would like my field of view much wider. So I think 90-100" would be more ideal



I was only there for one day to see JVC ( RS600 ), hear SVS's speakers ( other than their subwoofers, which I've owned for years myself ), see the new Darbee DVP - 5000S ( much nicer build quality now, and includes a cable and a IR extender ), and Martin Logan ( the new $ 25K electrostatic speakers were amazing ). And to pick up a cold virus. Mission accomplished.


----------



## isisyodin

Ximori said:


> I was looking in terms of how the pj's own dynamic range can properly be shown or displayed best on a higher gain screen...in my case, with a JVC RS500. If I slide the iris lower to substantially increase its CR and use a 3.3 gain, such as the F3, then I'm practically using the pj's full CR range and still keep a decently bright image, as opposed to using the pj's increased lumens at the expense of some CR loss.


Hi Ximori. I have a similar pj setup; I don't have a screen at all at the moment, so I was wondering what other ALR screen would you or anyone with a similar setup recommend; I doubt that Microlite will start shipping anytime soon or at all, so I am looking for the best solution available. I watch everything from sports to movies to video games. Looking for a 120" about 15' throw in a multi-purpose room.

Thanks


----------



## ch1sox

isisyodin said:


> Hi Ximori. I have a similar pj setup; I don't have a screen at all at the moment, so I was wondering what other ALR screen would you or anyone with a similar setup recommend; I doubt that Microlite will start shipping anytime soon or at all, so I am looking for the best solution available. I watch everything from sports to movies to video games. Looking for a 120" about 15' throw in a multi-purpose room.
> 
> Thanks


Probably best to start a new thread so more people see your post...


----------



## Ximori

isisyodin said:


> Hi Ximori. I have a similar pj setup; I don't have a screen at all at the moment, so I was wondering what other ALR screen would you or anyone with a similar setup recommend; I doubt that Microlite will start shipping anytime soon or at all, so I am looking for the best solution available. I watch everything from sports to movies to video games. Looking for a 120" about 15' throw in a multi-purpose room.
> 
> Thanks


Hi - contact Craig Peer or Mike Garret for screen advice and be sure to mention your room dimension, degree of ambient lighting and where they're coming from, viewing distance, how many viewers typically watching, and what you're easily most bothered with when watching (such as screen artifacts, hot-spotting, narrow viewing cone, screen color uniformity, etc.), so they can work a solution for you.


----------



## Swolephile

We are near the middle of January now. Where are the shipping updates?


----------



## Mike Garrett

Swolephile said:


> We are now in January and yet not one single member has stated they have received an order from Microlite. Yet Microlite miraculously has models available for show at CES. This is becoming an embarassment for AVS.


I have had a customer that has received a MicroLite screen. Also was told several should be shipping out this month.


----------



## Mike Garrett

Ximori said:


> Hi - contact Craig Peer or Mike Garret for screen advice and be sure to mention your room dimension, degree of ambient lighting and where they're coming from, viewing distance, how many viewers typically watching, and what you're easily most bothered with when watching (such as screen artifacts, hot-spotting, narrow viewing cone, screen color uniformity, etc.), so they can work a solution for you.


A picture of the screen wall, no flash, adjust picture to show what the room actually looks like in person. Also you can use phone app to measure how much ambient light you have.


----------



## isisyodin

Mike Garrett said:


> I have had a customer that has received a MicroLite screen. Also was told several should be shipping out this month.


I wish he/she is an active member of the forum. I hope to see user reviews soon.


----------



## Swolephile

isisyodin said:


> I wish he/she is an active member of the forum. I hope to see user reviews soon.


I concur. Trying to get any info about Microlite's newest offerings is like pulling teeth. Their Panaroma screen still looks promising. It is a shame that the few people who do receive these screens don't come back and share info with other members here.


----------



## isisyodin

Has anyone won the Microlite jackpot? Anyone?


----------



## Swolephile

isisyodin said:


> Has anyone won the Microlite jackpot? Anyone?


Lol. It does not look like any winners have come forth. Better odds at winning the Powerball lottery.


----------



## Ximori

isisyodin said:


> Has anyone won the Microlite jackpot? Anyone?


You should ask Mike - he'll know who the winners are next month


----------



## thrang

Ximori said:


> You should ask Mike - he'll know who the winners are next month


I think the winners are those that move on from this company...


----------



## Swolephile

Ximori said:


> You should ask Mike - he'll know who the winners are next month


Lol if you believe that I have some pristine beachfront property in Alaska to sell you. Always next month, next quarter, or next year. And guys keep shelling out their cards for orders, preorders, etc. With no defined drop dates in site. It's time to call a spade a spade.

And anyone willing to give their credit card number out to such a company must like to gamble.


----------



## Ximori

Swolephile said:


> Lol if you believe that I have some pristine beachfront property in Alaska to sell you. Always next month, next quarter, or next year. And guys keep shelling out their cards for orders, preorders, etc. With no defined drop dates in site. It's time to call a spade a spade.
> 
> And anyone willing to give their credit card number out to such a company must like to gamble.


So what screen have you bought? i'm dying to hear your review


----------



## Swolephile

Ximori said:


> So what screen have you bought? i'm dying to hear your review


I've purchased over twenty screens in the last six months. Any questions? Don't begrudge me for using logic in a thread I've followed for five years which has been full of nothing but empty promises.

You seem to be another Johnny come lately who is merely buying the latest "shipping soon" promise. In order to help the board I offered to purchase one of these screens and report back my findings. I dont need a sample. I was swiftly turned away by AVS representative because of lack of trust and non communication with this company.

You should know the entire story before you come in with your misguided optimisim in the last chapter of a five year book.


----------



## Ximori

Swolephile said:


> I've purchased over twenty screens in the last six months. Any questions? Don't begrudge me for using logic in a thread I've followed for five years which has been full of nothing but empty promises.
> 
> You seem to be another Johnny come lately who is merely buying the latest "shipping soon" promise. In order to help the board I offered to purchase one of these screens and report back my findings. I dont need a sample. I was swiftly turned away by AVS representative because of lack of trust and non communication with this company.
> 
> You should know the entire story before you come in with your misguided optimisim in the last chapter of a five year book.


Wow are you really that hurt...and waiting for five years? Maybe you just need a better projector then...that's how you should use your logic. 

Seriously, If I had sensed something here that is promising and will not happen then I wouldn't even dare come back to this thread...ever. But I spoke to Michael about this before, and unfortunately, there are things I cannot say at the moment. Sorry but you'll just have to be more patient 

Now move on...this thread won't help you at all!


----------



## isisyodin

All I need is a decent ALR screen for a living room with light colored walls-ceiling and floor with a side window. I was looking at the DNP 23-23 for which I have a small sample and I was hoping to compare it against the 1.8 Microlite material. The Projector Central screen shootout dated on August 2015 on Microlite vs Slate vs ES Polarstar favored the Microlite F2; the DnP was not considered. This was my main reason for waiting to read on some user reviews of their screens; unfortunately, it does look like a white unicorn at this point, so it's time to move on. It looks like DnP will be getting my money.


----------



## Swolephile

Ximori said:


> Wow are you really that hurt...and waiting for five years? Maybe you just need a better projector then...that's how you should use your logic.
> 
> Seriously, If I had sensed something here that is promising and will not happen then I wouldn't even dare come back to this thread...ever. But I spoke to Michael about this before, and unfortunately, there are things I cannot say at the moment. Sorry but you'll just have to be more patient
> 
> Now move on...this thread won't help you at all!


I've also talked to Mike Garrett and Craig Peer. I have emails to back what I'm saying. All you have is misguided optimism. And I'm also guessing you don't have much firsthand experience owning any other alr screens.


----------



## Ximori

isisyodin said:


> All I need is a decent ALR screen for a living room with light colored walls-ceiling and floor with a side window. I was looking at the DNP 23-23 for which I have a small sample and I was hoping to compare it against the 1.8 Microlite material. The Projector Central screen shootout dated on August 2015 on Microlite vs Slate vs ES Polarstar favored the Microlite F2; the DnP was not considered. This was my main reason for waiting to read on some user reviews of their screens; unfortunately, it does look like a white unicorn at this point, so it's time to move on. It looks like DnP will be getting my money.


Was the Dnp recommended to you? Just curious, because I noticed some hot-spotting back when I visited their showroom. But the way it was set up must've played a role on it. 
You really need to have a bright projector to be able to enjoy your dnp screen.


----------



## isisyodin

Ximori said:


> Was the Dnp recommended to you? Just curious, because I noticed some hot-spotting back when I visited their showroom. But the way it was set up must've played a role on it.
> You really need to have a bright projector to be able to enjoy your dnp screen.


[email protected] recommended the DnP and Microlite based on my PJ and room. The DnP 08 85 is more than likely too dark (I haven't tested it). The 23-23 looks OK with my PJ Cinema settings. At night, with light sipping thru the adjacent room, the sample looks fine. With overhead lighting, it washes out a bit, so the ALR properties are not as effective (maybe I was expecting too much). I didn't notice any sparkles nor hot spotting. During the day, It is not worth even turning on the PJ; it is too bright in the room.
I've also talked to [email protected], but it is hard to conclude anything from his statements as he is obviously going to favor his product. His YouTube videos look OK, but so do all the rest. The shipping dates he stated have come and gone, so I am not really too impressed. I haven't looked at others like Stewart Firehawk G4, Da-Lite Parallax, Draper High Performance, etc.


----------



## Ximori

isisyodin said:


> [email protected] recommended the DnP and Microlite based on my PJ and room. The DnP 08 85 is more than likely too dark (I haven't tested it). The 23-23 looks OK with my PJ Cinema settings. At night, with light sipping thru the adjacent room, the sample looks fine. With overhead lighting, it washes out a bit, so the ALR properties are not as effective (maybe I was expecting too much). I didn't notice any sparkles nor hot spotting. During the day, It is not worth even turning on the PJ; it is too bright in the room.
> I've also talked to [email protected], but it is hard to conclude anything from his statements as he is obviously going to favor his product. His YouTube videos look OK, but so do all the rest. The shipping dates he stated have come and gone, so I am not really too impressed. I haven't looked at others like Stewart Firehawk G4, Da-Lite Parallax, Draper High Performance, etc.


I'd take Mike's advice and find out yourself. Dnp is the only other screen I'd probably consider for a non-optimized room. It doesn't change the color in the source as much as other gray screens do, which is sometimes being overlooked. 

Anyway, let us know what you think of it later


----------



## Ximori

I have with me the 3.3 high gain Microlite screen and have few observations. Michael was kind enough to lend me the screen the other week, for the time being, til I get my actual screen. This is the F3 version - the one I wished they would continue manufacturing...he said he might reconsider.
Since the screen won't be available in the US market there's no point in exploring it further. However, I think there's something here that is, at least, worth mentioning - now that I have a better feel of how good and capable his screens are for front projection viewing. I never had the chance to really observe fully during my visits in his office and, finally, I was able to install it a few days ago...after missing the screen's corner brackets.  

Anyway, everything that was mentioned before about his screens were dead on, so no need to repeat that. If you read back to Bill's shootout review in PC, there were a couple of things that he pointed out: one was the texturing and the other being the light banding outside the viewing area. That very slight light banding, I suspected, might've been a hot-spotting due to a poor setup. I even emailed Darin about this but I don't think he ever had the chance to look at a sample. Anyhow, I can now conclude that this banding only occurs once a projector is incorrectly setup or positioned and you are not in an ideal viewing position. In other words, it is not the screen's fault but your setup, so you need to mount the pj correctly. With the right set up, it looks exceptionally very bright and uniform even at wider viewing angles...very impressive and quite unique. 

This is a true optical screen by any measure and you will see the complexity placed in it the longer you observe the projected images. It really captures the source's (or projector's) raw performance without any degradation and renders it beautifully just like the way a flat panel does with true colors and sharpness. And that's only the beginning - Once I threw bright images on his screen with a JVC RS500 (a LCOS projector known to have very low ANSI CR measures) all the washed effects (e.g. an early scene in Skyfall where Judy Dench and Ray Fiennes were chatting in the room with a bright window on the background; also Chapter 7 of MI5, lots of bright areas in those scenes) were completely gone. It seemed to have retained all the darker areas and kept them intact. It's now enjoyable to watch both very bright and dark areas with this projector, seems like. 
Unfortunately, I need to wait till my replacement projector comes in and viewing time is very limited. So I've been using my LG mini-projector for now. There are several other things I wanted to point out, especially what it does in 3D - that one is a big game-changer due to its brightness, and the possibility that this maybe the screen to use for HDR projectors. 
That's it for now


----------



## sfitzger

Ximori said:


> I have with me the 3.3 high gain Microlite screen and have few observations. Michael was kind enough to lend me the screen the other week, for the time being, til I get my actual screen. This is the F3 version - the one I wished they would continue manufacturing...he said he might reconsider.
> Since the screen won't be available in the US market there's no point in exploring it further. However, I think there's something here that is, at least, worth mentioning - now that I have a better feel of how good and capable his screens are for front projection viewing. I never had the chance to really observe fully during my visits in his office and, finally, I was able to install it a few days ago...after missing the screen's corner brackets.
> 
> Anyway, everything that was mentioned before about his screens were dead on, so no need to repeat that. If you read back to Bill's shootout review in PC, there were a couple of things that he pointed out: one was the texturing and the other being the light banding outside the viewing area. That very slight light banding, I suspected, might've been a hot-spotting due to a poor setup. I even emailed Darin about this but I don't think he ever had the chance to look at a sample. Anyhow, I can now conclude that this banding only occurs once a projector is incorrectly setup or positioned and you are not in an ideal viewing position. In other words, it is not the screen's fault but your setup, so you need to mount the pj correctly. With the right set up, it looks exceptionally very bright and uniform even at wider viewing angles...very impressive and quite unique.
> 
> This is a true optical screen by any measure and you will see the complexity placed in it the longer you observe the projected images. It really captures the source's (or projector's) raw performance without any degradation and renders it beautifully just like the way a flat panel does with true colors and sharpness. And that's only the beginning - Once I threw bright images on his screen with a JVC RS500 (a LCOS projector known to have very low ANSI CR measures) all the washed effects (e.g. an early scene in Skyfall where Judy Dench and Ray Fiennes were chatting in the room with a bright window on the background; also Chapter 7 of MI5, lots of bright areas in those scenes) were completely gone. It seemed to have retained all the darker areas and kept them intact. It's now enjoyable to watch both very bright and dark areas with this projector, seems like.
> Unfortunately, I need to wait till my replacement projector comes in and viewing time is very limited. So I've been using my LG mini-projector for now. There are several other things I wanted to point out, especially what it does in 3D - that one is a big game-changer due to its brightness, and the possibility that this maybe the screen to use for HDR projectors.
> That's it for now



Can you pass along that people actually want to buy these screens? I am getting fatigued from the poor customer service, seems if you have an "In" with him maybe you can help him understand how selling a product is apart of a business .


----------



## Ximori

sfitzger said:


> Can you pass along that people actually want to buy these screens? I am getting fatigued from the poor customer service, seems if you have an "In" with him maybe you can help him understand how selling a product is apart of a business .


Michael has no control of this, it's in their manufacturing location. As much as I want to help I'm just in the same situation as you're in - so you're really better off talking to Craig or Mike about this.


----------



## Swolephile

sfitzger said:


> Can you pass along that people actually want to buy these screens? I am getting fatigued from the poor customer service, seems if you have an "In" with him maybe you can help him understand how selling a product is apart of a business .


He can't help you with Microlite's phantom customer service. He can only offer a mach review of a screen next to no one has seen with no pics to verify the tiny little bit of info he was willing to give.


----------



## isisyodin

Ximori said:


> I have with me the 3.3 high gain Microlite screen and have few observations. Michael was kind enough to lend me the screen the other week, for the time being, til I get my actual screen. This is the F3 version - the one I wished they would continue manufacturing...he said he might reconsider.
> Since the screen won't be available in the US market there's no point in exploring it further. However, I think there's something here that is, at least, worth mentioning - now that I have a better feel of how good and capable his screens are for front projection viewing. I never had the chance to really observe fully during my visits in his office and, finally, I was able to install it a few days ago...after missing the screen's corner brackets.
> 
> Anyway, everything that was mentioned before about his screens were dead on, so no need to repeat that. If you read back to Bill's shootout review in PC, there were a couple of things that he pointed out: one was the texturing and the other being the light banding outside the viewing area. That very slight light banding, I suspected, might've been a hot-spotting due to a poor setup. I even emailed Darin about this but I don't think he ever had the chance to look at a sample. Anyhow, I can now conclude that this banding only occurs once a projector is incorrectly setup or positioned and you are not in an ideal viewing position. In other words, it is not the screen's fault but your setup, so you need to mount the pj correctly. With the right set up, it looks exceptionally very bright and uniform even at wider viewing angles...very impressive and quite unique.
> 
> This is a true optical screen by any measure and you will see the complexity placed in it the longer you observe the projected images. It really captures the source's (or projector's) raw performance without any degradation and renders it beautifully just like the way a flat panel does with true colors and sharpness. And that's only the beginning - Once I threw bright images on his screen with a JVC RS500 (a LCOS projector known to have very low ANSI CR measures) all the washed effects (e.g. an early scene in Skyfall where Judy Dench and Ray Fiennes were chatting in the room with a bright window on the background; also Chapter 7 of MI5, lots of bright areas in those scenes) were completely gone. It seemed to have retained all the darker areas and kept them intact. It's now enjoyable to watch both very bright and dark areas with this projector, seems like.
> Unfortunately, I need to wait till my replacement projector comes in and viewing time is very limited. So I've been using my LG mini-projector for now. There are several other things I wanted to point out, especially what it does in 3D - that one is a big game-changer due to its brightness, and the possibility that this maybe the screen to use for HDR projectors.
> That's it for now


No pictures? How about some proof of life?
Any chance on getting the loaner shipped to me in South Florida? I would love to test it out; my room is ready, so all I would need would be to assemble and hang it; I would most definitely post pictures, videos, reviews, etc.; I am willing to even recalibrate my PJ.


----------



## ch1sox

isisyodin said:


> No pictures? How about some proof of life?
> Any chance on getting the loaner shipped to me in South Florida? I would love to test it out; my room is ready, so all I would need would be to assemble and hang it; I would most definitely post pictures, videos, reviews, etc.; I am willing to even recalibrate my PJ.


They aren't selling the 3.3 gain so a review won't matter much. Now if it was the Black Crystal material that would help.


----------



## thezaks

ch1sox said:


> They aren't selling the 3.3 gain so a review won't matter much. Now if it was the Black Crystal material that would help.


I agree. However, there's still question as to the attainability of the BC material, so until they start delivering on an actual product, none of it matters.

Dave


----------



## Swolephile

thezaks said:


> I agree. However, there's still question as to the attainability of the BC material, so until they start delivering on an actual product, none of it matters.
> 
> Dave


Agreed. People continue to comment on the different versions of Microlite materials when none of them have been attainable in the U.S. for over five years now. What difference does it make if one imaginary model is discontinued and a new imaginary model is released when none of them are really for sale.


----------



## ch1sox

Swolephile said:


> Agreed. People continue to comment on the different versions of Microlite materials when none of them have been attainable in the U.S. for over five years now. What difference does it make if one imaginary model is discontinued and a new imaginary model is released when none of them are really for sale.


You really need to stop the 5 year myth. It was introduced 5 years ago at a trade show and someone here started a thread about it. It was never sold, marketed or meant to be sold 5 years ago. Last year was the first year they sold their screens which they did send out. They then recently switched their products now to a new material that we are waiting for.


----------



## Swolephile

ch1sox said:


> You really need to stop the 5 year myth. It was introduced 5 years ago at a trade show and someone here started a thread about it. It was never sold, marketed or meant to be sold 5 years ago. Last year was the first year they sold their screens which they did send out. They then recently switched their products now to a new material that we are waiting for.


You need to stop the myth that your imaginary product will ship.


----------



## ch1sox

Swolephile said:


> You need to stop the myth that your imaginary product will ship.


I'm not in any rush so I don't really care.


----------



## Ximori

ch1sox said:


> I'm not in any rush so I don't really care.


If you had pre-ordered you might be getting a tracking no. soon. Michael just sent me one thru DHL and scheduled for this coming Monday.


----------



## madshi

I'm still interested in this company/product. Maybe it isn't ever going to take off. Or maybe it is, I've no idea. But I would appreciate if the constant bickering and bashing could be reduced to a reasonable amount. Thanks.


----------



## blee0120

Haven't been here in awhile. I have been emailing Michael for a couple of months to exactly purchase a F3 screen. Seen like no one has obtained one yet in the US. I'll keep trying because I really want it. After Michael let me see his review F3, I was impressed. Somehow, he needs to get one for me.


----------



## Swolephile

blee0120 said:


> Haven't been here in awhile. I have been emailing Michael for a couple of months to exactly purchase a F3 screen. Seen like no one has obtained one yet in the US. I'll keep trying because I really want it. After Michael let me see his review F3, I was impressed. Somehow, he needs to get one for me.


F3 has been discontinued.


----------



## Ximori

madshi said:


> I'm still interested in this company/product. Maybe it isn't ever going to take off. Or maybe it is, I've no idea. But I would appreciate if the constant bickering and bashing could be reduced to a reasonable amount. Thanks.


I seem to recall you had some good set of questions re the Black Crystal screens. I'll be dropping by his office next week to check if he has that new screen installed and let you know. He's been busy re-modeling the showroom at the moment.


----------



## madshi

That would be great - thanks! Maybe you can ask him to release a Black Crystal F3 replacement, too? Or alternatively keep offering the F3.


----------



## Ximori

madshi said:


> That would be great - thanks! Maybe you can ask him to release a Black Crystal F3 replacement, too? Or alternatively keep offering the F3.


Definitely. I keep bugging him his F3 is going to be the screen of choice once films get into the HDR treatment. Not only so much for its ability to enhanced out the brighter images but the way it keeps them intact...can't think of a better term, at the moment, but it feels more like trapping that image within the screen's surface so you get this impression of watching on a flat panel. 
Last night we watched Irrational Man - this film was mostly bright all throughout and I never felt any washing out during bright scenes, even in a room with white walls and all lights off...I'm just amazed


----------



## Maconi

Really? After all the hostility in this thread, I make a post basically saying shilling is just as dangerous as trolling and it gets deleted (with no notification/explanation, I only noticed because it caused my tab to freak out when I refreshed)?

Obviously that's AVS Forum's decision but with that I've officially lost any interest in this screen (assuming it was ever going to become obtainable anyway).

Best of luck to those who decide to stick it out.


----------



## Ximori

I've been tracking mine, lately, and noticed that it landed in LA customs yesterday. Looks like it's on schedule for tomorrow. 

Also, I heard those who pre-ordered the fixed screens will begin shipping from overseas...that's really good news.


----------



## isisyodin

Cool. I am looking forward to your unboxing and review (with pictures  ); hopefully you will have the time to share your experience with us.


----------



## Mike Garrett

Several of these screens have now shipped to customers. These customers should be receiving them, starting this week.


----------



## madshi

Great news! Looking forward to reviews, especially from users who have a batcave (like me).

Here's still hoping the F3 (or a replacement) will stay available, for HDR and to postpone lamp replacements.


----------



## thrang

Mike Garrett said:


> Several of these screens have now shipped to customers. These customers should be receiving them, starting this week.


What is the current largest 2.35 they can do without a seam? And if not very big, is that anticipated to change in the near future?


----------



## isisyodin

madshi said:


> Great news! Looking forward to reviews, especially from users who have a batcave (like me).
> 
> Here's still hoping the F3 (or a replacement) will stay available, for HDR and to postpone lamp replacements.


Finally! Excellent. Looking forward to reviews of multi-purpose rooms as well.


----------



## biliam1982

I've been watching this thread for many years, hoping itn would be the saving grace and all around sweet spot for screens in non-optimal environments.

I shot another message off to Microlite last night. Basically, I asked if the F3 was for sure no longer, that the max size in 16:9 was still 120" (as I'm wanting something like 135-150"), but most importantly, if he had samples of the material with a seam in it so I could test it out from my various seating positions.

I've had some issues w/ CS from Michael in the past with him not answering questions when he replies, if he replies at all. When I emailed him again last night, the original email address he was using, [email protected], gave me a returned error message. So I sent the same inquiries over on their website. We'll see if he replies this time.


----------



## isisyodin

biliam1982 said:


> I've been watching this thread for many years, hoping itn would be the saving grace and all around sweet spot for screens in non-optimal environments.
> 
> I shot another message off to Microlite last night. Basically, I asked if the F3 was for sure no longer, that the max size in 16:9 was still 120" (as I'm wanting something like 135-150"), but most importantly, if he had samples of the material with a seam in it so I could test it out from my various seating positions.
> 
> I've had some issues w/ CS from Michael in the past with him not answering questions when he replies, if he replies at all. When I emailed him again last night, the original email address he was using, [email protected], gave me a returned error message. So I sent the same inquiries over on their website. We'll see if he replies this time.


Same here... After a couple of unresponded emails I've learned that the only way is to phone him up. Don't bother leaving messages if he does not answer. BTW., he is on the west coast; I have been able to reach him around 10am Pacific time.


----------



## ch1sox

Got a big present in the mail today.


----------



## isisyodin

ch1sox said:


> Got a big present in the mail today.


lucky you! all I got are bills and junk mail. What screen did you ordered at the end? Frame type?


----------



## ch1sox

isisyodin said:


> lucky you! all I got are bills and junk mail. What screen did you ordered at the end? Frame type?


132" 2.35, Fixed Frame, Black Crystal 1.8. I won't be opening it until I'm off on Saturday though.


----------



## thrang

I wonder if anyone here owns a camera?


----------



## isisyodin

ch1sox said:


> 132" 2.35, Fixed Frame, Black Crystal 1.8. I won't be opening it until I'm off on Saturday though.


Really? Saturday? We've been waiting for months... 

It is the screen material I am looking for no doubt. Not sure if I would go for the fixed or edge-free design. In any case, the screen material is the most important factor. Can't wait for your review.


----------



## ch1sox




----------



## Swolephile

isisyodin said:


> Really? Saturday? We've been waiting for months...
> 
> It is the screen material I am looking for no doubt. Not sure if I would go for the fixed or edge-free design. In any case, the screen material is the most important factor. Can't wait for your review.


In typical AVS fashion, guys will show excitement for months while waiting for a new screen to be released. However once they receive it, they are in no rush to get them up and use them. I believe the edge free design is $1,000 more than the fixed frame. 

I am pleased to see Michael has finally came through for a few of his customers. Maybe Microlite can become a dependable company someday if this continues.


----------



## thrang

thrang said:


> What is the current largest 2.35 they can do without a seam? And if not very big, is that anticipated to change in the near future?


Bumping...


----------



## Swolephile

thrang said:


> bumping...


132". Michael actually answered the phone when I called today!  So I asked him your question. He also stated his products should ship within ten days of placing order.


----------



## thrang

Swolephile said:


> 132". Michael actually answered the phone when I called today!  So I asked him your question. He also stated his products should ship within ten days of placing order.


Too bad. Thanks


----------



## isisyodin

Swolephile said:


> In typical AVS fashion, guys will show excitement for months while waiting for a new screen to be released. However once they receive it, they are in no rush to get them up and use them. I believe the edge free design is $1,000 more than the fixed frame.
> 
> I am pleased to see Michael has finally came through for a few of his customers. Maybe Microlite can become a dependable company someday if this continues.


Thanks for the info. 1K more would be the cost of the wife approval for a 120" screen in the family room. If the screen is good enough I'll bite the bullet. Ill wait for your reviews and decide then. 10 day wait time is reasonable.


----------



## Ximori

ch1sox said:


> 132" 2.35, Fixed Frame, Black Crystal 1.8. I won't be opening it until I'm off on Saturday though.


Congratulations! You made a smart move and won't regret it at all.


----------



## Mike Garrett

thrang said:


> What is the current largest 2.35 they can do without a seam? And if not very big, is that anticipated to change in the near future?


120" diagonal 16:9.
132 maybe 144" diagonal 2.35.

Yes, planning on adding larger sizes, but do not know when.


----------



## yuweimichael

biliam1982 said:


> I've been watching this thread for many years, hoping itn would be the saving grace and all around sweet spot for screens in non-optimal environments.
> 
> I shot another message off to Microlite last night. Basically, I asked if the F3 was for sure no longer, that the max size in 16:9 was still 120" (as I'm wanting something like 135-150"), but most importantly, if he had samples of the material with a seam in it so I could test it out from my various seating positions.
> 
> I've had some issues w/ CS from Michael in the past with him not answering questions when he replies, if he replies at all. When I emailed him again last night, the original email address he was using, [email protected], gave me a returned error message. So I sent the same inquiries over on their website. We'll see if he replies this time.


Please email to [email protected]. Thanks


----------



## yuweimichael

isisyodin said:


> Same here... After a couple of unresponded emails I've learned that the only way is to phone him up. Don't bother leaving messages if he does not answer. BTW., he is on the west coast; I have been able to reach him around 10am Pacific time.


Please email to [email protected]. Thanks


----------



## biliam1982

So it looks like they're going to have 2.4 gain black crystal. 

Unfortunately, no time frame for anything larger than 120" 16:9.


----------



## tbhugh

Hi All,

Just wanted to add that I received my 120" Black Crystal 1.8 yesterday. Unfortunately I won't be able to provide feedback anytime soon as other work on the house is going on and taking priority. But I just wanted to add my delivery to the ranks of product getting into the hands of consumers.


----------



## Mike Garrett

tbhugh said:


> Hi All,
> 
> Just wanted to add that I received my 120" Black Crystal 1.8 yesterday. Unfortunately I won't be able to provide feedback anytime soon as other work on the house is going on and taking priority. But I just wanted to add my delivery to the ranks of product getting into the hands of consumers.


Thanks Tom for letting me know your screen arrived. I would open the box and make sure there are no obvious problems. If there are, let me know. Please come back and post, once you have it set up.


----------



## Ximori

biliam1982 said:


> So it looks like they're going to have *2.4 gain black crystal*.
> 
> Unfortunately, no time frame for anything larger than 120" 16:9.


 
Correct, and anyone wishing for the F3 will be comfortable with it. From what I was told it's just as good and performs quite similarly. I wouldn't be surprised coz the 1.8 BC I received, supposedly an improved F2 1.8 version, appear to be lighter gray in material and much brighter on display. I've asked if it is being under-spec'd but was told it can sometimes go up to 2.2 gain. Some clarification is needed but we'll soon fine out once reviews begin pouring with correct measuring.

Also, the screen I was loaned was actually a F2. I found that hard to believe coz it was so bright I had my iris closed down to -13 on my RS500 while still yielding a decently bright image. Nevertheless I've discovered some very interesting comparisons between the two which I'll post later (maybe the weekend) once I get my replacement pj unit. Right now not much I can share since I maxed out the usage time of the defective unit.

Needles to say, it's by far the most impressive screen I've seen - images were delivered with sheer transparency. I thought my RS500 with the F2 already looked killer...not till I matched it with the 1.8 BC. But more on this later


----------



## tbhugh

Mike Garrett said:


> Thanks Tom for letting me know your screen arrived. I would open the box and make sure there are no obvious problems. If there are, let me know. Please come back and post, once you have it set up.


Will do Mike and thank you for your help answering questions.


----------



## Swolephile

I have deals on three potential alr screens pending on Saturday. I can't pull the trigger one way or another until I see some firsthand experiences/reviews/impressions on these new Microlite screens.


----------



## isisyodin

Swolephile said:


> I have deals on three potential alr screens pending on Saturday. I can't pull the trigger one way or another until I see some firsthand experiences/reviews/impressions on these new Microlite screens.


Same here. I am ready to Pull the trigger, but first I want to get an idea of what end users think about their new Microlite screens.

I hope we get our first comprehensive review this weekend  ch1sox


----------



## ch1sox

Screen is up...have to head out to Costco for a bit though. I'll be back after watching some stuff.


----------



## Ximori

That screen is so delicate (imagine a thicker aluminum foil-like material) you have to be extra careful in the handling to avoid any wrinkle. There's a kit that comes with a pair of MJ gloves which you can use to pull the rolled screen out of the plastic cover. However don't remove until you assemble the frame with front part facing the ground. Corners should not be left with any gaps or spaces in between and the exterior corner tips of the frame must feel smooth to the touch.

Looks like you've already done that part. Now let the screen roll out naturally. If it forms ridge-like folds near the sides while it rests just on top of the frame's interior border, don't worry too much as it is temporary until you start tightening each corner with the rubber bands.


----------



## Ximori

The nice thing about the material itself though is it is so light and transportable...like you're carrying a rolled movie poster. Wish a portable frame can be made with it.


----------



## isisyodin

ch1sox said:


> Screen is up...have to head out to Costco for a bit though. I'll be back after watching some stuff.


Seems like a typical screen assembly job. My last screen which was a fixed frame as well had push-on snaps. I never had any wrinkles or similar issues.
Does the screen material stretch at all? Do finger prints ruin the screen or can they be removed? How do you clean the screen say if someone touch the screen with their fingers?

BTW., thanks for the picture. Hoping to see and read more about your thoughts.


----------



## ch1sox

I wanted to talk about the screen, but I just haven't had much time to extensively watch much. I'm also remounting my projector to get a better angle. From what I have seen it does seem pretty bright. The screen material is lighter than what I thought, almost a silver color. I'll try to up update more throughout the week.


----------



## Sam Ash

ch1sox said:


> I wanted to talk about the screen, but I just haven't had much time to extensively watch much. I'm also remounting my projector to get a better angle. From what I have seen it does seem pretty bright. The screen material is lighter than what I thought, almost a silver color. I'll try to up update more throughout the week.


Looking forward to your review ch1sox....


----------



## Hawkmarket

ch1sox said:


> I wanted to talk about the screen, but I just haven't had much time to extensively watch much. I'm also remounting my projector to get a better angle. From what I have seen it does seem pretty bright. The screen material is lighter than what I thought, almost a silver color. I'll try to up update more throughout the week.


Go on.......


----------



## DJose

MCaugusto said:


> Anyone here familiar with this brand new screen that was shown at InfoCom and has some videos posted at youTube?
> 
> Apparently it uses " a sophisticated micro structure with 11 layers of optical film" and offers high light rejection, high gain and wide viewing angle; It also comes rolled-up in sizes ranging from 17" to 120" diagonal and according to the press release, it is affordably priced.
> 
> Unfortunately the company does not have a website right now (in progress) and no one to pick up the phone at 3.00 PM local time, hmm....
> 
> From what i read, it appears that the main developer/CEO of the company is a Taiwanese man that recently decided to advertise and sell the screens here in the USA, and i imagine he is now looking for partners to share costs.
> 
> Any more detailed info would be appreciated...
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Marcos


Yes,this company is working on its first screen. You can find its video on Youtube. They are using an optical layer to form a surface of screen which can be found in most of the LCD and LED screen.


----------



## isisyodin

Anybody else get their screen from Microlite? As far as I can tell only 2 people have received their screen; I am still hoping that someone will share their review.


----------



## Mike Garrett

isisyodin said:


> Anybody else get their screen from Microlite? As far as I can tell only 2 people have received their screen; I am still hoping that someone will share their review.


Five or six of our customers should have their screens by now. They might be too busy enjoying their screens, after the long wait.


----------



## isisyodin

Mike Garrett said:


> Five or six of our customers should have their screens by now. They might be too busy enjoying their screens, after the long wait.


Meanwhile I am stuck watching my tiny 65" Panny Plasma.

Thanks Mike; I'll be keeping an eye on this thread.

Cheers


----------



## ch1sox

Work/gym/sleep for past week...mounting projector to proper height Saturday now that I got a ceiling mount...


----------



## isisyodin

ch1sox said:


> Work/gym/sleep for past week...mounting projector to proper height Saturday now that I got a ceiling mount...


Cool. Hanging a screen and projector is a workout on its own; maybe you should skip the gym that day 
No worries, it took me 6 months to finish hanging my PJ on my new house. Between travel and family activities time goes quickly. I ended up getting a chief wall hanging mount; it is a beast, but it was my best option. My house has vaulted ceilings; the PJ room is laid out such that the projector had to be at the highest area in the room which is about 20 ft. I was a bit concerned the PJ would fall since it is basically a cantilever of about 3 ft with a heavy JVC PJ.
Fast forward 6 months, and it is still there sitting pretty waiting on a screen to shine.


----------



## shete.prakash

Guys any recommendations for PJ ceiling mount, ch1sox which one did you buy, source site ?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## razevents

So are we in a safe place yet for ordering or considering The Micro? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## razevents

ch1sox said:


> Work/gym/sleep for past week...mounting projector to proper height Saturday now that I got a ceiling mount...



Ok. I've got the popcorn ready and eagerly awaiting some photos and a review! 

Which material is everyone getting? F3?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ch1sox

shete.prakash said:


> Guys any recommendations for PJ ceiling mount, ch1sox which one did you buy, source site ?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


I've used this mount in the past: http://www.amazon.com/Peerless-PRGS..._23_img_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=0EPYS6S4DGXH8JRECX5H. Screen was from AVS, 1.8 gain.




razevents said:


> Ok. I've got the popcorn ready and eagerly awaiting some photos and a review!
> 
> Which material is everyone getting? F3?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


F3 is not available at the moment. I think they have a 1.2 gain, 1.8 gain and another 2.? they are planning on.


Unfortunately my phone seems to be terrible at taking pictures or I'm terrible at it. I only took some pictures from The Hobbit for now. Ignore the ugly wall, some type of stone or something is going to cover it up eventually. Basement has been a mess for awhile, slowly getting there.

I know people are more interested in daylight viewing, but I think their 1.2 gain screen might be more suited for that. I'd have to ask Michael to be sure. The screen I got is is a higher gain, but my guess is the 1.2 gain has higher ALR capabilities and is possibly a darker screen material. I'm only guessing because that's how they did the F2 and F3 by making the lower gain have higher ALR properties. If it's a darker material is could help with contract levels as well.

Edit: will update later


----------



## Hawkmarket

Ch1 a few questions:


1.) What is your projector placement in relationship to the screen?


2.) How is the screen brightness uniformity? Is it as bright on the bottom and top of the screen as it is in the middle?


3.) Does the brightness change depending upon your positioning meaning that it's the same image regardless of your placement in the room? My experience with F2 and F3 samples is that the image changed depending upon whether I was sitting or standing creating a different viewing angle however there is only so much you can tell from a sample.


----------



## Ericglo

Do you have any other samples to put up against it? A unity gain screen would be nice.

IIRC Mike put a sample of another screen against this screen and it looked pretty good.


----------



## Ximori

Ericglo said:


> Do you have any other samples to put up against it? A unity gain screen would be nice.
> 
> IIRC Mike put a sample of another screen against this screen and it looked pretty good.


I just ordered a Stewart Studiotek 100 sample to compare it with - for me, the ultimate showdown, texture-wise and night time viewing 

Ch1sox, cinema 1.5 will look best, if there's any...


----------



## Dominic Chan

Hawkmarket said:


> 3.) Does the brightness change depending upon your positioning meaning that it's the same image regardless of your placement in the room? My experience with F2 and F3 samples is that the image changed depending upon whether I was sitting or standing creating a different viewing angle however there is only so much you can tell from a sample.


All ALR screens will do that - that's how the ambient light gets rejected. What's unique about the Microlite screens, is that they have a very wide viewing angle horizontally, as ch1sox's pictures demonstrate. In the vertical direction the viewing angle is much more narrow, but that's less important with most installations.


----------



## Ximori

Hawkmarket said:


> Ch1 a few questions:
> 
> 
> 1.) What is your projector placement in relationship to the screen?
> 
> 
> 2.) How is the screen brightness uniformity? Is it as bright on the bottom and top of the screen as it is in the middle?
> 
> 
> 3.) Does the brightness change depending upon your positioning meaning that it's the same image regardless of your placement in the room? My experience with F2 and F3 samples is that the image changed depending upon whether I was sitting or standing creating a different viewing angle however there is only so much you can tell from a sample.


Good questions. While waiting for Ch1 - here's my take: screen is angular-reflective; if projector is properly positioned (very important), then brightness uniformity will be very good across the screen area, not an issue wherever side or corner you view it while seated. However, once you stand up then you will see it brighter either on top, bottom or middle, as Dominic already explained. Though small samples can help in that situation - that's why your questions are valid.


----------



## isisyodin

Ximori said:


> Good questions. While waiting for Ch1 - here's my take: screen is angular-reflective; if projector is properly positioned (very important), then brightness uniformity will be very good across the screen area, not an issue wherever side or corner you view it while seated. However, once you stand up then you will see it brighter either on top, bottom or middle, as Dominic already explained. Though small samples can help in that situation - that's why your questions are valid.


Has anyone (lately) been successful in getting samples from Microlite? I have tried directly with Michael and thru Microlite's website, but I haven't received any samples.
I need solid ALR performance, so according to what am reading a 1.2 is my best bet?


----------



## yuweimichael

isisyodin said:


> Has anyone (lately) been successful in getting samples from Microlite? I have tried directly with Michael and thru Microlite's website, but I haven't received any samples.
> I need solid ALR performance, so according to what am reading a 1.2 is my best bet?


Hello, isisyodin, please email them to [email protected] for samples. 

Thanks 
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/members/7807142-isisyodin.html


----------



## Ximori

yuweimichael said:


> Hello, isisyodin, please email them to [email protected] for samples.
> 
> Thanks
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/members/7807142-isisyodin.html


Michael, I'm curious about the 1.2 - is it darker in material compared to your previous F2 1.8? Also, what gain was the 115" thin bezel-ed screen you installed a few weeks ago? That one was gorgeous...probably my next screen.


----------



## isisyodin

I see there is a screen material called cubic. Does anyone know what is it about?

I have requested a sample of all 3 materials on the Panaroma format (1.2, 1.8, and cubic). Hopefully something will turn up on the mail in the next few days.


----------



## ch1sox

Hawkmarket said:


> Ch1 a few questions:
> 
> 
> 1.) What is your projector placement in relationship to the screen?
> 
> 
> 2.) How is the screen brightness uniformity? Is it as bright on the bottom and top of the screen as it is in the middle?
> 
> 
> 3.) Does the brightness change depending upon your positioning meaning that it's the same image regardless of your placement in the room? My experience with F2 and F3 samples is that the image changed depending upon whether I was sitting or standing creating a different viewing angle however there is only so much you can tell from a sample.


1. My center of lens is about 3 inches above top of screen for me. You can be within about 12 inches above or below top of screen.
2. It looks pretty uniform to me... I doubt you'd notice it though unless your take the time to dissect it. 
3. Sure, but that's because that's how the screen is built to direct the light back at the viewer while siting. If you're standing, naturally it will be slightly less bright because the angle of light wouldn't be towards your eyes as if you were sitting.



Ericglo said:


> Do you have any other samples to put up against it? A unity gain screen would be nice.
> 
> IIRC Mike put a sample of another screen against this screen and it looked pretty good.


I have a bunch, I'll see if I can find them all somewhere.


----------



## ch1sox

After watching some more material, I think I'm liking Cinema 1 (best picture mode) more for movies.


----------



## ch1sox

Just finished Dark Knight Rises. 

Edit: will update later.


----------



## Dominic Chan

ch1sox said:


> I have a bunch, I'll see if I can find them all somewhere.


I find that using a few sheets of plain paper, taped on different parts of the screen diplaying a "blank" white image, is quite revealing in identifying any hotspotting or screen uniformity issues.
However, if the screen material is very delicate, I'd think twice before doing so.


----------



## CoryW

Ximori said:


> Good questions. While waiting for Ch1 - here's my take: screen is angular-reflective; if projector is properly positioned (very important), then brightness uniformity will be very good across the screen area, not an issue wherever side or corner you view it while seated. However, once you stand up then you will see it brighter either on top, bottom or middle, as Dominic already explained. Though small samples can help in that situation - that's why your questions are valid.


You can see my reviews earlier in this thread with pictures of the Microlite samples I received... I actually was quite meticulous in making sure I had the sample perfectly orientated and the vertical viewing cone was a deal-killer for me.

After much research (probably way too much research but we all know how easy it is to obsess on these forums ), I decided to pull the trigger on a DEA (Dark Energy Abyss) framed. I will report back my observations with a detailed review on other areas of the forum. But more on topic, I'll do a comparison for this thread to the Microlite samples I have as well.

In my opinion, taking all of the above into account, along with the recently posted images above, it's difficult to see any advantage the Microlight has over some of the other similar or better performing ALR screens out there. And don't get me wrong as it definitely made me sad for a while because I'm a big believer in the concept of a film-based screen! Fortunately I discovered the DEA product.

For a screen that is supposed to advocate ALR properties, it took some considerable dimming of the room lighting to begin to allow for any appreciable image quality from my samples and from that that which is posted on this thread. Within the proper narrow viewing cone, I will say I was very impressed in complete darkness with the screen concerning brightness and black levels.

The mentioned very wide viewing angle simply means that the screen will do poorly if ambient light is coming from the side. The "narrow" vertical viewing cone shows that the screen has essentially the same performance limitations that so many such identically designed ALR screens have (and I like to really lean back and recline when I watch movies haha).

In other words, it's going to do poorly if seating is at multi-level positioning, or viewing takes place from anywhere other than a specifically restricted height. (bar height - standing - massively laid back). It has been my experience that even if viewing is acceptable while seated, when people do rise and see the image "go away", that seems to be the general impression they are left with... as it really turned me off and I began my orientation experiment just in case they messed up the sample (I tried all possible orientations of the sample and there is a 100% vertical viewing cone limitation which is way too extensive for me).

And then there is the revelation posted a couple pages back about the sheer fragility of the material. While careful proper care during installation will avoid most chances for issues or complaints, the likelihood of damage definitely scares me as I'm quite a klutz at times.

It would seem that with the lower gain sample, some of the above listed issues should be lessened...but I tested both the lower gain and higher gain samples (see me earlier posts) and I found the same issues with both. I look forward to seeing how others' results and opinions when testing those examples (...or screens...) turns out, but as for myself, at this point the die is cast, as I have ordered a Dark Energy Abyss screen w/frame. I will keep in touch when it arrives!


----------



## Ximori

ch1sox said:


> After watching some more material, I think I'm liking Cinema 1 (best picture mode) more for movies. I use normal mode for tv. I'm betting an anamorphic lens in Cinema 1 would be very nice.
> 
> Projector Central did a review on the F2 and I think it's pretty accurate for the Black Crystal 1.8 as well: http://www.projectorcentral.com/ambient-light-rejection-screens.htm?page=Shootout
> 
> The article brings up a point about a "hot band." The only times I've seen this so far has been when the camera pans across the sky. It's not anything that bothers me, but something to keep in mind. I'd still buy the screen again knowing about it. It's probably the best at keeping shimmers to a minimum for any ALR screen I've seen, especially for it being 1.8 gain. This makes tv viewing during the day enjoyable in normal mode. I do have my lights on dimmers though which probably helps. I'd be interested to see how it looks if the material was a darker shade of gray.


If I recall the hot band was observed outside of the ideal viewing area...were you not within that area? How far is your projector mounted from the screen and what is the viewing distance? I didn't notice anything from my screen with panning movement, however, did noticed the slight shimmer occurring on white areas only but you'll have to be watching the screen, and not the film, to find it distracting. Still, that was a great improvement compared with the F2 as it eliminated most of it. I was going to ask if they can entirely eliminate all of it though.

Btw, let me put certain things in perspective - the previous line were the F2 1.8 gain (for ambient lighting) and F3 3.0 gain (for dedicated room). 
But now, it has shifted to a 1.2 Black Crystal - for ambient lighting, and the 1.8 BC - ideally for dedicated room. 
I don't think the F2 is to be compared with the 1.8 BC, I noticed the BC version showed brighter and more vibrant images, not to mention the material looks slightly lighter. They both need to be measured to find out exactly what gain each one has.


----------



## Ximori

CoryW said:


> You can see my reviews earlier in this thread with pictures of the Microlite samples I received... I actually was quite meticulous in making sure I had the sample perfectly orientated and the vertical viewing cone was a deal-killer for me.
> 
> After much research (probably way too much research but we all know how easy it is to obsess on these forums ), I decided to pull the trigger on a DEA (Dark Energy Abyss) framed. I will report back my observations with a detailed review on other areas of the forum. But more on topic, I'll do a comparison for this thread to the Microlite samples I have as well.
> 
> *In my opinion, taking all of the above into account, along with the recently posted images above, it's difficult to see any advantage the Microlight has over some of the other similar or better performing ALR screens out there.* And don't get me wrong as it definitely made me sad for a while because I'm a big believer in the concept of a film-based screen! Fortunately I discovered the DEA product.
> 
> For a screen that is supposed to advocate ALR properties, it took some considerable dimming of the room lighting to begin to allow for any appreciable image quality from my samples and from that that which is posted on this thread. Within the proper narrow viewing cone, I will say I was very impressed in complete darkness with the screen concerning brightness and black levels.
> 
> The mentioned very wide viewing angle simply means that the screen will do poorly if ambient light is coming from the side. The "narrow" vertical viewing cone shows that the screen has essentially the same performance limitations that so many such identically designed ALR screens have (and I like to really lean back and recline when I watch movies haha).
> 
> In other words, it's going to do poorly if seating is at multi-level positioning, or viewing takes place from anywhere other than a specifically restricted height. (bar height - standing - massively laid back). It has been my experience that even if viewing is acceptable while seated, when people do rise and see the image "go away", that seems to be the general impression they are left with... as it really turned me off and I began my orientation experiment just in case they messed up the sample (I tried all possible orientations of the sample and there is a 100% vertical viewing cone limitation which is way too extensive for me).
> 
> And then there is the revelation posted a couple pages back about the sheer fragility of the material. While careful proper care during installation will avoid most chances for issues or complaints, the likelihood of damage definitely scares me as I'm quite a klutz at times.
> 
> It would seem that with the lower gain sample, some of the above listed issues should be lessened...but I tested both the lower gain and higher gain samples (see me earlier posts) and I found the same issues with both. I look forward to seeing how others' results and opinions when testing those examples (...or screens...) turns out, but as for myself, at this point the die is cast, as I have ordered a Dark Energy Abyss screen w/frame. I will keep in touch when it arrives!


Fair enough.  I don't ever recall posting a lot about how good they are for ALR as I was more interested in how they perform in non-dedicated rooms (with white walls). Also, I never played much under those conditions because the 1.8 I have isn't quite ideal for it. 
What I can tell you though is that I briefly compared the F2 side by side up against my Graywolf screen and both were almost identical in rejecting certain lighting degree...but not enough magic to completely eliminate it (well nothing is atm). 
All things considered, the difference where you easily picked out one from the other came from color, texture, uniformity, etc. which was clearly a no contest by the F2.

As for elevated seating, I may need to observe more to what varying degree does the uniformity get affected. I''m guessing the farther and higher the projector is mounted, above the top screen level, it may lessen the issue (?) 

But thanks, looking forward to more of your impressions later. Be sure you ask for the 1.2 sample as that will be much more interesting in that respect.


----------



## CoryW

Ximori said:


> Fair enough.  I don't ever recall posting a lot about how good they are for ALR as I was more interested in how they perform in non-dedicated rooms (with white walls). Also, I never played much under those conditions because the 1.8 I have isn't quite ideal for it.
> What I can tell you though is that I briefly compared the F2 side by side up against my Graywolf screen and both were almost identical in rejecting certain lighting degree...but not enough magic to completely eliminate it (well nothing is atm).
> All things considered, the difference where you easily picked out one from the other came from color, texture, uniformity, etc. which was clearly a no contest by the F2.
> 
> As for elevated seating, I may need to observe more to what varying degree does the uniformity get affected. I''m guessing the farther and higher the projector is mounted, above the top screen level, it may lessen the issue (?)
> 
> But thanks, looking forward to more of your impressions later. Be sure you ask for the 1.2 sample as that will be much more interesting in that respect.


I had my projector mounted approx. 9 inches from the ceiling for an FYI. I definitely preferred the Microlite over my Graywolf if it weren't for the insane viewing cone dropoff. The Graywolf was way better in that regard. Oh and I agree that both screens were about the same with ALR performance... I was expecting the Microlite to be significantly better than my 13 year old Graywolf screen though. 

Either way, I just felt it was important to give a brief update on my journey thus far and I am definitely going to compare my upcoming Dark Energy Abyss screen against the Microlite as they are the only two film based screens I know of.


----------



## Ericglo

Cory,
Did you order samples of DEA or are you flying blind?


----------



## CoryW

Ericglo said:


> Cory,
> Did you order samples of DEA or are you flying blind?


I actually did not. I had been following the reviews / images / other statements for quite some time and had a very good handle of the Dark Energy Abyss screen performance. However, the true test was the transparency provided by the videos they posted on YouTube in my opinion. That really hammered it home for me and took away my concerns. Once again, I will report back any positive and negative aspects to my review once the screen has arrived and is installed.


----------



## ch1sox

CoryW said:


> You can see my reviews earlier in this thread with pictures of the Microlite samples I received... I actually was quite meticulous in making sure I had the sample perfectly orientated and the vertical viewing cone was a deal-killer for me.
> 
> After much research (probably way too much research but we all know how easy it is to obsess on these forums ), I decided to pull the trigger on a DEA (Dark Energy Abyss) framed. I will report back my observations with a detailed review on other areas of the forum. But more on topic, I'll do a comparison for this thread to the Microlite samples I have as well.
> 
> In my opinion, taking all of the above into account, along with the recently posted images above, it's difficult to see any advantage the Microlight has over some of the other similar or better performing ALR screens out there. And don't get me wrong as it definitely made me sad for a while because I'm a big believer in the concept of a film-based screen! Fortunately I discovered the DEA product.
> 
> For a screen that is supposed to advocate ALR properties, it took some considerable dimming of the room lighting to begin to allow for any appreciable image quality from my samples and from that that which is posted on this thread. Within the proper narrow viewing cone, I will say I was very impressed in complete darkness with the screen concerning brightness and black levels.
> 
> The mentioned very wide viewing angle simply means that the screen will do poorly if ambient light is coming from the side. The "narrow" vertical viewing cone shows that the screen has essentially the same performance limitations that so many such identically designed ALR screens have (and I like to really lean back and recline when I watch movies haha).
> 
> In other words, it's going to do poorly if seating is at multi-level positioning, or viewing takes place from anywhere other than a specifically restricted height. (bar height - standing - massively laid back). It has been my experience that even if viewing is acceptable while seated, when people do rise and see the image "go away", that seems to be the general impression they are left with... as it really turned me off and I began my orientation experiment just in case they messed up the sample (I tried all possible orientations of the sample and there is a 100% vertical viewing cone limitation which is way too extensive for me).
> 
> And then there is the revelation posted a couple pages back about the sheer fragility of the material. While careful proper care during installation will avoid most chances for issues or complaints, the likelihood of damage definitely scares me as I'm quite a klutz at times.
> 
> It would seem that with the lower gain sample, some of the above listed issues should be lessened...but I tested both the lower gain and higher gain samples (see me earlier posts) and I found the same issues with both. I look forward to seeing how others' results and opinions when testing those examples (...or screens...) turns out, but as for myself, at this point the die is cast, as I have ordered a Dark Energy Abyss screen w/frame. I will keep in touch when it arrives!


Make sure you have the correct samples for Microlite before comparing. The F2/F3 are different than the Black Crystal 1.2 and 1.8.

As for dimming your room, that depends on the environment you have. Not every screen is for every room. Microlite has a 1.2 gain which I believe has much higher ALR properties. I didn't want that though because I can dim my lights and enjoy a vidid, more brighter image with the 1.8 gain. The problem I have with low gain dark screen material like for other ALR screens is their colors look dull a lot of the time (in my experience). That's partly why I went with 1.8 to get that extra pop.

I lean back all the time and I can assure you there is little to no drop off in brightness. I think you're blowing this whole vertical viewing cone way out of proportion. The image never "goes away" as you are saying. It might dim a bit if you're standing, but it is still more than fine. I'm sure other buyers in this thread (where are you all, lol) can agree on this this as well. 

As for the DEA, have you seen any real world examples yet before buying it? I haven't seen anything other than dark room pictures.

I had my projector _way_ too far back for my throw distance. I moved it forward a few feet as I've been messing with settings and stuff. The picture is more than acceptable with reasonable lighting in a room.

Edit: Will update later.


----------



## razevents

Got my samples today. Going to be putting them up with my BD 1.4, SI 0.8 Slate, and my Seymour Matinee Silver and Blacks. Looking forward to the demo. Will share, however my experiences with iPhone pictures for comparison have been weak and inaccurate but we will do the best we can with it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## thezaks

Based upon the above pictures, I would not like the Microlite - at least at that higher gain. Too much wash out, when lights are on. I would think this screen/gain would be better for getting a brighter picture when the lights are off, for 3D, and to allow a lesser lumen projector to be used. However, not a good ambient light screen.

I'm hopeful that someone will post pictures of the BC 1.2, at some point....


Thanks,
Dave


----------



## CoryW

Excellent point. I'll be sure to try and obtain some Black Crystal 1.2 and 1.8 samples. I'm always open to any sort of screen technology because some day I'll want a 2nd screen for another room... I'm not done with the buying process. Currently, I'm excited and hopeful with my Dark Energy Abyss (DEA) purchase and will definitely update with an honest review... but if the Black Crystal is better, I'll report back and it will affect my 2nd purchase decision as I have a dedicated room where I value ALR for white walls and a family room where ALR is very important.

And just for a point of reference, this is where I viewed screenshots of the DEA similar to that which you just posted:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/450-h...ns/2135210-more-dark-energy-abyss-photos.html


----------



## Ericglo

CoryW said:


> Excellent point. I'll be sure to try and obtain some Black Crystal 1.2 and 1.8 samples. I'm always open to any sort of screen technology because some day I'll want a 2nd screen for another room... I'm not done with the buying process. Currently, I'm excited and hopeful with my Dark Energy Abyss (DEA) purchase and will definitely update with an honest review... but if the Black Crystal is better, I'll report back and it will affect my 2nd purchase decision as I have a dedicated room where I value ALR for white walls and a family room where ALR is very important.
> 
> And just for a point of reference, this is where I viewed screenshots of the DEA similar to that which you just posted:
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/450-h...ns/2135210-more-dark-energy-abyss-photos.html


I am not going to read the thread. Is there any legitimate gain readings for the DEA?

Good luck.


----------



## isisyodin

Well Michael came thru and I received my samples this AM. I took a few minutes off work to put them up. Left one is the 1.2 and the right is the 2.4. The TV is a Panny Plasma 65". Image size of PJ is about 120" which will be my final size. I took the pictures with an iPhone 6 plus since I did not have enough time to mount the DSLR on a tripod. Not sure if it is due to refresh rate of the TV and the iPhone shutter, but some colors like white and yellow did not come out right; on the other hand the PJ pictures came out fine. I did take the pictures at more or less the sitting viewing angle although physically closer since the iphone does not have a telephoto . Also, I shifted the PJ image to more or less 8" from the would be top of the screen. The samples of course were placed in more or less the center position.
I also included a picture of the room so you have a reference. I will take some more pictures tonight although we use the TV at different times of the day.


----------



## isisyodin

I also have the DNP 23-23 and DEA 1.0 which I will add later (I think the edges show at the top right). At the bottom of the TV there is a white piece of paper, a poorly stretched sample from EPV, and the walls of course are light beige color.


----------



## thezaks

CoryW said:


> Excellent point. I'll be sure to try and obtain some Black Crystal 1.2 and 1.8 samples. I'm always open to any sort of screen technology because some day I'll want a 2nd screen for another room... I'm not done with the buying process. Currently, I'm excited and hopeful with my Dark Energy Abyss (DEA) purchase and will definitely update with an honest review... but if the Black Crystal is better, I'll report back and it will affect my 2nd purchase decision as I have a dedicated room where I value ALR for white walls and a family room where ALR is very important.
> 
> And just for a point of reference, this is where I viewed screenshots of the DEA similar to that which you just posted:
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/450-h...ns/2135210-more-dark-energy-abyss-photos.html


I agree that the DAE is better as an ambient light screen, but it's also really nice in the dark, with superb blacks. The Microlite will probably do 3D better and perhaps allow an even lower lumen projector. 

For me, 3D is not important, so I want the best 2D I can get. So far, I believe the best I've seen is the Darkstar 1.4 screen. Better in ambient light than the DAE, and better blacks than the DAE in ambient light. In the dark, the DAE gets a bit better blacks, but the DS 1.4 has more pop. Also, the DS 1.4 seems to produce a sharper image than the DAE.

A newer DAE sample is being sent to me, which is claimed to have better blacks and even brighter whites than the previous DAE. Once I get that DAE, I will once again compare to my DS 1.4.

I've asked for BC 1.2 samples, but no luck as of yet.


Dave


----------



## CoryW

thezaks said:


> I agree that the DAE is better as an ambient light screen, but it's also really nice in the dark, with superb blacks. The Microlite will probably do 3D better and perhaps allow an even lower lumen projector.
> 
> For me, 3D is not important, so I want the best 2D I can get. So far, I believe the best I've seen is the Darkstar 1.4 screen. Better in ambient light than the DAE, and better blacks than the DAE in ambient light. In the dark, the DAE gets a bit better blacks, but the DS 1.4 has more pop. Also, the DS 1.4 seems to produce a sharper image than the DAE.
> 
> A newer DAE sample is being sent to me, which is claimed to have better blacks and even brighter whites than the previous DAE. Once I get that DAE, I will once again compare to my DS 1.4.
> 
> I've asked for BC 1.2 samples, but no luck as of yet.
> 
> 
> Dave


Very interesting. Thanks for sharing! The DEA I am receiving will have the newer material / latest version so you will see that material in whatever review I post in the future.


----------



## thezaks

isisyodin said:


> I also have the DNP 23-23 and DEA 1.0 which I will add later (I think the edges show at the top right). At the bottom of the TV there is a white piece of paper, a poorly stretched sample from EPV, and the walls of course are light beige color.


What screen material is the EPV sample?

Dave


----------



## Ericglo

isis,
What pj are you running?


----------



## isisyodin

thezaks said:


> What screen material is the EPV sample?
> 
> Dave


It is an EPV Polastar sample. I'll be receiving a Dark Energy Aurora sample tomorrow. I will have to build a small frame for it, so I will stretch out the Polarstar as well.
I will have these to compare:
DEA 1.0, DE Aurora, Microlite 1.2 and 2.4, and DNP 23-23. I had the BD Slate, but I had to leave a deposit at my local best buy, so I returned it since I did not like it too much. I don't want to wait any longer, so I will pick one out of the bunch. Will post hopefully good pictures out of my Nikon.


----------



## isisyodin

Ericglo said:


> isis,
> What pj are you running?


JVC RS4810. I calibrated it back when I had a Da-Lite Cinema Contour white 1.3 gain material. I will need to recalibrate, but doing it for such a small sample is nearly impossible. The DEA sample I'll be receiving is a bit larger, so I may go for it and spend sometime recalibrating.


----------



## thezaks

isisyodin said:


> It is an EPV Polastar sample. I'll be receiving a Dark Energy Aurora sample tomorrow. I will have to build a small frame for it, so I will stretch out the Polarstar as well.


Interesting...the Polarstar 1.3 seems much darker than the Microlite 1.2 material. I expected the opposite. The Darkstar 1.4 material is much darker than the Polarstar. Based upon my needs, the Microlite 1.2 will most likely not be for me. 

Thanks for providing the pictures!

Dave


----------



## isisyodin

*Calibration with an ALR*

I had a heck of a time trying to calibrate a Microlite sample to my JVC. In fact, it is a first for me since I have only calibrated plasmas, LCDs, and white screens. Has anyone come across any good articles on the matter? My main concern is placing the sensor; with ALRs the the trejecting technology negates the palcement of the sensor; therefore, placing the light sensor vertically at angle to read the light bounced of the screen is not working out too well. I am guessing I would need to place it at a horizontal angle in the case of Microlite (strong vertical ALR) and vertically in the case of DnP (strong side ALR)
In any case, I am going to keep searching on the forum for any advise.


----------



## Dominic Chan

isisyodin said:


> My main concern is placing the sensor; with ALRs the the trejecting technology negates the palcement of the sensor; therefore, placing the light sensor vertically at angle to read the light bounced of the screen is not working out too well.


Not sure if I understand the specific issue. I would aim to sensor to get the maximum luminance reading, just like with Non-ALR matte white screens.


----------



## isisyodin

True. I need to spend more time finding a better tilt angle for the sensor. In my mind I was forcing the angle to match my normal viewing angle, but I'll try other angles and keep an eye on the luminance. 
I spend a couple of hours testing out a couple of samples from Microlite and DEA. I need to do more testing since my first few attempts at calibrating the grayscale did not come out as good as I wanted. I was able to get dE of around 1 at IRE 80 but other values were all over the place. Also, I need to check if my JVC has a setting for gray screen material.


----------



## Dominic Chan

isisyodin said:


> True. I need to spend more time finding a better tilt angle for the sensor. In my mind I was forcing the angle to match my normal viewing angle, but I'll try other angles and keep an eye on the luminance.


Ideally, the normal viewing angle is also the angle that gives you the maximum luminance


----------



## tbhugh

Hi all, finally convinced my wife to help me with the install of our screen. She proved way more adept at fastening the screen to the frame! The screen itself was securely packaged and assembly was pretty straight forward, definitely paranoid about screen material as it was not as thick as I was expecting also and not as dark as I was thinking it would be for a material called Black Crystal 1.8. No I did not get samples ahead of time... I just took the plunge.

Not as critical a viewer as some here but what I can report is that the higher gain screen is definitely giving me the pop I was looking for when watching a movie in the dark and has enough ambient light rejection to make watching TV or playing video games with the lights on a doable exercise for the family. When watching a movie as well the dark grey bars are dark enough that I don't think I need to run out and get a masking system now, another ancillary benefit (but again, not as critical as some here). I will say the shadow caused by the frame from my pot lights is more annoying.

The horizontal viewing angles are pretty ridiculous for an ALR screen. Vertical viewing angles when I go to extremes (sitting on the floor) does drop off minimally at the top of the screen, but not at my normal viewing angles (seated or standing). So I think that might be a little overstated in some posts (or again more critical than I am). My projector is ceiling mounted near the top of the screen.

As for other minor negatives, the velvet in a couple places on the frame have compressed nap from shipping and packing, waiting to hear back how how I should "fluff it up".

So far, Im happy!


----------



## thezaks

Very cool - pictures please!

Thanks,
Dave


----------



## Sam Ash

> Not as critical a viewer as some here but what I can report is that the higher gain screen is definitely giving me the pop I was looking for when watching a movie in the dark and has enough ambient light rejection to make watching TV or playing video games with the lights on a doable exercise for the family. When watching a movie as well the dark grey bars are dark enough that I don't think I need to run out and get a masking system now, another ancillary benefit (but again, not as critical as some here). I will say the shadow caused by the frame from my pot lights is more annoying.


In your opinion, how does it compare to ALR screens by dnp and SI ? (You may have seen those screens in action). I'm told the Super 08-85 is very good, the only problem being the gain which requires one to use a brighter projector. The SI BD1.4 seems to be a decent performer too.



> The horizontal viewing angles are pretty ridiculous for an ALR screen.


Not sure what you mean in the above statement. Do you mean the BC 1.8 has excellent horizontal viewing angles ?

Are you happy with the results when watching content in typical interior ambient light ? Do you have ambient light coming in from the sides of the screen ?


----------



## tbhugh

*Pic.*

Install Pic.


----------



## tbhugh

Sam Ash said:


> In your opinion, how does it compare to ALR screens by dnp and SI ? (You may have seen those screens in action). I'm told the Super 08-85 is very good, the only problem being the gain which requires one to use a brighter projector. The SI BD1.4 seems to be a decent performer too.
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you mean in the above statement. Do you mean the BC 1.8 has excellent horizontal viewing angles ?
> 
> Are you happy with the results when watching content in typical interior ambient light ? Do you have ambient light coming in from the sides of the screen ?


Hi Sam,

No, I did not compare to other ALR screens. In my media room I have two seats set up pretty wide and didn't want to have them miss out, so I went with the one ALR at the time that supposedly had superior horizontal viewing angles. By "ridiculous", I mean very good horizontal viewing angles, there is little to no drop off in brightness on the side seats.

I am happy with ambient light performance, but as you can see from the pic, I have two pot lights directly above the screen. When they are on, a shadow is created from the frame itself which is annoying, but the screen performs well. But if your primary viewing is for lighted situations, I believe the 1.2 gain screen is a better ALR screen overall for those installs.


----------



## Neceo

I sent them an email for a general quote and got nothing .. I'm curious about their motorized screen and a question on which one they think would do well in a family room that has some light ( primary window will be behind the screen )


----------



## Mike Garrett

Neceo said:


> I sent them an email for a general quote and got nothing .. I'm curious about their motorized screen and a question on which one they think would do well in a family room that has some light ( primary window will be behind the screen )


It is going to be a while before electric models are available. What size and aspect ratio are you wanting?


----------



## Neceo

It won't be a year at least until I need it, making a new room. At least 100' but maybe at most 120 and looking for 16:9 .


----------



## Mike Garrett

Neceo said:


> It won't be a year at least until I need it, making a new room. At least 100' but maybe at most 120 and looking for 16:9 .


We can give you a ballpark figure, if you call. Since product is not out yet, I do not know that the price list I have is completely accurate for this product.


----------



## Neceo

Mike Garrett said:


> We can give you a ballpark figure, if you call. Since product is not out yet, I do not know that the price list I have is completely accurate for this product.


Ok, I will give a call. I am just looking for rough estimate right now. I am not looking to break the bank on a screen and if it seems good or to high helps.


----------



## thezaks

tbhugh said:


> Install Pic.


Looks great! I was hoping for pics with the projector on


----------



## tbhugh

thezaks said:


> Looks great! I was hoping for pics with the projector on


 I will see what I can do... likely this weekend.


----------



## isisyodin

tbhugh said:


> Install Pic.


Nice setup. Man, I wish I had a dedicated room.
General question: if the 2.4 is not a true ALR screen material (I think even [email protected] has implied the same), why would one choose it over a 1.3 white gain screen? From what I can see, the 2.4 material is giving you very little performance gains over a white screen yet the compromises are significant: vertical drop off, color shift, and pricing.
What I have read and been advised is that ALRs exits due to the required usage of projectors in places where rooms are not light controlled. The benefit of getting a decent image supersede the compromises above. Accuracy in image color will not be achievable.
For my setup, I looked at many samples from many brands. I have a 65" plasma on my family room and wanted to replace it with an ALR screen. I have come to realize that ALRs to this day don't work for me; therefore,I am keeping the plasma where it is and adding a motorized screen for evening watching.
It is a major disappointment; I truly wanted a single frameless ALR screen to work.


----------



## tbhugh

Thanks! Must have missed the comments of not being an ALR, seems to be given my limited experience with it so far ;-) Vertical drop off is not an issue for me as I don't sit on the floor, have not noticed color shifting either. But again not a super critical viewer.

My goals were not "accuracy" as I prefer an image that "pops" similar to watching a 120" plasma when watching movies, so I went with higher gain, also important was the ability to have a mixed use room to watch sports, playing video games etc, when lights would be on. If I was looking to have the best dedicated theater experience I likely would have gone with just a white screen with a masking system but given I wanted to use the space for more is why I made some compromises to be more flexible. So what is important I think is to know how you plan to use it and what your goals are. Im happy so far ;-)


----------



## isisyodin

tbhugh said:


> Thanks! Must have missed the comments of not being an ALR, seems to be given my limited experience with it so far ;-) Vertical drop off is not an issue for me as I don't sit on the floor, have not noticed color shifting either. But again not a super critical viewer.
> 
> My goals were not "accuracy" as I prefer an image that "pops" similar to watching a 120" plasma when watching movies, so I went with higher gain, also important was the ability to have a mixed use room to watch sports, playing video games etc, when lights would be on. If I was looking to have the best dedicated theater experience I likely would have gone with just a white screen with a masking system but given I wanted to use the space for more is why I made some compromises to be more flexible. So what is important I think is to know how you plan to use it and what your goals are. Im happy so far ;-)


Thanks Tom, all valid comments, and I am glad you are enjoying your screen.I wish I had a simpler setup (dedicated room) as I had prior to moving to my latest home. If only testing out screens would be easier, I am sure I would have made a decision a while back. Going by samples and user reviews is a slow process.

Hector


----------



## thezaks

isisyodin said:


> ...Going by samples and user reviews is a slow process.
> 
> Hector


I completely agree!

Dave


----------



## Dominic Chan

isisyodin said:


> Going by samples and user reviews is a slow process.


Projector Central published the view on the Black Crystal 1.2 today.


----------



## [email protected]

I found it exactly accurate from my sample testing. The key on this is vertical placement as its half gain angle vertically is narrow. If you have a multipurpose room with folks standing and sitting for say a sports game, etc that is critical to get it right so sitting and standing you are in the sweet spot. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tbhugh

Agreed, the screen is sensitive to projector install. Install at or within screen boundaries seems to be required for most scenarios.


----------



## tbhugh

I apologize in advance for crappy pics, here are three pics with a relatively dark scene. The first with all lights on. Second with all lights on except for two pot lights directly over the screen and then the final with lights all off. Now the projector is an old Sony Pearl running in low light mode! So I'm quite happy with the new life the screen has brought to my old projector, will make the wait more doable as projector technology settles a bit and I can focus time and effort on the now audio formats.


----------



## isisyodin

Dominic Chan said:


> Projector Central published the view on the Black Crystal 1.2 today.


Excellent review. From my interpretation of the review, and my family room application, I have come up with the following sketches.
The green planes are 15 degree planes with respect to the neutral viewing position. Screen size is 120" diagonal 16x9, and viewing distance is about 12'. Projector is at 13' relative to the screen. In addition the projector is currently set at a height leveled to the edge of my ideal screen location which coincides with the top edge of the screen.
Doubts: 
The first image shows the lower viewing green plane with respect to the viewer falling outside of the observed half gain 15 degree angle; granted, the top edge may not be the main viewpoint while watching content, but am guessing the progression from neutral no the half gain mark will be potentially noticeable. Also, the 15 degree yellow plane with respect to the projector and its neutral plane hits about 75% of the screen. The lower area falls outside which am guessing will start loosing brightness although am not 100% sure.
The second image shows what I would guess be the ideal position. However, projector noise and the projector being within reach of the kids is not a good idea.
The third image is maybe would I would have to settle for since the ideal is not possible; what do you guys think? The top 25% of the screen seems to falling outside the half gain area.


----------



## Ximori

Sam Ash said:


> In your opinion, how does it compare to ALR screens by dnp and SI ? (You may have seen those screens in action). I'm told the Super 08-85 is very good, the only problem being the gain which requires one to use a brighter projector. The SI BD1.4 seems to be a decent performer too.


Make sure to see actual samples first before considering the more expensive screens with your room situation. You never know how good (or bad) your screen is until you see them side by side with another. For example, here are a few shots I took from my last visit - the small samples were BD 1.4 on the left and Slate 1.2 on the right. But this was all fluorescent from the ceiling.


----------



## Ximori

isisyodin said:


> Excellent review. From my interpretation of the review, and my family room application, I have come up with the following sketches.
> The green planes are 15 degree planes with respect to the neutral viewing position. Screen size is 120" diagonal 16x9, and viewing distance is about 12'. Projector is at 13' relative to the screen. In addition the projector is currently set at a height leveled to the edge of my ideal screen location which coincides with the top edge of the screen.
> Doubts:
> The first image shows the lower viewing green plane with respect to the viewer falling outside of the observed half gain 15 degree angle; granted, the top edge may not be the main viewpoint while watching content, but am guessing the progression from neutral no the half gain mark will be potentially noticeable. Also, the 15 degree yellow plane with respect to the projector and its neutral plane hits about 75% of the screen. The lower area falls outside which am guessing will start loosing brightness although am not 100% sure.
> The second image shows what I would guess be the ideal position. However, projector noise and the projector being within reach of the kids is not a good idea.
> The third image is maybe would I would have to settle for since the ideal is not possible; what do you guys think? The top 25% of the screen seems to falling outside the half gain area.


I don't think you have the correct viewing angle in the first diagram if it conforms with an angular reflective type of screen, such as the Microlite. I would double-check this with Mike or Craig.


----------



## isisyodin

Ximori said:


> I don't think you have the correct viewing angle in the first diagram if it conforms with an angular reflective type of screen, such as the Microlite. I would double-check this with Mike or Craig.


I could lower it and match image 3. Not sure if the vertical gain drop is quasi-linear, but I am thinking that +-15 degrees will fall outside of the neutral plane no matter what unless it's on the neutral ideal position.


----------



## ch1sox

Got my 2.4 gain set up. Once I put up fabric on the wall I can take some pictures. I'm hoping to do this tomorrow, but it depends how much fabric I have left. This thing is bright and looked awesome from the little bit I watched last night.


----------



## shovven

Hi all, just want to give you my impressions on my new BC 1.8. Coming from a High-power this is really what I was looking for. 
The screen is silver looking and fantastic in rejecting light from the ceiling, off course as it has a very wide viewingcone it's not as good rejecting light from the walls. 
Shimmer it's much much better than Black Diamond, Firehawk, Ambient Visionaire 1.3 and 1.2. Sitting 10 feet away from 120" you don't see any sparkles or shimmer. It looks like a gigantic plasma and the picture from my JVC is just amazing.


----------



## Sam Ash

shovven said:


> Hi all, just want to give you my impressions on my new BC 1.8. Coming from a High-power this is really what I was looking for.
> The screen is silver looking and fantastic in rejecting light from the ceiling, off course as it has a very wide viewingcone it's not as good rejecting light from the walls.
> Shimmer it's much much better than Black Diamond, Firehawk, Ambient Visionaire 1.3 and 1.2. Sitting 10 feet away from 120" you don't see any sparkles or shimmer. It looks like a gigantic plasma and the picture from my JVC is just amazing.


Would be nice to see some photos ....


----------



## shovven

And with that you want to see? Screenshots are worthless, they wont tell you anything..


----------



## thezaks

Swolephile said:


> I have deals on three potential alr screens pending on Saturday. I can't pull the trigger one way or another until I see some firsthand experiences/reviews/impressions on these new Microlite screens.


Did you ever come to a decision on a screen? I know you've done a lot of research, much like I have. I'm very curious what you ended up with and how you like it?

Thanks,
Dave


----------



## Sam Ash

shovven said:


> And with that you want to see? Screenshots are worthless, they wont tell you anything..


You are absolutely right and I understand. However, pics from the main seat and then from a sharp angle would give us a general idea.

Is the vertical view angle limited or better than before ?


----------



## shovven

The viewingangle is wide like a DNP 08:85, you could sit in the corners and still have an equally bright picture. I don't see any hotspots or shine. I would just say this screen is way better than High Power and DNP. Yes the Seymour screens are better with ambient light from the sides, but then the viewingcone is extreamly limited! Don't talk about Black Diamond it's like lighting up a Christmas tree. Simply put, best screen ive ever had


----------



## Sam Ash

shovven said:


> The viewingangle is wide like a DNP 08:85, you could sit in the corners and still have an equally bright picture. I don't see any hotspots or shine. I would just say this screen is way better than High Power and DNP. Yes the Seymour screens are better with ambient light from the sides, but then the viewingcone is extreamly limited! Don't talk about Black Diamond it's like lighting up a Christmas tree. Simply put, best screen ive ever had


Thank you Shovven, I appreciate your input. Interesting that you mentioned the dnp 08-85 which is supposed to be a very good screen from what I've been reading. Out of interest, did you compare them side to side ?

I suppose the gain on the BC1.8 really helps because one would not need such a high powered projector. What are the results like in terms of the quality of the projected image in terms of the dynamic range, contrast and image fidelity. Can you tell me more about the difference when you compare the image to the one provided by a dnp 08-85 ?

Is your setup in a typical living room environment with ambient light ? Try and post some general pics for us to see, I'm sure it will help to get a general idea.


----------



## shovven

Well I wanted do go with DNP 08:85 at first because it's one of the best screens avaliable. Actually I tried it at home and only got around 8-10 ftl on 120"..
thats way to dim for my taste! As I have a white livingroom with large windows I need something with very good ALR. Basically the BC1.8 has that plasma feel I like
however if you don't need that extra gain I would look at BC 1.2 wich is much darker grey and has even better ALR, still a super wide veiwng cone. 


Comparing BC 1.2 to DNP 08:85 you'll get a more dynamic picture with the BC 1.2, maybe the DNP is a tad better colorwize but you'll need a meter to see the difference.


I ordered from Mike here at AVS and I just got great service from them and Microlite.


----------



## shovven

Ok, took some pictures with my iPhone.
The contrast is amazing. First, no lights! Second, no lights far right. As you see image doesn't darken on the other side, viewingcone is amazing. Third, with some lights behind projektor. Doesn't wash out much. Hope this helps.


----------



## Sam Ash

shovven said:


> Ok, took some pictures with my iPhone.
> The contrast is amazing. First, no lights! Second, no lights far right. As you see image doesn't darken on the other side, viewingcone is amazing. Third, with some lights behind projektor. Doesn't wash out much. Hope this helps.


Thanks Shaven, that was nice of you.


----------



## shete.prakash

Does anyone here have ordered 150 inch diagonal, or, higher screen size from microlite ? 
What's is the max screen size ordered, on record ?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Sam Ash

shovven said:


> Ok, took some pictures with my iPhone.
> The contrast is amazing. First, no lights! Second, no lights far right. As you see image doesn't darken on the other side, viewingcone is amazing. Third, with some lights behind projektor. Doesn't wash out much. Hope this helps.


Hi Shovven, I meant to ask you. What is the vertical view angle of the screen like ? Have you experimented with it ? Example sit on the floor near the screen to look up at it ? Does Microlite provide vertical view angle specifications ?


----------



## shete.prakash

shete.prakash said:


> Does anyone here have ordered 150 inch diagonal, or, higher screen size from microlite ?
> What's is the max screen size ordered, on record ?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Bump ????

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Sam Ash

*For Shovven*

Hi Shovven,

The first generation of ML screens had a very narrow vertical view angle, I'm wondering if that has improved in the BC 1.8 ? Whilst content is projected, is there a notable difference to the image when you stand or sit on the ground ?

I know the half gain across the horizontal axis is excellent but any official specifications pertaining to the vertical axis ?

Clarifications welcome from other users too.


----------



## shovven

I can see a slight shift in uniformity sittning vs standing (as you see with all alr screens) but it's The same with DNP and looking at the Seymours they have an even greater shift in brightness in all directions but that helps with lights from the side. 

The question is, do i see a shift while sittning down watching a movie. NO! I don't! 

Just contact avs or Michael at Microlite! They have great costomer support! I know from reading the thread a few will question that but i imagine as you start a new company there are many things to look at rather than sending out samples.  Michael has answered my questions within 24h.


----------



## Ftoast

Sam Ash said:


> Hi Shovven,
> 
> The first generation of ML screens had a very narrow vertical view angle, I'm wondering if that has improved in the BC 1.8 ? Whilst content is projected, is there a notable difference to the image when you stand or sit on the ground ?
> 
> I know the half gain across the horizontal axis is excellent but any official specifications pertaining to the vertical axis ?
> 
> Clarifications welcome from other users too.


Not really an answer to your question, but their BlackCrystal1.2 was measured by PJC to have a 15degree vertical half angle (a total 30degree vertical viewing axis).

Assuming a roughly 3ft height difference between sitting on the floor and standing straight up, a ~12ft viewing-distance, and a fairly ideal projector/screen setup for maximum brightness at a viewer seated on a chair between those two extremes...you'd be dealing with about 7degrees off-axis. 
If drop-off is linear you'd be roughly around 3/4 brightness when sitting on the floor or standing and around 100% brightness when seated on a chair at a height between those two extremes. If you set up the projector/screen for maximum brightness at standing or sitting on the floor, then the opposide position would see about 1/2 brightness with this screen and distance.

The change in brightness will be even smaller if you're using a viewing-distance greater than 12ft.
I'm not sure what the brighter/lighter microlite measures for a vertical half-angle, but I'd suspect most of their screens are pretty close in this regard.


----------



## Sam Ash

Ftoast said:


> Not really an answer to your question, but their BlackCrystal1.2 was measured by PJC to have a 15degree vertical half angle (a total 30degree vertical viewing axis).
> 
> Assuming a roughly 3ft height difference between sitting on the floor and standing straight up, a ~12ft viewing-distance, and a fairly ideal projector/screen setup for maximum brightness at a viewer seated on a chair between those two extremes...you'd be dealing with about 7degrees off-axis.
> If drop-off is linear you'd be roughly around 3/4 brightness when sitting on the floor or standing and around 100% brightness when seated on a chair at a height between those two extremes. If you set up the projector/screen for maximum brightness at standing or sitting on the floor, then the opposide position would see about 1/2 brightness with this screen and distance.
> 
> The change in brightness will be even smaller if you're using a viewing-distance greater than 12ft.
> I'm not sure what the brighter/lighter microlite measures for a vertical half-angle, but I'd suspect most of their screens are pretty close in this regard.


Thank you Ftoast for that informative answer, are you using a Microlite screen too ?


----------



## Ftoast

Sam Ash said:


> Thank you Ftoast for that informative answer, are you using a Microlite screen too ?


Ha, I wish I had one of their screens (to be clear, I'm not an ignored orderer..just a cheapskate).

No, that's just fancy guessing based on their optical screens all having similar properties (roughly similar wide horizontal and narrow vertical viewing-angles but different base colors and peak-gains) and the measurement of one of their other recent screens from the PJC ALRscreen review.
The angles/distance/heights should be spot-on though.

It might be better (given the wide horizontal cone) to skip floor/beanbagchairs in favor of some padded folding chairs toward the sides or something, if you have the room-width for it. That'd keep your seated viewers closer to the same height and allow a brighter-angled compromise between seated/standing viewers if you want.


----------



## Mike Garrett

shete.prakash said:


> Bump ????
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


120" diagonal 16:9 or 132" diagonal 2.35, is the current largest sizes available. Should be able to order larger sizes, by end of the year.


----------



## Wookii

Does anyone know if this material is available outside of the US?

I have sent various requests via the MicroLite website for a sample, and got no response.

Has anyone on here actually seen the 2.4 material, that can comment on its performance? (Particularly with reference to image sharpness, measured gain and sparklies/sheen/texture)


----------



## yuweimichael

Wookii said:


> Does anyone know if this material is available outside of the US?
> 
> I have sent various requests via the MicroLite website for a sample, and got no response.
> 
> Has anyone on here actually seen the 2.4 material, that can comment on its performance? (Particularly with reference to image sharpness, measured gain and sparklies/sheen/texture)


Hello Wookii, 

I am sorry we are updating our site and probably missed your email. Can you please email them to [email protected] . The 2.4G is the only screen that offers ISF certified with full viewing angles and no any high gain artifacts. Its a game changing product. They can send the screen to worldwide locations. Thanks


----------



## shete.prakash

yuweimichael said:


> Hello Wookii,
> 
> I am sorry we are updating our site and probably missed your email. Can you please email them to [email protected] . The 2.4G is the only screen that offers ISF certified with full viewing angles and no any high gain artifacts. Its a game changing product. They can send the screen to worldwide locations. Thanks


What is max screen size you can do ?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Ericglo

There hasn't been a lot of action in this thread for awhile. Are there any new owners? Are the owners still enjoying their screens?


----------



## maglito

*Quadvue*

It looks like promises of larger (seemless) sizes are being replaced by their next-next generation material "quadvue"....

http://microlite-screen.com/products/
(scroll down)

Seems there may good reason this thread has been dead for quite some time.

We just want larger size high gain (hi-power replacement) screen with less discernible grain for 4k projection, HDR and closer seating.

Apparently this is too much to ask.


----------



## tigerfan33

maglito said:


> It looks like promises of larger (seemless) sizes are being replaced by their next-next generation material "quadvue"....
> 
> 
> 
> http://microlite-screen.com/products/
> 
> (scroll down)
> 
> 
> 
> Seems there may good reason this thread has been dead for quite some time.
> 
> 
> 
> We just want larger size high gain (hi-power replacement) screen with less discernible grain for 4k projection, HDR and closer seating.
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently this is too much to ask.




Unfortunately this thread has died several times due to unkept promises by this company.
It's become more of I'll believe when I see it.


----------



## ch1sox

Finally set up my 5040ub projector with the 2.4 gain and just finished watching The Force Awakens. The brightness you get with this thing is incredible. I'm surprised they're aren't more posts in this thread with this screen.


----------



## Hawkmarket

ch1sox said:


> Finally set up my 5040ub projector with the 2.4 gain and just finished watching The Force Awakens. The brightness you get with this thing is incredible. I'm surprised they're aren't more posts in this thread with this screen.




Do you have any pics to share? This is a screen company rarely seen in the wild.


----------



## blee0120

I was really disappointed that the 3.3 gain screen was discontinued. I had a chance to test a 100in screen out and it was incredible. Michael emailed me saying that the 2.4 screen was a better screen but I will need proof. I kind of gave up on Microlite after the 3.3 gain screen was not able to be purchased.


----------



## tigerfan33

blee0120 said:


> I was really disappointed that the 3.3 gain screen was discontinued. I had a chance to test a 100in screen out and it was incredible. Michael emailed me saying that the 2.4 screen was a better screen but I will need proof. I kind of gave up on Microlite after the 3.3 gain screen was not able to be purchased.



I talked to him about 3 weeks ago and he told me 2.4 was discontinued.
At this point who knows??


----------



## biliam1982

Yea, it seems their product line is continually in flux. They either haven't nailed down what they want to bring to market and stick with or there could be other issues in the manufacturing line. Who knows.

This new Quadvue looks interesting and can go to 132" (16:9 or 2.35?), but will it ever see the light of day? No pun intended...


----------



## Hawkmarket

tigerfan33 said:


> I talked to him about 3 weeks ago and he told me 2.4 was discontinued.
> At this point who knows??


That's the fourth screen I'm aware of in the last 13 months that has been "for sale" and then discontinued that I can think of off the top of my head. I attempted to buy the F3 last November was then told, never mind, it's not really for sale. F3, F2, Black Crystal 1.8 and now 2.4 have come and gone in a very short period of time. I have no idea what's going on but it always seemed like a compelling screen. Each time.


----------



## blee0120

I may have some good news. I have been discussing these screens with Michael Chien. I was one of the few who actually had the F3 in my theater. By far the best screen that I have ever seen. He is thinking about making up to a 5 gain screen for me to view. My goal is to have a few HT meets at my home in Phoenix, AZ. Let's cross our fingers because this will be a revolutionary screen that can take HDR projectors up to 1000nits. Just think how something like the a low cost LG PF1500 can be as bright as many flat screens in your home on a 120in screen in a living room setting. I plan on getting one for my living room with a led projector, preferably a LG PF1500 and a rs500 in my theater room.


----------



## tigerfan33

Wow. 5 gain screen would be twice as bright than the HP 2.4 screen. Way too bright for my eyes especially when HD would be 95% of my viewing.
The last I checked they still have the 2.4 listed on the Microlite website but it has been discontinued. I'm on a list to get Sample on their new screen. Whatever and whenever that is. I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## blee0120

tigerfan33 said:


> Wow. 5 gain screen would be twice as bright than the HP 2.4 screen. Way too bright for my eyes especially when HD would be 95% of my viewing.
> The last I checked they still have the 2.4 listed on the Microlite website but it has been discontinued. I'm on a list to get Sample on their new screen. Whatever and whenever that is. I'm not holding my breath.


I thought you was using a JVC? The iris can clamp down pretty far. However, I know most prefer a less bright image. If I can have on a few lights when just watching TV shows or sports, that would be great. It also good to be able to have a more friendly room. Right now, I'm in a batcave and having a better looking room would be great. This screen will benefit hdr and 3d tremendously. Even if its the 3.3 gain screen from previously, it will be a game changer in the HT market.


----------



## tigerfan33

I went back to the Sony. I like the motion better for sports.
With this screen your talking about with Microlite, used like a HP screen with projector mounted head level or projector mounted near the top of the screen?
I talked to Michael about the quadview screen which he said could be mounted either way to achieve 1.5 gain brightness. Isn't the quadvue screen (when released) suppose to be really good for hdr?


----------



## blee0120

tigerfan33 said:


> I went back to the Sony. I like the motion better for sports.
> With this screen your talking about with Microlite, used like a HP screen with projector mounted head level or projector mounted near the top of the screen?
> I talked to Michael about the quadview screen which he said could be mounted either way to achieve 1.5 gain brightness. Isn't the quadvue screen (when released) suppose to be really good for hdr?


I'm not sure if it will be overhead or not. I know the majority prefer overhead, as do myself. Even with 2 4 gain screen, i did not find that it cured the image for HDR. My hp screen was 119in. I'm sure 3.3 or more will be something that will help hdr tremendously.


----------



## tigerfan33

blee0120 said:


> I'm not sure if it will be overhead or not. I know the majority prefer overhead, as do myself. Even with 2 4 gain screen, i did not find that it cured the image for HDR. My hp screen was 119in. I'm sure 3.3 or more will be something that will help hdr tremendously.




When you tested the F3 did you need to move your projector or did you leave it head level to use with your HP? What kind of gain was F3?
I remember reading your review but it's been a while.


----------



## blee0120

tigerfan33 said:


> blee0120 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if it will be overhead or not. I know the majority prefer overhead, as do myself. Even with 2 4 gain screen, i did not find that it cured the image for HDR. My hp screen was 119in. I'm sure 3.3 or more will be something that will help hdr tremendously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you tested the F3 did you need to move your projector or did you leave it head level to use with your HP? What kind of gain was F3?
> I remember reading your review but it's been a while.
Click to expand...

I actually kept the projector overhead. Since I used the HP screen for close to 5 years, it was easy to go off of what I'm used to. When I returned the screen, the hp 2.4 screen still looked dimmer, even having the projector leveled at my eyes


----------



## tigerfan33

blee0120 said:


> I actually kept the projector overhead. Since I used the HP screen for close to 5 years, it was easy to go off of what I'm used to. When I returned the screen, the hp 2.4 screen still looked dimmer, even having the projector leveled at my eyes




Thanks.
Were you still able to get 160 or 180 degree viewing with the same brightness ? Did it dim any when standing?
I watch now with HP screen with 40 watt bulb in the back corner with no wash out and plenty of brightness.
I'd really like to add more lightning for sports if I could get a bright uniform screen.


----------



## Ericglo

blee0120 said:


> I may have some good news. I have been discussing these screens with Michael Chien. I was one of the few who actually had the F3 in my theater. By far the best screen that I have ever seen. He is thinking about making up to a 5 gain screen for me to view. My goal is to have a few HT meets at my home in Phoenix, AZ. Let's cross our fingers because this will be a revolutionary screen that can take HDR projectors up to 1000nits. Just think how something like the a low cost LG PF1500 can be as bright as many flat screens in your home on a 120in screen in a living room setting. I plan on getting one for my living room with a led projector, preferably a LG PF1500 and a rs500 in my theater room.


I would be shocked if they could achieve 5 gain without serious hotspotting.


----------



## blee0120

tigerfan33 said:


> blee0120 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I actually kept the projector overhead. Since I used the HP screen for close to 5 years, it was easy to go off of what I'm used to. When I returned the screen, the hp 2.4 screen still looked dimmer, even having the projector leveled at my eyes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> Were you still able to get 160 or 180 degree viewing with the same brightness ? Did it dim any when standing?
> I watch now with HP screen with 40 watt bulb in the back corner with no wash out and plenty of brightness.
> I'd really like to add more lightning for sports if I could get a bright uniform screen.
Click to expand...

The viewing cone was great and it did dim when standing, but it wasn't huge.


----------



## blee0120

Ericglo said:


> blee0120 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I may have some good news. I have been discussing these screens with Michael Chien. I was one of the few who actually had the F3 in my theater. By far the best screen that I have ever seen. He is thinking about making up to a 5 gain screen for me to view. My goal is to have a few HT meets at my home in Phoenix, AZ. Let's cross our fingers because this will be a revolutionary screen that can take HDR projectors up to 1000nits. Just think how something like the a low cost LG PF1500 can be as bright as many flat screens in your home on a 120in screen in a living room setting. I plan on getting one for my living room with a led projector, preferably a LG PF1500 and a rs500 in my theater room.
> 
> 
> 
> I would be shocked if they could achieve 5 gain without serious hotspotting.
Click to expand...

At 3.3 gain, i did not witness any. Even if he brought back out the F3, that would still be great.


----------



## ch1sox

blee0120 said:


> I may have some good news. I have been discussing these screens with Michael Chien. I was one of the few who actually had the F3 in my theater. By far the best screen that I have ever seen. He is thinking about making up to a 5 gain screen for me to view. My goal is to have a few HT meets at my home in Phoenix, AZ. Let's cross our fingers because this will be a revolutionary screen that can take HDR projectors up to 1000nits. Just think how something like the a low cost LG PF1500 can be as bright as many flat screens in your home on a 120in screen in a living room setting. I plan on getting one for my living room with a led projector, preferably a LG PF1500 and a rs500 in my theater room.


I suppose the 5 gain would be neat, but honestly I'm more than happy with the 2.4g I have from Microlite. Movies are a blast and look incredible! Perhaps some may want 5 gain for lower lumen projectors, larger screens or daytime viewing.


----------



## blee0120

ch1sox said:


> blee0120 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I may have some good news. I have been discussing these screens with Michael Chien. I was one of the few who actually had the F3 in my theater. By far the best screen that I have ever seen. He is thinking about making up to a 5 gain screen for me to view. My goal is to have a few HT meets at my home in Phoenix, AZ. Let's cross our fingers because this will be a revolutionary screen that can take HDR projectors up to 1000nits. Just think how something like the a low cost LG PF1500 can be as bright as many flat screens in your home on a 120in screen in a living room setting. I plan on getting one for my living room with a led projector, preferably a LG PF1500 and a rs500 in my theater room.
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose the 5 gain would be neat, but honestly I'm more than happy with the 2.4g I have from Microlite. Movies are a blast and look incredible! Perhaps some may want 5 gain for lower lumen projectors, larger screens or daytime viewing.
Click to expand...

I'm just hoping the F3 makes it way back to the market. Amazing screen


----------

